Moon Hoax with a twist

[MID]

I don't know what more "they" might say but I can clearly imagine Turbs looking at a single, blurry frame of video from the First Orion / Altair Moon landing and claiming in all seriousness:

"Look.. between the "lander's" legs you can see the beard and shirt collar of a stagehand as he refills the superfluid helium tanks they had on the Moon set..."

Cz

Well, yea...that's something I hadn't thought of....and believe it or not, Cz...that's a completely plausible response from Turb.

[MID]

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time. They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Now answer my questions.

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it? Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Enigma...

With Cz, and Bert, and Obviousman, and Mr. B around, I suspect you've gotten the answers you were seeking.

I think I can retire now!

Just a couple comments...

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time. They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

No Enigma...there is no plan to scrap the lunar landing program. Anyone who is pushing Mars prior to establishing a foothold on the Moon is spewing nonsense...

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it.

The technology back then was state-of-the-art. No one had it but NASA. I am venturing a guess that you weren't around back in the later 50s and 60s. If you were, you'd realize that we invented the technology required to do the job.

..p.s Those were displays of numbers, not flashing lights on a switchboard. I realize that looking at video of those DSKY displays is somewhat confusing, but those numbers all meant something specific. They were the precursor to today's digital displays.

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck?

They weren't neck-and-neck with us since 1965. They trailed behind. They couldn't build a booster required for the mission that worked, and we'd beaten them to the Moon in 1968. In fact, they had no lunar capability when we launched Apollo 11 in July of 1969.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later?

That flight was Challenger.

It's a little complicated to explain, but we know exactly why that happened, and it had nothing to do with the success of Apollo...quite the opposite actually.

No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it?

No, it does not. Again, you weren't around in the period, were you?

Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

You will have to show me that Japan's space technology is superior to ours. They're damn good, and a superb partner, of course...but please, do tell.

China's space walk was huge for them...what's the point?

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

In think you've had sufficient answers to that.

However---

There never were any flags waving on the Moon, Enigma (no wind means no waving. Furthermore, those nylon flags have long since disintegrated due to thermal effect and exposure over the course of roughly 40 years. They're piles of obscure dust on the lunar surface today.

[Obviousman]

BTW, I should remind Turbo that this is the thread where they should make their position regarding radiation and Apollo known.

[TK0001]

There never were any flags waving on the Moon, Enigma (no wind means no waving. Furthermore, those nylon flags have long since disintegrated due to thermal effect and exposure over the course of roughly 40 years. They're piles of obscure dust on the lunar surface today.

Never thought of that. That's pretty sad.

[Obviousman]

Why do people like Turbo et al refuse to make their positions known on this thread? Perhaps it may be that they do not want to be held to a position, to allow them to change positions as required when evidence arises that makes their opinion untenable.

[MID]

Never thought of that. That's pretty sad.

A certain amount of poignancy attached to that image I agree...

I think when we actually get to an Apollo site and photograph it, there will be ample evidence of age and "weathering" present in the artifacts. After all, approaching 500 cycles of temperature swings in the 500 degree F range will definitely, all by itself, do some major deterioration work on fabrics, foils, insulators, and such things as those...

[MID]

Why do people like Turbo et al refuse to make their positions known on this thread? Perhaps it may be that they do not want to be held to a position, to allow them to change positions as required when evidence arises that makes their opinion untenable.

I think it's because answers to your questions will involve posting something that they can't take back in the future. Answering your questions involves a commitment to the future, whereas current HBs are merely speculating, and creating all sorts of untenables about a past they don't understand.

If they commit to answering...as I mused they might, they'll all be kaput when they're proven wrong.

It's much safer to argue about the past which has already happened and which is not understood by them than to project their skewed mindsets into the future.

Given what Turb persists in doing on the Moon hoax thread...I'd be willing to bet he's not willing to put his cards on the table here...for obvious reasons.

[Godsnmbr1]

So just to clarify, you guys are 100% certain that the moon landings were not a hoax, right? Absolutely no room for doubt, correct?

[MID]

So just to clarify, you guys are 100% certain that the moon landings were not a hoax, right? Absolutely no room for doubt, correct?

Yes God.

100% certain. No doubt about it.

This of course is the view of someone with some experience and knowledge concerning the matter.

Pragmatically, although it would seem on the surface to be untenable, there is in fact room for doubt among some people.

As I've indicated before, there's a generation and a half of people who grew up post-Apollo, during the intense educational decline that followed it, and during a period where no mandate was provided, and nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching as Apollo happened.

...indeed, Apollo is generally mentioned in history books as a paragraph or two, mentioning Neil Armstrong as the first man on the Moon, and little more.

There is doubt among some. Some of us attempt to quiet those doubts by providing the requisite knowledge to fill in the gaps that produce such doubt. But there certainly is room for doubt when the requisite knowledge is absent.

There isn't any once that knowledge is gained, and understanding takes place.

Edited May 10, 2009 by MID

[Godsnmbr1]

Yes God.

100% certain. No doubt about it.

This of course is the view of someone with some experience and knowledge concerning the matter.

Pragmatically, although it would seem on the surface to be untenable, there is in fact room for doubt among some people.

As I've indicated before, there's a generation and a half of people who grew up post-Apollo, during the intense educational decline that followed it, and during a period where no mandate was provided, and nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching as Apollo happened.

...indeed, Apollo is generally mentioned in history books as a paragraph or two, mentioning Neil Armstrong as the first man on the Moon, and little more.

There is doubt among some. Some of us attempt to quiet those doubts by providing the requisite knowledge to fill in the gaps that produce such doubt. But there certainly is room for doubt when the requisite knowledge is absent.

There isn't any once that knowledge is gained, and understanding takes place.

You, my friend, are absolutely hilarious.

[Obviousman]

So just to clarify, you guys are 100% certain that the moon landings were not a hoax, right? Absolutely no room for doubt, correct?

Correct - no doubt whatsoever.

All the engineering evidence is that the craft were capable as performing the tasks required.

We have telemetry and voice data from the journeys.

We have radar tracking of the spacecraft from multiple sources.

We have photographs of their missions.

We have lunar samples which could not be created on Earth.

And we have the 12 men who have told us of their fantastic experiences.

A quote you should ponder:

"Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."

Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

I have no doubts whatsoever.

[mrbusdriver]

You, my friend, are absolutely hilarious.

I've seen a lot of arguments for a hoax, and every one of them is wrong, either by lack of knowledge of how Apollo worked, lack of science education, gross generalizations and faulty logic, or just blind allegience to the party line. There is no credible data supporting a hoax.

I'm amazed how HBs argue about radiation when all they know is that Chernobyl killed folks. They argue hardware and can't differentiate the CM fron the SM. Theyb argue about the "distance" to the Moon without realizing that it was the last ten seconds of the SIVB burn that really got them there.

Know the subject you argue, waving your arms doesn't cut it.

[MID]

You, my friend, are absolutely hilarious.

I have been known to be so on occassion...

But you'll have to define hilarious in this context.

[shaka5]

ah man, i 4got all bout this thread....the video i saw on that i stated they couldnt even control, with the astronaut stating "someone is gonna get killed" was a documentary, it wasn't on youtube at all, this was about 4 - 5 years ago, i seriously can't remember if it was on tv or the computer i saw it at.

go to the fake moon landing thread on this site and you'll see tons of people stating that the radiation is not enough to harm you, i read it so much. i'm at work now, bout to get outta here, i'll return hopefully 2morrow and try to find more info on that for ya

Side note : whats all this still about not trusting ANY video on youtube??...i've recorded real life experiences and posted it there, i didn't fake any of the videos..honestly, thats where i'd post any video i have or would take...where else am i suppose to put it so know would think whatever i recorded wasn't fake or a joke?

[mrbusdriver]

Side note : whats all this still about not trusting ANY video on youtube??...i've recorded real life experiences and posted it there, i didn't fake any of the videos..honestly, thats where i'd post any video i have or would take...where else am i suppose to put it so know would think whatever i recorded wasn't fake or a joke?

No, to say all YouTube videos are unreliable would be ...unreliable. However, when a video comes along making extraordinary claims, it must be studied carefully. A youtube video is a poor format for accurately presenting all the supporting data, calculations, etc. Toss together some carefully selected scenes, put on some really moving music, some figures, calculations and quotes, and you can make almost anything seem likely...even when it's totally erroneous.

The evidence for the Moon landings is voluminous, but usually not as entertaining as a video. And evidence shows it's pretty easy to sway opinion with music, hypothetical questions, and the right pictures, even when they totally misrepresent reality. (Edit...Dark Side of te Moon video is a classic example...a total spoof that still today some think is a hoax documentary...)

Edited May 22, 2009 by mrbusdriver

[MID]

Side note : whats all this still about not trusting ANY video on youtube??...i've recorded real life experiences and posted it there, i didn't fake any of the videos..honestly, thats where i'd post any video i have or would take...where else am i suppose to put it so know would think whatever i recorded wasn't fake or a joke?

While people do in fact post some good things on youtube, and while there's nothing to prohibit anyone from posting what they like there...that's the problem as pertains to "evidence" oriented videos which seek to prove silliness, such as an Apollo Moon landing hoax, etc...

Youtube requires nothing but an author to post a video. There's no peer-review, no scientific corroboration, no references, no research, nothing at all involved with the process, and, as has been shown clearly, multiple times regarding the nonsense videos, they're full of junk, supposition, lack of knowledge and any real research, and generally, are humorous.

[Obviousman]

Well, nearly 4 months and so far I have only got one person to sorta answer the questions I posed.

Why?

Still very telling that Turbo has not posted in this thread, considering he is the leading "no moon landing" advocate on the board that I am aware of.

[postbaguk]

So just to clarify, you guys are 100% certain that the moon landings were not a hoax, right? Absolutely no room for doubt, correct?

When asked this question, I generally say I'm 99.99% certain the moon-landings happened, and that I would be prepared to bet my house they happened. Of course, this gets twisted around by some people to say "Ah, so why do you have doubts then?". I don't have doubts. But unless I actually went there, how can I be 100% certain that others did? How can I be 100% certain Hillary climbed Everest? Amundsen reached the South Pole? Bleriot flew over the channel? There's far more evidence to support Apollo, yet no-one seriously doubts those other human achievements. Why? Probably because they didn't involve the 'lying US Government^TM'. There's also little money to be made fostering the idea that Bleriot faked his flight across the channel, unlike the Apollo hoax.

It's really easy to fake a mission to the moon. I flew there yesterday. It was cool. Faking the Apollo missions is a different kettle of fish entirely. Difference with Apollo is the absolutely voluminous amount of data in the form of photos, film, TV, rock samples, soil samples, core samples, live tracking and comms data, and plenty of other evidence that in my opinion would have been impossible to fake so incredibly well. If you take the time to properly study the Apollo photographic record alone (getting on for 20,000 images), it quickly becomes apparent that they simply cound not have been taken on some "cheesy moon-set with painted backgrounds", as some suggest.

[behaviour???]

It is clear that how blatantly it reveals that they cannot even built a system that they have already did?

Thanks

B???

[mrbusdriver]

It is clear that how blatantly it reveals that they cannot even built a system that they have already did?

Thanks

B???

Can't?...or "won't"? It takes oodles of money to design and build an operational spacecraft and booster, not to mention the massive infrastructure to build, support, and fly it. None of the Apollo manufacturing infrastructure remains, aside from buildings and (heavily modified) assembly and launch facilities.

They are in the early stages of Constellation, which has far different mission requirements than Apollo.

Meanwhile, this government is spending money wildly on clunkers and such, with no mandate to supply a lot of cash for a trip to the Moon or beyond...the national will is not there, and you can't buy that with money.

The nation hasn't decided it wants to go back to the Moon. When it does, then we will.

[KennyB]

You guys really like these arguments, don't you? All right, I'll put my 2 cents in. The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects. I can see no civilian purpose in going to the moon. It all was and is a huge boon-doggle. When you have 100% media cooperation, you can put anything over on the people. Oh, I believe the U.S. has intra-solar space travel, all right. They probably had it before the first 'moon landing'. I should think you guys should know by now that you're looking at another CIA scam. KennyB

[Peter B]

You guys really like these arguments, don't you? All right, I'll put my 2 cents in. The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I can see no civilian purpose in going to the moon.

Well, those of us who accept the reality of Apollo don't argue that Apollo started out as a propaganda exercise within the context of the Cold War. But still, some very real science was done on Apollo, which helped to determine its likely origin. That in turn has shown us how violent the Solar System was in its early life, which in turn has shown us that it's still occasionally violent even today. In other words, thanks indirectly to Apollo, we're aware of the need to scan the skies for large rocks which might otherwise land on us unexpectedly.

It all was and is a huge boon-doggle. When you have 100% media cooperation, you can put anything over on the people.

Don't forget there were plenty of people who were critical of space travel in general and Apollo in particular, all the way up to Congress. Democrat Walter Mondale was no friend of NASA. But he never claimed Apollo was faked.

Oh, I believe the U.S. has intra-solar space travel, all right. They probably had it before the first 'moon landing'. I should think you guys should know by now that you're looking at another CIA scam. KennyB

Do you have any evidence for this?

[KennyB]

Why do you always say,' Prove it', or,' Do you have evidence'? You know as well as I do that you can not have any evidence, especially on this forum, that accepts nothing but 'concrete evidence' against the Federal govt. Do you have any 'concrete evidence' that they DID land on the moon? Just like you, I won't accept eye witness testimony, TV or movie images or sworn statements. Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, you personally believe they did, but I doubt it. I, on the other hand, DO NOT believe they did. All the things that are listed as accomplishments for the moon landing could have probably been done without actually sending men to the moon. KennyB

[Peter B]

Why do you always say,' Prove it', or,' Do you have evidence'?

Then how do you know NASA is a "wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects"?

You know as well as I do that you can not have any evidence, especially on this forum, that accepts nothing but 'concrete evidence' against the Federal govt.

Then how do you know your claims are right?

Seriously.

Do people you trust tell you? Did you get something through Freedom of Information? Is it something that everyone knows?

Do you have any 'concrete evidence' that they DID land on the moon?

Personally? No.

Just like you, I won't accept eye witness testimony, TV or movie images or sworn statements.

Why don't you accept video images? When they show things which can't happen on Earth, what do you say then? Would you accept scientific papers from scientists around the world (including from countries which were hostile to the USA), saying they studied rocks which had characteristics unlike any rock on Earth? Would you accept the word of the engineers who worked at the tracking stations who got signals from the Moon?

Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, you personally believe they did, but I doubt it.

You doubt I believe the reality of Apollo? You're wrong.

I, on the other hand, DO NOT believe they did. All the things that are listed as accomplishments for the moon landing could have probably been done without actually sending men to the moon. KennyB

Some of the things done on Apollo could have been done using unmanned spacecraft.

But it's very hard to fake radio signals from the Moon which include voice communication with the right delay.

And given that the USSR had the means to tell whether Apollo was faked, it's implausible to believe that they'd have kept quiet about it. Or are you one of the growing number of people who think the Cold War was faked too?

[flyingswan]

The whole purpose of NASA is to create a wide-open money hole to finance black-ops projects.

On the other hand, NASA accounts are published and they do a lot of expensive civilian things. Probes to the moon, Mars, other planets don't come cheap - it takes a lot of expensive engineering to design, build and launch a machine that will operate for years in space with no chance of a service call if it goes wrong. There's all the scientific satellites such as the Hubble Telescope. There's the space station and the Shuttle that supplies it and its international crew - currently two Russians, two Americans, a Canadian and a Belgian - carrying out civilian science for a score of countries.

Admit it, you cannot back up your statement because it is just an opinion based on your obvious dislike of the US Government.