And now we see what happens when someone starts to feel cornered and has nothing else left to say that is reasonable or related to the forum topic. They no longer attack the validity of the moon landing and start attacking the validity of the members intelligence. This is the sign that a person is ready to start crying.

Oh, I see...so those of us who invested years of effort in executing a project of scientific and technological immensity were, in respect to the fact than many worked for NASA--a government agency--thus complicit in some nonsensical (and impossible) cover-up of secret fact...all 400,000 of them...in NASA and outside in the many contractor organizations that all worked to gether to make this thing happen?






I'll have to grant you one on that.
The idea that we didn't land on the Moon is in fact a relatively over-the-top idea...





There's a profound difference between those who only go on what they're told and those who have experienced it first hand and learned what and how.




Do you actually have some scientific and technical knowledge regarding spaceflight to which you could draw in a manner which would lend credence to the untenable idea that because you've seen some things that you consider shady, that they might be the case as pertains to the most documented scientific accomplishment in human history?





Now how is it that someone has knowledge of something they haven't been privy to?
Mine doesn't. It contains the knowledge I gained through experience. If it was hidden from me until this day...I wouldn't have any idea about it.

I asked for questions, not obtuse theoretical constructions. Sow down, have some courage, and ask questions if you have them.




SO...?




There you go!



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...sX0Dg&hl=en



Aaack.
You haven't been around here much, have you?





A classic nonsense production, in which the very first segment touts Bill Kaysing as being a Rocketdyne Engineer.

You see, this is old stuff (I cannot count how many times this idiocy has been spewed by some upstart who knows how to edit films). Bill Kaysing was NOT an engineer. In fact, he had no technical or scientific training whatsoever. He knew nothing about rockets. He was a writer and an English major in college, who in fact worked at Rocketdyne for a few years early on as a librarian.

He was alot more than that, of course, but I prefer not to speak ill of the dead.


What would I do if I was asked by some fool if I landed on the Moon, and to do something so ridiculous as swear on the bible about it?

...I'd have told him to take an F-ing hike, and called him names that adequately described his IQ. But then again, I'm politically incorrect.


This is ludicrous...your impressions of people who spent their lives flying aircraft, pressing the limits as research pilots, and risking their lives for a project is not suggestive of anything save that some of them were probably pissed at having their life's effort reduced to questions by a moron.

Think of some idiot walking up to President Bush with a bible and asking him to swear on it that he's really the Presidnet of the United States, and you'll perhaps understand the appropriate reaction to such lunacy.



I think you've seen the reactions of those accused of not doing what they did in fact do. The idea is so untenable that people become completely flummoxed with such an action as these types of people execute. In this thread, and the other, such films as these have been addressed ad-nauseam.



It's not obscure. It's old silliness.



Precisely.

But you see, you're painting yourself as an HB in many ways, while at the same time contradicting yourself.
You present this piece of film as something untoward, and then you go ahead and express what you did just above...which is basically correct, and negates the effect of said film!

...that's good, of course, because the film is so full of nonsensical illusion that it's not really laughable.



Let's try to get something straight here.

I don't think it's well understood where you're actually coming from. Unlike LLL, who is obviously someone who has illusions and is not interested in doing much but spewing them for the sake of being heard, you seem to be sitting on the fence, perhaps only arguing that the topic's debatable.

That of course has been acknowledged.

So what's your point?
If you are in fact sitting on the fence, that implies that you have doubts.


What are they? We'd be interested to hear them...concretely.

Above, you cited a film, and then said you thought there were better ways to approach the subject from those taken in the film. You basically negated the film in the same breath that you were presenting it as something I might consider as an obscurity (it is obscure, for obvious reasons...the person who put it togehter is probably regretting it as we speak...because it shows his abject lack of sense).


Why don't you do that? Present your own thoughts in concrete fashion.

Ask about your doubts, specifically.


As I said, this thread is actually about education, not about nonsense. All questions are welcome.


Do you think we landed on the Moon six times between 1969 and 1972 or not.
If so, then there's little to discuss.

If so, why?


That's the bottom line here.

i would have to say yes we did land on the moon

although there are numerous theories against it

if not shame on me for believing such nonsense

And I (and others) would have to say you were right.


True... there are lots of "theories" against the Moon landings, however, not one of them has ever been proven to have any basis in reality or fact.


And shame on those who continue to perpetuate such nonsense under the guise of being "truth seekers" all the while totally ignoring the truth of the matter, that between 1969 and 1972, 12 fortunate, brave men walked on the surface of the Moon, just as history has recorded those magnificent achievements.



Cz

Personally I put the "fake moon landing" and the "Earth is flat" theories in the same category.

Here's your chance to say something related to the forum topic.

How do you think Apollo was hoaxed?

How was a secret lunar landing mounted to cover the tracks of the hoax?

How were all traces of this secret landing erased, so when the landing site is examined in the future, no trace of the cover up will be seen (what will the cover-upers do with a new descent stage?)

Again, the problem here is that you do not know the history of the two posters or of this thread.

MID has a vast and impressive knowledge of the space program in general and Apollo specifically. He has the real-world experience of working with some of the people involved in the Apollo program, and if memory serves, was actually involved in it himself to some degree (at least, that is my interpretation of things based on what MID has posted in the past). His responses to specific and general questions are almost always spot on (there have been a few corrections presented to him in the past) and his ability to explain complex technical issues in both simple wording and / or technical jargon is, at least to me, so far unsurpassed. He also has the patience of Job when it comes to explaining these issues and answering questions repeatedly to the various posters who have jumped into this thread and brought up issues or questions that have been explained numerous times in the past. Like anyone, though, he is human and can sometimes get a little heated in his replies when pushed by people displaying willful ignorance of the topic.

LLL has the annoying habit of coming here, announcing that his interpretation of some specific (and usually minor) event is proof positive of a hoax, based on nothing more and usually supported by nothing more than his casual observations of the event - i.e. how it looks to him - proclaiming that his interpretation is the only correct interpretation and that anyone else who disagrees with him is either too stupid or blind to see it his way, is making excuses for NASA / the Government or is actually part of the cover up. He routinely dismisses most attempts at intelligent debate, most if not all efforts to show him proof of his errors and repeatedly displays the afore mentioned willful ignorance by refusing to follow up on any of the vast amount of reference material that is (again, repeatedly) presented to him so that he may actually learn something of the subject(s) he attempts to discuss. All that said, there is an obvious language barrier with LLL that, imo, has to account for some of his misconceptions or misunderstandings, but even that can only explain some of the behavior he has displayed recently and in the past.

When taken into account with some of the ridiculous "revelations" and "explanations" LLL has presented here in the past, MID's response that you have quoted is not only relatively tame, but, to most, completely justified.


Cz

One of my favorite pet theories is that most (if not all) paranormal subjects are somehow inspired or influenced by fictional literature and, to a greater extent, the film industry.

Question: Could this be the main inspiration, if not the genesis, of the moon landing hoax theory?

Capricorn One (1978)

For those not wanting to spend 124 minutes watching the entire film here's a brief synopsis of the movie.



More here.

Don't know about y'all, but except for it being a Mars mission it doesn't surprise me how the hoaxed moon landing theory and the plot of this film bare such a striking similarity.

The hoax theory started - to the best of my knowledge - shortly after the first landing. It had as much credence then as it does now... none.

Not one has been proven? And there is also no evidence that cannot be disputed that we did land on the moon.
What will it take to prove it was a hoax?

Dan Dare

It does not have to be proven that we did land on the moon, any more than it has to be proven that D-Day occurred. It is part of the historical record.

If one contends that the landings did not occur, the burden of proof is upon them.

While anything can be disputed, there is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were real. Even if you disregard the mountain of documentation from NASA, making the moon landings one of the best-documented historical events ever, there is plenty from non-NASA sources. Astronomers and communications engineers all around the world, including Russia, tracked Apollo to, around and on the moon. Geologists around the world have examined the returned moon rocks and declare them genuine and unfakeable. The sheer quantity of returned samples and photographic documentation of their collection rule out the use of unmanned probes to get these rocks, and the much smaller quantity of lunar material returned by the Russian unmanned probes match the characteristics of the Apollo samples. Some of those characteristics were unexpected, matching none of the pre-Apollo theories of the moon's formation, but consistent with later measurements from other probes. The instruments left behind on the moon, most of which needed human effort to set up, transmitted for years and the laser retroreflectors are still in use. Finally, there is no reason that the US could not have carried out the Apollo missions, no reason for a hoax. The missions have been examined in detail by aerospace engineers, in fact they are now standard college course examples, and all the technical details make complete sense.

What will it take to prove it was a hoax?

A coherent explanation for all of the evidence we see that the moon landings occurred:

An explanation for the fact that manned spacecraft were tracked optically and by radio all the way to the moon, in orbit around the moon, and on the lunar surface, by non-Americans and by powers unfriendly to the US, entities that do not dispute that the landings took place;

An explanation for the 800 pounds of lunar material, collected from different areas of the moon, that show no evidence of ever being in an atmosphere or of atmospheric entry;

An explanation of how over 400,000 people who worked on Project Apollo and who built working spacecraft managed to keep a hoax secret for over 40 years with absolutely none of them breaking their silence when they had all of the financial incentive in the world to do so;

An explanation of why it was impossible to go to the moon, when it was realized that it was impossible, when it was decided that the landing had to be hoaxed and why NASA didn't just wait until it was possible or just admit that it wasn't, especially since the hoax would have to be maintained for all time to come, future generations would have to be brought into the hoax, and the hoax would certainly be uncovered in the future by subsequent spacecraft.


These are a few of the things I would want explained as to how the hoax occurred. Now, let me ask you:

What would you have to be shown for you to accept that Apollo occurred as history has recorded, and why?

If one contends that the landings did occur, the burden of proof is upon them.
And if your proof in on a series of photo's or some scientists saying we did, you have a lot to learn about scientists and human nature.

Dan Dare

Burden Of Proof

From the article: "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

I'm not complaining; I'm not the one disputing the fact of the landing.

So do I. If it weren't for the historical revisionism aspect of the argument I would categorize this theory as the stupid-beyond-belief creation of people who have active minds but for some reason have decided not to apply that mental activity to educating themselves. Pathetic but it's their decision.

The historical revisionist aspect of the theory frightens and angers me. It's the mindset of the skinheads who say the holocaust never happened. **shudder** Loathsome .

HISTORICAL TRUTH: It's the thing that allows us to learn from our mistakes and understand ourselves in a social context.

Who is complaining? I'm also not complaining just replying to the topic of "did we land on the moon".
No you are not disputing the facts you are saying what you have got is evidence.
Facts, to rely on a series of photo's or some scientists saying we did is not fact.

Dan Dare

You've said this twice now. Show me where I am relying "on a series of photos or what some scientists say."

Show me how telemetry and Moon Rocks is NOT evidence.

Also, tell me what would YOU accept as facts, (evidence for the landings).

What I said, is before I would accept the Hoax I would have to get a rational explanation as to how the evidence presented in my previous post was false.

Can you show me how the evidence, the "series of photos or what some scientist say" is wrong?

Conversely, what would you have to be shown for you to accept that Apollo happened?

I cannot show the same as nobody else can, but I can say that what ever telemetry and moon rocks you show, it is also not evidence.

Have you seen the telemetry on paper on screen, if your answer to this is yes it shows you are relying on visual/photo evidence,
if your answer is no, then you must be relying on verbal evidence "scientists maybe".


Dan Dare

Clever. No matter if I answer "yes" or "no" I'm still wrong.


So what is evidence?

I repeat, for the third time now, what would you accept as evidence?

What would you have to be shown for you to accept that Apollo happened?

I've answered your questions as honestly as I can. Please answer mine.

If you are asking me what I would accept as proof, the answer is I'm not asking for proof
and I'm not the one advocating telemetry and rocks as proof.

Dan Dare

Explain why a group of above average educated and highly intelligent humans want to sit on top of what
is a big bomb, and what was the failure percentage of rockets attempting to leave earth 40years ago 10%-20% ?

It is not rocket science but only a fool would want to sit on a bomb, "and who believes a fool".

Dan Dare

Why would Christopher Columbus sail to the new world when it could have turned into a huge disaster? That doesn't mean that it was hoaxed.

You asked me this question, from post #4810:

"What will it take to prove it was a hoax?"

I answered your question. Whether my answer is acceptable to you is really not my concern.

I then asked you the same question in return. You have now indicated that you are under no obligation to reciprocate.

Very well; if you have no wish to engage in an honest debate, just to poke holes in another's argument but declare your own side inviolate, you'll have to do so with another participant.

When you are ready to hold your own opinions open for examination, please say so.

Actually, the failure rate of the Saturn V was zero.


Re: sitting on a "bomb": it is ironic that you would take as your avatar a fictional character who was heralded for doing just that:

Dan Dare


Also, It appears that you are now calling the ISS crew and the gallant crew of Discovery that landed earlier this week fools. Your prerogative. Nobody ever said that there was not an element of danger in space travel.

Yes very gallant if you make it, only a dead hero or fool if you don't.
I thought the debate was Did we land on the moon, not is space travel dangerous.

I hold no proof as you asked, for or against did we land on the moon, and you also hold no proof in that we did land on the moon.
But I do not post saying what others have shown/seen said is proof in either direction.

The question is still, Did we land on the moon, not can you show proof that we did or did not.

Dan Dare

Oh, now they're "dead heroes", too. I'm glad that you grant that they may not just be "fools".


So what was the point of this post?

"Explain why a group of above average educated and highly intelligent humans want to sit on top of what
is a big bomb, and what was the failure percentage of rockets attempting to leave earth 40years ago 10%-20% ?

It is not rocket science but only a fool would want to sit on a bomb, "and who believes a fool".

Dan Dare"

You're the one touting the danger of spaceflight. That danger applies to anyone traveling in space, not just Apollo astronauts.

A dead hero is a fool, for doing somthing in the first placc that may take your life is foolish.
The point is only a fool would sit on an unexploded bomb,
And the point is I do not post with claims of proof.
The question is still, Did we land on the moon, not can you show proof that we did or did not.
And the only people who may travel in space as far as I know are astronauts, unless you know something thats been kept a secret?

Dan Dare

You have an interesting idea there, SOURCE.
The movie was put out in 1978, and I have little doubt that it served as an inspiration to some. Indeed, it's been cited on several Hoax web pages as being a model for what happened with the Moon hoax that never occurred.

In guess it stands to reason that a really tacky melodrama, filled with so much ridiculous technical inacuracy and laughable silliness would be influential to some of those who put forth the Moon hoax in a big way.

It's an idea...one day I should ask Ralph Rene (if he's not dead yet, and if I can muster up the stomach to actually communicate with him), or David Percy if they saw the movie and what they thought of it. Can't ask Kaysing, since he's gone...but I'd put $100.00 on the notion that he saw it--and was inspired!






You're such a dear Cz!

So astronauts, soldiers, firefighters, rescue workers, policemen (and your avatar) are fools, then?

Good to know.

If you say so, as your opinion will no dout be supported with proof.

Dan Dare

Dan:




Taking myself as a personal example here, I shall say that I do not "contend" that the Apollo program happened as advertised, and demonstrated.


I know it did.

Thus, I'm not contending anything, save that HBs are highly mistaken with their accusations of a fraud, and lacking in their knowledge base as pertains to the subject matter.

The operative idea here is related to the only accusations and claims presented herein, which come from the HBs, not those of us who know what's up.

The burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused. This concept of yours is an old, tired, HB device utilized when they fall on their faces in light of the debunking of their mythology.

It doesn't work here.


Therefore, I don't need to prove anything, and don't endeavor to do so. What I do is attempt to educate people who believe rather than know.


I am not quite sure how many times I have to say that in order for it to truly sink in.
I am aware that bone is rather dense, but really, people have holes in their skulls which carry organs which were originally designed to allow the assimilation and processing of information!

Throughout history there have always been pioneers that face the unknown. There would be a lot of people who thought they were foolish, maybe even crazy. But without them, we wouldn't be as far as we are scientifically. Saying the astronauts were foolish hardly means that they didn't go to the moon.

Don't forget factory workers (there is always a chance of injury in any factory), farmers (skin cancer), anbody that drives to work etc.

There is a calculated risk in every action. Apparently Dan Dare doesn't realize that sometimes the benefits far outweigh the risks.

"A dead hero is a fool, for doing somthing in the first placc that may take your life is foolish. The point is only a fool would sit on an unexploded bomb"

Your words.

Highly educated, driven, intelligent people do not, as a rule, sit on top of bombs...nor do such people design bombs in order to launch men into space and to the Moon.
No man-rated rocket was, or is a bomb (there's a huge difference between explosive potential and a bomb, you see...a bomb is designed to explode and destroy...a rocket is not...by your logic, you get into your car and sit on a bomb as well (know what the explosive potential of your gas tank is?)).


The percentage failure of rockets 40 years ago?

It was low. We were pretty good at it. In fact, no man-rated booster rocket in the entire program ever failed (exploded, went poof, etc...), thus, it was 0%.


As I said, this is an educational thread...and lots of people lack basic knowledge in subject matter...this is a clear illustration.



Well, apparently, a significant minority of people do.
After all, there have been many who believe fools right here.

Bill Kaysing, and Ralph Renee, and David Percy, and Bart Sibrel qualify in that category, and this thread wouldn't exist unless people believed them!

Then what's your point?

The question was indeed, "Did we land on the Moon?"
The answer is, "Yes," and that was declared very early on.

Almost equally early on, the thread became an HB repository (by design, of course), where in people started declaring a fake and some even asking questions about it.


Thus...you're way behind the curve here.

Asking for proof of the Apollo landing is like asking for proof for any other historical event. We have records, artifacts, testimonies, etc. for many historical events, but this only counts as evidence, not "proof" per se. But many people believe they happened, (because indeed, they did)whats so different about landing on the moon?

Let's not feed anyone any more impetus to ask for proof of Apollo.
There is, in fact a difference:

Apollo has more documentation, more artifact, and more substantiation from scientists the world over than any other occurrance in human history does. Asking for proof of it is ludicrous.


Think about it: Steve Fossett flew Rutan's GlobalFlyer around the world non-stop without refueling in 2005. What proof do we have of that...some photos and some news articles? Of course he did it...but compare the evidence with that of Apollo and the idea becomes ludicrous...

That's why we don't bite. The issue is to educate those who don't know about the greatest technical and scientific accomplishment in human history (whatever the reason for such lack).

Point taken.

Thousands of scientists worldwide (not just "some") have examined the lunar samples closely...microscopically, and all have determined they are not of this Earth...that they are of lunar origin. This is evidence.

Thousands of photos and hundreds of hours of video were taken during the flights...scientists and photographers agree they are a genuine record of activities on the flights. This is evidence.

Documentation of the hardware systems are available on the internet...thousands of pages. Far more is available in archives and libraries. This is evidence.

Hundreds of thousands worked directly in designing and manufacturing the hardware, and designing and controlling the missions. They say the missions happened as stated. This is evidence.

Now, your job is to specifically start knocking down this mountain of evidence. It requires knowledge of space systems, geology, radiation, engineering, physics, and rocket science of every description. "It looks like" doesn't cut it. It requires specific, accurate data which refutes the established record. You can "believe" anything you like, but making outlandish claims without supporting evidence is just making noise.

Standing by for your evidence that refutes the record...

You have asked what would be acceptable evidence of a hoax, and you've got an answer.
You have been asked what would be acceptable evidence that Apollo was real, and you have refused to answer.
This suggests that your opinion on the reality of Apollo is not based on evidence.
In scientific terms, this means it is an unfalsifyable hypothesis, and as such, worthless.

Until you answer this key question, there is no point in debating with you.

NO WE DID NOT..........TRY BBQ ASTRONAUT IF IT DID HAPPEN.........

Thank you.
Thats just says what I'm saying proof/evidence/artifacts/testimonies/records, from 40years ago is history, and just because its history don't mean its a fact and it did happen.

History says it did happen so I must believe it?????????????

History is a record put down for you to believe that that is what happened. (if you want to)

And for the record, the day I walk on the moon will be the day I believe, and that is believe it is possible that day not because someone else told me, or its recorded in history.

I have never said we did or did not walk on the moon,

My opinions are mine and mine alone, just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean mine is not valid.

Dan Dare

The moon landings did take place.

It's all the shuttle missions that are fake.

Several years ago (back in time) (history)?
The News of The World newspaper said and showed a picture of a double decker buss on the Moon?
Any one know if it is still there?

Dan Dare

You really like getting everything wrong, don't you?

It was the Sunday Sport newspaper and a WWII bomber on the moon. The bus was at the South Pole.

When someone pointed out the obvious fake by showing them the same picture of the moon without the bomber, the paper published the picture with the headline "World War 2 bomber found on moon vanishes".

Trolls are like that.

I thought that pictures weren't evidence of anything.