Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Robotic Jew]

From fake moon landings all the way to denying the holocaust...quite a jump...even for this forum.

[TigerBright19]

11 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

From fake moon landings all the way to denying the holocaust...quite a jump...even for this forum.

Just an example as more people from prominent positions disbelieve what they are being told is true and how the conspiracy theorists tend to use the same techniques when examining historic events. e.g.  JFK, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Hindenburg, Holocaust, Moon landings, Flat Earth, Aliens, Pyramids etc.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Aaron2016

[RoofGardener]

31 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Yes, but orbiting the moon, landing successfully, broadcasting live, and returning safely to Earth without any serious problems is certainly either a fantastic achievement or as many of the disbelievers would say 'too perfect to be true.'  It all really depends on how much trust the public has in what they are presented with.  Some believe, and some don't.

they had already orbited the moon - and transmitted live from the spaceship - in previous missions. 

Oh.. and returned safely to Earth  

[rambaldi]

Yawn... been there, discussed it to death, has any of the moonhoaxers anything that's not either explained years ago, or is just wilful ignorant disbelief?

  

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by rambaldi
link corrected

[rambaldi]

On 5/2/2019 at 6:29 AM, qxcontinuum said:

Not a problem, there's still plaintly to belive a tinfoil aluminium covered capsule went to the moon and back.

Perhaps you could do what no one in the two old threads could and deliver a at least somewhat sane explanation... 

When and how did NASA decide they could just build a "tinfoil aluminium covered capsule"? 

Did they just think that no one would notice that it would not work?

Did they just not care? 

 

[rambaldi]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:11 PM, Aaron2016 said:

1 - The recent crash landing of the Israeli Moon lander tells us that we can't even land a simple unmanned craft on the moon successfully.  Yet we managed 50 years ago to land a fully manned space craft on the moon successfully in 1969 on their first attempt, and with a live television broadcast with no interference and return back to Earth successfully.  You have to admit that is hard for many to accept.  

So, most Space exploration of the last 50 years has been fake, but the Israelis didn't get the memo ... yeah sounds convincing...

[Derek Willis]

I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.

In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.

I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.

A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.

I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.

https://www.aulis.com/surveyo

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

[+Desertrat56]

14 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Replays.  I really have little interest in the topic.  I only pick up what other's said and repeat what they say here to see what other's think. e.g.  I overheard a motorcycle gang talking about crazy 9/11 conspiracies and one of them changed the subject to the moon and he was convinced that we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon.  I don't believe it or endorse his beliefs, I just throw into the pot what everyone out there thinks.  That is all.

 

So what do you believe?  Was the moon landing hoaxed or not?  After reading all the evidence and reasoning what have you concluded?  Or are you still on the fence?

Edited May 3, 2019 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

14 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

And this is why my blood boils when I see stuff like this on a forum. There's no homework, no knowledge of the subject, no appreciation for the work done, the lives taken and the risks made. Its just "don't get it, don't care about getting it".

Drives me nuts.

Emma,  Based on some other things @Aaron2016 has said, I think he started this to troll people.  Don't get boiled over it, it is a kid playing games.  If you read his responses they are illogical and confused and he admitted he is just parroting others comments he has overheard.  Troll.

[TigerBright19]

19 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So what do you believe?  Was the moon landing hoaxed or not?  After reading all the evidence and reasoning what have you concluded?  Or are you still on the fence?

Not a troll.  I just hear one sided arguments that we did go to the moon without hearing any other perspective.  So I submitted what other people believed, otherwise it would be a complete one-sided debate.  I'm still on the fence.  I always believed we did go to the moon, but I wasn't 100% certain because I was not in possession of all the facts and evidence.  I still am not, so I still hold a degree of uncertainty.  Same applies to other subjects e.g. climate change etc.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Aaron2016

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Aaron2016 said:

Still on the fence.  I always believed we did go to the moon, but I wasn't 100% certain because I was not in possession of all the facts and evidence.  I still am not, so I still hold a degree of uncertainty.  Same applies to other subjects e.g. climate change etc.

 

So, you really have no argument then.  Maybe it is time to put this one to rest.  If you really want to decide, then read the evidence presented carefully and do your own research.  And don't use your experience of a really bad recording of a recording etc. to make any decision.  I watched it live when it happened and it was live footage, so live that a couple of times they shut the sound off because they did not want the public to hear what the astronauts were saying.

[Essan]

3 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Not a troll.  I just hear one sided arguments that we did go to the moon without hearing any other perspective.  So I submitted what other people believed, otherwise it would be a complete one-sided debate.  I'm still on the fence.  I always believed we did go to the moon, but I wasn't 100% certain because I was not in possession of all the facts and evidence.  I still am not, so I still hold a degree of uncertainty.  Same applies to other subjects e.g. climate change etc.

 

and Australia.  I mean, do people really believe it exists?

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.

In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.

I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.

A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.

I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.

https://www.aulis.com/surveyo

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

So having a conversation with just one person is enough to put you in doubt Apollo 11 was the first to land?

[Derek Willis]

23 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

So having a conversation with just one person is enough to put you in doubt Apollo 11 was the first to land?

No. However, the anomalies within the Apollo Surface Journals need explaining. For instance, Conrad and Bean of Apollo 12 insist they are looking at a Surveyor probe which has been discolored by the Sun, whereas the photographs show it to be obviously discolored by dust. And then, there seems to be no definitive explanation as to how the Surveyor came to be covered in dust. It is easy enough to say the LM descent-stage engine created the dust, but when a bit of maths is done, nowhere like enough dust could have been created to coat the Surveyor. I am happy to accept any explanation provided the physics and the maths work. 

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

No. However, the anomalies within the Apollo Surface Journals need explaining. For instance, Conrad and Bean of Apollo 12 insist they are looking at a Surveyor probe which has been discolored by the Sun, whereas the photographs show it to be obviously discolored by dust. And then, there seems to be no definitive explanation as to how the Surveyor came to be covered in dust. It is easy enough to say the LM descent-stage engine created the dust, but when a bit of maths is done, nowhere like enough dust could have been created to coat the Surveyor. I am happy to accept any explanation provided the physics and the maths work. 

My first thought would be a micrometeorite smashed into the surface very near by and kicked dust onto a portion of regolith onto the Surveyor..

[Obviousman]

9 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

It might have happened, just feels too perfect that is all.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly: you don't have the skill set to make a definitive judgement on this.

[Derek Willis]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

My first thought would be a micrometeorite smashed into the surface very near by and kicked dust onto a portion of regolith onto the Surveyor..

Yes, that is a possibility. If a micrometeorite hit the surface and covered the Surveyor in dust it would be reasonable to assume the dust also covered some of the lunar surface surrounding the probe.

It took Conrad and Bean about half an hour to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust rather than being discolored by the Sun. At that point, they had this conversation (the numbers are the hours, minutes, and seconds into the mission):

134:32:05. Bean: "But strangely enough, that light brown rubs off. That's the funny part."

134:32:06. Conrad: "Yeah."

134:32:08. Bean: "That's funny because the dirt here is not brown."

So, the micrometeorite must have covered only the Surveyor in brown dust, but not covered the lunar surface nearby in brown dust. Is that likely?

Edit. And going back to my original point, the photos show the Surveyor is obviously covered in dust. So how come Conrad and Bean didn't realize that until after half an hour of inspecting the probe?

Edited May 3, 2019 by Derek Willis

[+Hammerclaw]

54 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Yes, that is a possibility. If a micrometeorite hit the surface and covered the Surveyor in dust it would be reasonable to assume the dust also covered some of the lunar surface surrounding the probe.

It took Conrad and Bean about half an hour to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust rather than being discolored by the Sun. At that point, they had this conversation (the numbers are the hours, minutes, and seconds into the mission):

134:32:05. Bean: "But strangely enough, that light brown rubs off. That's the funny part."

134:32:06. Conrad: "Yeah."

134:32:08. Bean: "That's funny because the dirt here is not brown."

So, the micrometeorite must have covered only the Surveyor in brown dust, but not covered the lunar surface nearby in brown dust. Is that likely?

Edit. And going back to my original point, the photos show the Surveyor is obviously covered in dust. So how come Conrad and Bean didn't realize that until after half an hour of inspecting the probe?

Probably because it was so fine.   

https://www.space.com/35240-moon-dust-levitates-nasa-study.html

[+Hammerclaw]

What next? Marilyn Monroe was really a Drag Queen?

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Yes, that is a possibility. If a micrometeorite hit the surface and covered the Surveyor in dust it would be reasonable to assume the dust also covered some of the lunar surface surrounding the probe.

It took Conrad and Bean about half an hour to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust rather than being discolored by the Sun. At that point, they had this conversation (the numbers are the hours, minutes, and seconds into the mission):

134:32:05. Bean: "But strangely enough, that light brown rubs off. That's the funny part."

134:32:06. Conrad: "Yeah."

134:32:08. Bean: "That's funny because the dirt here is not brown."

So, the micrometeorite must have covered only the Surveyor in brown dust, but not covered the lunar surface nearby in brown dust. Is that likely?

Edit. And going back to my original point, the photos show the Surveyor is obviously covered in dust. So how come Conrad and Bean didn't realize that until after half an hour of inspecting the probe?

I have no idea what you are trying to get at, what you point is?  It is a mystery that NASA can't answer definitively so we may have to wait till we know more, unless you are suggesting something nefarious.  If so, please do.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Merc14

[GlitterRose]

People are always gonna believe what they want to, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

They like thinking they've hit on some great secret the rest of the world has no clue about. 

They could actually go to reliable sources, but that's too much trouble...and it won't yield the answers they like. 

So FB here they come!

[Emma_Acid]

14 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

There is a growing number who believe the holocaust is largely exaggerated or entirely fake.  I don't have to endorse what they say, but I certainly think it is important to discuss what they think and why they think it

There is a difference between discussing the rise in pseudo-history - and - giving historical revisionists a platform and pretending there's a "debate".

You seem to be falling down squarely on the latter.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Emma_Acid

[Emma_Acid]

14 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

There were some successes and partial successes, but "the majority" were failures.

 

 

Were they all successes, you'd cry fowl and say it was faked. 

That there were a load of partial successes and a lot of failures also seems to be an issue for you. I genuinely don't know what you think the moon landing programme should have looked like.

And I don't think you know either.

[Emma_Acid]

13 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Correct, but I would imagine they would first test animals for a considerable time before attempting to sacrifice humans in their quest to walk on the moon.  The Soviets sent 2 tortoises and some insects on a lunar orbit in 1968.  The Americans (to my knowledge) never even tried to send animals near the moon before the Apollo 11 mission.  Seems rather dodgy to risk humans before animals on such a costly race to the Moon.  My guess is their ego to be the first on the moon was overshadowing their judgment.  If there was a 0.1% chance that something could go wrong then there would still be a reluctance to walk on the moon, and I think the cameras would be kept away just in case something bad happened.  I imagine there was possibly a 50% or greater risk in 1969 that sending humans to the moon first time could be a total disaster.  Televising it live to the world just seems too risky and unnecessary.  Watching the moon landing footage from start to finish feels like they were super confident and they knew everything would be ok.  Landing on the moon must have felt like landing at the bottom of the deepest ocean and one false step could have been instant death.  They were happily walking about and joking and not taking it seriously (at least that is the impression one gets).  I would have stepped one foot on the moon and immediately climbed back up the ladder and returned to Earth and declined the live television broadcast entirely.  It might have happened, just feels too perfect that is all.

 

 

"I don't understand it" would have been quicker to type.

This "it feels too perfect" spiel is getting boring. It doesn't mean anything other than you haven't done any research.

[Emma_Acid]

12 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Yes, but orbiting the moon, landing successfully, broadcasting live, and returning safely to Earth without any serious problems is certainly either a fantastic achievement or as many of the disbelievers would say 'too perfect to be true.'  It all really depends on how much trust the public has in what they are presented with.  Some believe, and some don't.

Who cares? Science, endeavor and technological progress isn't about what people believe.