Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

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

A CSM in low Earth orbit would be a bright naked-eye object at a time when satellite spotting was a popular hobby. You were shown evidence of people who optically tracked the Apollo spacecraft along their claimed trajectory.

 

[steenkh]

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. It really doesn't follow that all 400,000 people who worked for NASA were 'in on it'. In any case, the aim was true but it seems reasonable to believe they were nowhere near ready nor had the technology, so yeah, building all those machines and engines were in perfectly good faith, nobody said it wasn't.

You are seriously trying to say that a "tiny handful' of people can pull a stunt that 400,000 scientists and engineers who work on the project would not notice? Not to mention journalists who would love to expose a lie like that, and get the Pulitzer Prize for it? An then there is the Soviet Union who had spies everywhere …
You claim that we are too deep emotionally into this, but you are looking at objectively?

BTW I do not present myself 'as better than the average person'

Actually, I think I am running out of laughing dogs. I am gradually feeling more sorry for you. Accusing others of emotional attachment, when you are resorting to lies and gibberish in order to keep pretending that there is even a scrap of evidence in support of your conspiracy theory.

The best you can come up with is evidence that doesn't contradict your conspiracy theory, but no evidence that supports it. And the mountain of evidence in support of the Moon landing is simply brushed away or ignored.

 

[Vixen]

No. The psychology literature absolutely does support a claim to be able to detect deception by reading body language.


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.

Detecting deception as used by detectives is a completely different discipline based on various strategies. For example, a psychopath has no problem in lying and someone on ordinary medication might have their physiological reactions incorrectly interpretated accordingly, so someone applying deception detection techniques has to rule out the fact the results may not be accurate. They have to find a base line. The criminal courts expect more that a polygraph reading. Detectives need hard evidence and thus, interrogation and interview is their main focus where evidence is scant.

All psychologists say is that your body reacts to various stress situations. It doesn't evaluate intent because people can and do make conscious choices. But people do notice body language all the time.

 

[Pixel42]

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

It's also a common phenomenon for people to be fairly criticised for making unsupported and offensive accusations.

 

[Vixen]

You are seriously trying to say that a "tiny handful' of people can pull a stunt that 400,000 scientists and engineers who work on the project would not notice? Not to mention journalists who would love to expose a lie like that, and get the Pulitzer Prize for it? An then there is the Soviet Union who had spies everywhere …
You claim that we are too deep emotionally into this, but you are looking at objectively?



Actually, I think I am running out of laughing dogs. I am gradually feeling more sorry for you. Accusing others of emotional attachment, when you are resorting to lies and gibberish in order to keep pretending that there is even a scrap of evidence in support of your conspiracy theory.

The best you can come up with is evidence that doesn't contradict your conspiracy theory, but no evidence that supports it. And the mountain of evidence in support of the Moon landing is simply brushed away or ignored.

As I pointed out before, you already have all the evidence in support of your argument (re the example of C16 priests having convention on their side). I am as objective as I possibly can be.

 

[JayUtah]

Nixon...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.

Nixon had absolutely no motive to fulfill Kennedy's deadline and did not particularly care for the Apollo project. Your knowledge of American politics is as faulty as your knowledge of everything else related to this topic.

We have plenty of photographic evidence from the training sessions, as they were just has heavily documented as the missions themselves. The photography proffered as genuine Apollo lunar surface photography doesn't look anything like it.

Allen himself says to Short he hopes he is wrong...

Every hoax claimant purports to be reasonable by making a similar claim. It's pure posturing. Allen's livelihood depended on his ability to continue to lie about Apollo.

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

Not even Kaysing believed his claims had merit. To him it was just a stunt.

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.

Not at all. If people legitimately accomplished something, claiming they didn't based on such flimsy, dishonest evidence such as Allen et al. propounded is highly blame-worthy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Do you think a geologist wouldn't know the difference between a rock that fell to earth and one from the surface of the moon?
How do you think the moon rocks that fell to earth were first identified as moon rocks?

How were they collected if not by hand?

 

[Vixen]

It's also a common phenomenon for people to be fairly criticised for making unsupported and offensive accusations.

That is a different issue.

 

[JayUtah]

The Apollo 11 splashdown was not broadcast.

Portions of it were broadcast live on television. The entire thing was filmed and later broadcast. Live television from aircraft carriers in mid-ocean was not exactly commonplace. Fix your expectations.

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

Asked and answered.

 

[JayUtah]

All psychologists say is that your body reacts to various stress situations. It doesn't evaluate intent because people can and do make conscious choices. But people do notice body language all the time.

You are claiming that you can look at a clip of the Apollo press conference and determine from their body that the astronauts are lying. Not only that, but what they are lying about and what the truth is instead.

You have presented no evidence of your ability to do that, and there is ample evidence to show that what you're claiming is not possible. Further, your attempt to describe other pseudoscientific methods that purport to detect deception is fraught with obvious ignorance.

 

[Vixen]

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


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.


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.


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

Eisenhower after WWII established NASA as a military arm of the USA, so yes, these were military guys used to just following orders and not asking questions. Only the top army brass would know what went on at the White House and what edicts were issued, with trade secrets, e.g., re space, certainly to be treated as trade secrets and not splashed all over the NYT. Business strategy follows similar principles. Your employees know what their roles are and the broad aims and objectives of one's business. They would not be privy to decisions made behind closed doors however, unless these were disclosed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Plenty of those fall to Earth, anyway.

That sample in the photo didn't.

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

And have generated thousands of scientific papers from geologists all over the world.

Are they all in on the hoax, or too stupid to realize they've been given fake samples?

 

[JayUtah]

Eisenhower after WWII established NASA as a military arm of the USA...

Absolutely false. Asked and answered.

Business strategy follows similar principles.

What is your experience working in the aerospace industry? Or in any engineering industry?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So no, the average person can't grasp that what they perceive as reality is true, ain't necessarily so, which is why people are so convinced the Apollo 11 Moon Landing happened and get so incredibly upset when I wanted to debate it having heard the arguments of the sceptics.

As @Vixen continues to remind us, both explicitly and implicitly, she is not an average person. She belongs to the 0.1% who cannot grasp that what they perceive as their superiority ain't necessarily so.

That is why the 99.9% who understand the Apollo 11 moon landing actually happened are so incredibly amused when a representative of the 0.1% who has heard the absurd arguments of YouTube "sceptics" but knows so little about photography, physics, and reality in general that she cannot see through those arguments on her own, and cannot understand what is wrong with those arguments even after far more well-informed people have explained what is wrong with those arguments, wants to "debate" the matter while relying on those arguments.

I am not in the habit of lying.

I believe you. When you lie, it is a deliberate choice, not mere force of habit.

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

What's going on here is that, to whatever extent you are being bullied, you are being fairly bullied for being the person you present yourself as being.

You're not being treated unfairly.

To which I would add that, if you object to the way your arguments have met with micrometeorites and falling coal, you should consider a profession that does not involve running headfirst into the coal seam.

But I understand that, as one of the 0.1%, your options are limited.

 

[steenkh]

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.

You forgot

1. Fooling thousands of scientists and engineers who were planning and working on the project.
2. Setting up relay stations to broadcast the transmissions from the correct locations in space to fool the radio telescope operators, foreign powers, and amateurs listening in.
3. All of this is done for each Apollo mission, including Apollo 13.
4. Prepare the huge number of Moon samples that are supposed to be from different parts of the Moon, according to which Apollo mission is faked.
5. Prepare fake moon dust with special (dangerous) qualities unlike anything on Earth, and dust everything that supposedly had been on the Moon with it.

And so on.

You simply haven't thought this through.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

What about the other Apollo missions?

 

[Pixel42]

That is a different issue.

How? It is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what you are being fairly criticised for.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Eisenhower after WWII established NASA as a military arm of the USA, so yes, these were military guys used to just following orders and not asking questions. Only the top army brass would know what went on at the White House and what edicts were issued, with trade secrets, e.g., re space, certainly to be treated as trade secrets and not splashed all over the NYT. Business strategy follows similar principles. Your employees know what their roles are and the broad aims and objectives of one's business. They would not be privy to decisions made behind closed doors however, unless these were disclosed.

Most of the Apollo hardware was built by contractors.
They built what they were contracted to build to do the job it was designed for.

 

[steenkh]

I am as objective as I possibly can be.

This is just pathetic No laughing dog this time. I pity you.

 

[Mojo]

No, I clearly stated it was AI generated.

Why did you post it? What do you think it added to the "debate"?