Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

That is not the same as "I have not told lies'.

You do know that calling someone names doesn't make it true? It simply reveals the insecurities of the person who indulges in name-calling.

 

[LondonJohn]

The mean sd pile-on, aka bullying, is pathetic and boring.

From just yesterday - clearly and unequivocally demonstrating that you consider yourself intellectually superior to those who are attacking your arguments in this thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Look, people making stuff on assembly lines, engineers testing fuses and rockets, would not ipso facto know what LB Johnson or R Nixon talked about in camera with their personnel. Nobody said it was faked. However, I can see the reasonable argument that Nixon, in his desperation to beat the Soviets (remember, the Soviets hurriedly sent a module that [they claim] immediately crashed on the Moon, ahead of the Apollo scheduled lift off), did decide to use film and photo sequences from the many training and rehearsal sessions to give the appearance they had done it in time for the '60's as avowed by JF Kennedy. Okay. So if that was true, how would they have gone about it is the problem.

So, doing reverse engineering, so to speak, to the issue, we can recreate how it could have been simulated.

1. (a) send up the rocket, but all it actually does is orbit Lower Earth Orbit for eight days,
2. (b) fake the splashdown and show footage of a frogman rehearsal pulling out three unidentifiable guys garbed in wet suits (to explain the wet suits they have to come up with a story that the astronauts had to change out of their spacesuits so that they could be sprayed with Dettol to kill 'Moon Germs', first).
3. (c) this would be in the expectation that they would achieve it in the very near future but at least the USA was first historically
4. (d) Knowing the three guys' adventure could possibly be revealed as doubtful in the future and wanting to protect their integrity and reputation,
5. (e) during quarantine they are debriefed in what to say and how to say it without actually lying.

No-one is saying this is what did happen - Allen himself says to Short he hopes he is wrong - it is testing the hypothesis of could there be any merit in the claims of people such as Kaysing?

As for claiming people are 'too emotionally invested', people have indeed indignantly posted that we should not be 'p!ssing' (charming) on these people's achievements. An appeal to the emotions based on nothing but feelings.

If it was in orbit it would be visible from earth.
If it was returning from orbit why fake a splashdown?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The prime suspect:

View attachment 73325

 

[LondonJohn]

My bad - I was referring to a GSR not an EEG or ECG.

So you went from ECG to EEG to GSR. Oh and you claimed to have personal experience of conducting the procedure.

And you loftily pretend you meticulously research and verify before you post anything.

Can you see how this makes you look like a charlatan at best, and an out-and-out liar at worst?

 

[JayUtah]

My bad - I was referring to a GSR not an EEG or ECG.

Too many bads.

You're trying to convince us that you can look at a video clip of people you don't know and determine from their body language whether they are lying and what exactly they are lying about and what the truth must be instead.

The best you can come up with is a UFO hunter on YouTube who claims to be able to read body language like the guys in TV shows, contrary to the actual literature. When this is pointed out to you, you refer to polygraphy, which you refer to by its lay name and which has absolutly nothing to do with body language. You assure us that it's based on hard science, which it isn't. Then you tell us the science is ECG, which has nothing to do with either polygraphs or body language.

When someone asked about how that was supposed to work, you had your chance to give the right answer, but you gave yet another wrong answer: EEG, which has nothing to do with ECG, polygraphs, or body language. You even claimed some degree of expertise by having "experimented" with it. Then when I spoon-feed you the right answer, you suddenly claim you knew it all along.

No.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and after all that recitation of your ignorance you still present no evidence to support your claim to be able to know from body language that that the Apollo 11 crew is lying and what you think think they're lying about.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I clearly stated it was AI generated.

But you clearly presented it in support of your "argument", and it was a fantasy illustration. That's why we all laughed at it. And at you.

 

[steenkh]

I was trying to address in simple terms your query to me as to why I didn't argue the points in favour of an Apollo 11 Moon Landing as much as the other parties'. Firstly, a debate entails you pick a side and secondly, as I was trying to illustrate by my year 1500 example, the average person is not able to evaluate ideas. It doesn't follow the person with the ideas is the one in the wrong.

This convoluted logic is supposed to be an answer to why you finds loads of indirect evidence that humans were not on the Moon, but you can't find a single piece of evidence that humans were actually on the Moon, and yet, you do not take sides?

We average persons are not able to evaluate ideas that geniuses like you put forward?

Forgive me, but your brilliant riposte has only one answer:

 

[Vixen]

From just yesterday - clearly and unequivocally demonstrating that you consider yourself intellectually superior to those who are attacking your arguments in this thread.

I was pointing out it was a common phenomenon for people to be unfairly bullied just for being themself.

 

[Vixen]

So you went from ECG to EEG to GSR. Oh and you claimed to have personal experience of conducting the procedure.

And you loftily pretend you meticulously research and verify before you post anything.

Can you see how this makes you look like a charlatan at best, and an out-and-out liar at worst?

I gave you the description in the post. It's unequivocal what I was referring to, even if the acronym was the wrong one, in error. Yes, we did use these things as psychology students doing experimental psychology.

 

[JayUtah]

Plenty of those fall to Earth, anyway.

Not with their zap pits etc. intact. And they acquire telltale oxides in the process.

Most of the 'Moon rock' samples supposedly brought back are locked away and only available for those who apply citing special research.

Understandable, since they represent a precious limited resource. Not anyone can go into the British Museum and ask to chip off a piece of the Rosetta Stone for giggles.

But the experts who do examine them are convinced they are genuine lunar samples and not from Earth. Are they also in on the conspiracy?

 

[threadworm]

Look, people making stuff on assembly lines, engineers testing fuses and rockets, would not ipso facto know what LB Johnson or R Nixon talked about in camera with their personnel.

but they would know that what they were building worked or not. You now need to demonstrate that such conversations did take place, and with which personnel, and when, given that the words and movements of Presidents are intensely well documented.

Nobody said it was faked. However, I can see the reasonable argument that Nixon, in his desperation to beat the Soviets (remember, the Soviets hurriedly sent a module that [they claim] immediately crashed on the Moon, ahead of the Apollo scheduled lift off),

I can see the reasonable argument that them landing on the moon had absolutely nothing to do with Nixon. He was a passenger riding on someone else's coat-tails and he promoted a very different view of space exploration. I can also see teh reasonable argument that in his desperation to beat the Soviets to a moon landing, he beat the Soviets to a moon landing.

Also, Luna 15 was launched 3 days before Apollo 11 and arrived there not long after they launched. It crash landed just before they left back for Earth

did decide to use film and photo sequences from the many training and rehearsal sessions to give the appearance they had done it in time for the '60's as avowed by JF Kennedy.

The well documented training sessions from which many publicly avaialble photographs and footage is and was freely available? Sessions attended by a variety of technical personnel, curious bystanders and the media. Sessions done on "sets" that did not show any of the surface details subsequently photographed from lunar orbit?

Okay. So if that was true, how would they have gone about it is the problem.

Yes. It is.

So, doing reverse engineering, so to speak, to the issue we can recreate how it could have been simulated.

1. (a) send up the rocket, but all it actually does is orbit Lower Earth Orbit for eight days,

Which would have been visible to anyone looking up, never mind the numerous observers deliberately looking up. Thsat doesn't account for the live TV footage, 16mm film and stil photographs of astronomically and meteorologically accurate Earth that could not have been taken from LEO. Nor does it explain why handovers between receiving stations did not occur every 10-15 minutes, rather than the several hours that actually happened.

1. (b) fake the splashdown and show footage of a frogman rehearsal pulling out three unidentifiable guys garbed in wet suits (to explain the wet suits they have to come up with a story that the astronauts had to change out of their spacesuits so that they could be sprayed with Dettol to kill 'Moon Germs', first).

They were not wetsuits. In order for the splashdown to be faked you now need to add in some means of of a command module to appear from the sky in full view of the world's press. If you're going to argue that it was dropped from a plane, which plane? Where did it launch from? Who loaded it and piloted it? Astronauts in later missions emerged from the CM in no such protective gear and are clearly identifiable. Where do they fit in?

(c) this would be in the expectation that they would achieve it in the very near future but at least the USA was first historically

Is this in spite of, or as well as, claims by Kaysing, Allen et al. that it was not possible given the technology available? Does this cover the equally successful Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17?

1. (d) Knowing the three guys' adventure could possibly be revealed as doubtful in the future and wanting to protect their integrity and reputation,

The best way they can do that is to actually carry out the mission. Which they did.

1. (e) during quarantine they are debriefed in what to say and how to say it without actually lying.

By whom? When? Which parts are lies? They seem quite specific and unambiguous in their interviews (and in that press conference) that they were on the moon. Rembember that the whole quarantine business stopped happening after Apollo 12. Did it just come naturally to the astronauts after that? Or did they actually go to the moon?

No-one is saying this is what did happen -

Actually quite a few people make that kind of claim.

Allen himself says to Short he hopes he is wrong

And yet he made a nice living persistently doing that wide eyed "who me?" act promoting the lie that it was hoaxed. His appearances on the Apollo Detectives channel completely contradict the idea that he hopes they did go.

- it is testing the hypothesis of could there be any merit in the claims of people such as Kaysing?

There is not. Not one iota.

As for claiming people are 'too emotionally invested', people have indeed indignantly posted that we should not be 'p!ssing' (charming) on these people's achievements.

You don't have to be emotionally invested in something to be offended by falsehoods impugning someone's reputation and character. You seem to get a bit pissy about that yourself.

An appeal to the emotions based on nothing but feelings.

Then stop doing it.



{I really need to get the hang of the way the forum software parses things!)

 

[JayUtah]

I gave you the description in the post.

You said the wrong thing entirely. Then when pressed you said another wrong thing entirely.

It's unequivocal what I was referring to, even if the acronym was the wrong one, in error.

The entire concept was wrong. It's not just a typo. It's a completely different kind of thing.

Yes, we did use these things as psychology students doing experimental psychology.

Is that where you learned to read body language and thereby be able to tell whether someone is lying.

 

[Vixen]

Too many bads.

You're trying to convince us that you can look at a video clip of people you don't know and determine from their body language whether they are lying and what exactly they are lying about and what the truth must be instead.

The best you can come up with is a UFO hunter on YouTube who claims to be able to read body language like the guys in TV shows, contrary to the actual literature. When this is pointed out to you, you refer to polygraphy, which you refer to by its lay name and which has absolutly nothing to do with body language. You assure us that it's based on hard science, which it isn't. Then you tell us the science is ECG, which has nothing to do with either polygraphs or body language.

When someone asked about how that was supposed to work, you had your chance to give the right answer, but you gave yet another wrong answer: EEG, which has nothing to do with ECG, polygraphs, or body language. You even claimed some degree of expertise by having "experimented" with it. Then when I spoon-feed you the right answer, you suddenly claim you knew it all along.

No.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and after all that recitation of your ignorance you still present no evidence to support your claim to be able to know from body language that that the Apollo 11 crew is lying and what you think think they're lying about.

I agree that psychology as used by the lay person is what we call 'pop psychology' and is meaningless junk. But it is also true that one's psychological reactions to stress are rooted in biology and can be observable and measurable. That's not to say random youtubers 'can tell when someone is lying'. All that guy did was highlight all the fidgeting going on. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to come to your own impression.

 

[JayUtah]

I was pointing out it was a common phenomenon for people to be unfairly bullied just for being themself.

You're not being treated unfairly.

 

[Vixen]

Not with their zap pits etc. intact. And they acquire telltale oxides in the process.


Understandable, since they represent a precious limited resource. Not anyone can go into the British Museum and ask to chip off a piece of the Rosetta Stone for giggles.

But the experts who do examine them are convinced they are genuine lunar samples and not from Earth. Are they also in on the conspiracy?

Firstly, we have rocks falling to Earth from outer space all the time. Secondly, they do not need to be collected by hand.

 

[JayUtah]

But it is also true that one's psychological reactions to stress are rooted in biology and can be observable and measurable.

No. The psychology literature absolutely does not support a claim to be able to detect deception by reading body language.

That's not to say random youtubers 'can tell when someone is lying'. All that guy did was highlight all the fidgeting going on. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to come to your own impression.

Your source claimed he could tell people were lying by reading their body language. It's the basis of his entire YouTube channel. Lay people form wrong impressions all the time. They are not evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Firstly, we have rocks falling to Earth from outer space all the time.

The Apollo lunar samples do not show signs of having fallen to Earth or having spent any time in an Earth environment.

Secondly, they do not need to be collected by hand.

But these were. There is ample evidence of the means used to collect them.

If you want to propose that they were instead collected by an uncrewed sample return mission, please provide your evidence.

 

[Vixen]

but they would know that what they were building worked or not. You now need to demonstrate that such conversations did take place, and with which personnel, and when, given that the words and movements of Presidents are intensely well documented.


I can see the reasonable argument that them landing on the moon had absolutely nothing to do with Nixon. He was a passenger riding on someone else's coat-tails and he promoted a very different view of space exploration. I can also see teh reasonable argument that in his desperation to beat the Soviets to a moon landing, he beat the Soviets to a moon landing.

Also, Luna 15 was launched 3 days before Apollo 11 and arrived there not long after they launched. It crash landed just before they left back for Earth



The well documented training sessions from which many publicly avaialble photographs and footage is and was freely available? Sessions attended by a variety of technical personnel, curious bystanders and the media. Sessions done on "sets" that did not show any of the surface details subsequently photographed from lunar orbit?


Yes. It is.



Which would have been visible to anyone looking up, never mind the numerous observers deliberately looking up. Thsat doesn't account for the live TV footage, 16mm film and stil photographs of astronomically and meteorologically accurate Earth that could not have been taken from LEO. Nor does it explain why handovers between receiving stations did not occur every 10-15 minutes, rather than the several hours that actually happened.


They were not wetsuits. In order for the splashdown to be faked you now need to add in some means of of a command module to appear from the sky in full view of the world's press. If you're going to argue that it was dropped from a plane, which plane? Where did it launch from? Who loaded it and piloted it? Astronauts in later missions emerged from the CM in no such protective gear and are clearly identifiable. Where do they fit in?



Is this in spite of, or as well as, claims by Kaysing, Allen et al. that it was not possible given the technology available? Does this cover the equally successful Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17?




The best way they can do that is to actually carry out the mission. Which they did.


By whom? When? Which parts are lies? They seem quite specific and unambiguous in their interviews (and in that press conference) that they were on the moon. Rembember that the whole quarantine business stopped happening after Apollo 12. Did it just come naturally to the astronauts after that? Or did they actually go to the moon?


Actually quite a few people make that kind of claim.


And yet he made a nice living persistently doing that wide eyed "who me?" act promoting the lie that it was hoaxed. His appearances on the Apollo Detectives channel completely contradict the idea that he hopes they did go.



There is not. Not one iota.


You don't have to be emotionally invested in something to be offended by falsehoods impugning someone's reputation and character. You seem to get a bit pissy about that yourself.


Then stop doing it.



{I really need to get the hang of the way the forum software parses things!)

The Apollo 11 splashdown was not broadcast.

Plenty of satellites orbiting the Earth. It wouldn't necessarily be visible. That is a 'would, could' should' rationalisation.

 

[JayUtah]

It is elementary nonsense that the favourite argument of your camp runs, "the scale of involvement by all manner of people would be ridiculous" because if something is Top Secret then of course, only a tiny handful of people would know of it.

Asked and answered. You cannot explain Apollo's development simply by imagining that only a few people would actually know what's going on.

It really doesn't follow that all 400,000 people who worked for NASA were 'in on it'.

These people work in an industry you don't know anything about. You are unqualified to determine whether they can credibly be kept in the dark regarding what they were doing and still believe they had succeeded in doing it.

In any case, the aim was true but it seems reasonable to believe they were nowhere near ready nor had the technology...

Why is that a reasonable belief? There is a mountain of evidence documenting the development of Apollo technology that is still closely scrutinized by relevant experts to this day.

...so yeah, building all those machines and engines were in perfectly good faith, nobody said it wasn't.

In my industry, "good faith" means they know it worked. If it worked, why fake it?