Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[Justinian2]

You think you could jump 20 inches in a suit that barely let you bend your knees?

The suits were behind glass. I wasn't able to assess their flexibility.

Since I don't have access to the original stuff, I can't prove my theory that America never landed on the moon. All I can do is point out the illogical things about NASA's 'evidence'.

How do we know how the Incas moved HUGE stones to the mountain tops? One way is to look at the unfinished work - the stones that were being moved when they fled the Spainards. If you want to know - look at the little details.

America's lunar landing was probably filmed on earth.

 

[Justinian2]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Nice quote from another thread:

That works both ways. Prove that the astronauts jumped five feet. NAZA showed stuff floating in space. So show people performing in 1/6 th gravity.

 

[sts60]

Asking NASA to police themselves is about as good as asking the police to police themselves.

Poisoning the well. And irrelevant anyway. The evidence is far more massive than you grasp, and has been gathered, tested, and used by scientists and engineers around the world. For decades.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for your to produce your evidence. You made an initial claim - no 5' jump - which was trivially refuted.

If any of you want absolute proof, it will not come.

I'm waiting for you to produce anything that backs up your claims and opinions.

As I have stated, a NASA movie shows the refilming of the moon landing on earth. They said the original footage was 'grainy'. Who can argue?

No one here even knows what you're talking about. What movie? You said you would only accept "sourced" claims, but have yet to source your own.

The point is that NAZA had the opportunity. NASA could have covered it up.

First of all, no, they couldn't. You should try to learn something about the Apollo record.

Second of all, you need to show how it could have been covered up. You have done nothing but wave your hands about wires.

With the mixed footage, we will never be able to prove anything without a return trip to the moon.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has directly imaged Apollo landing artifacts, at the locations of record for the landings. In that sense, there already has been a return trip to the Moon.

At this point, I really must ask you to start backing up your opinions and addresses your numerous errors of fact before charging off in another direction. I can't compel you to do this, of course, but if you don't, your arguments will never become any more credible and you won't learn anything.

 

[R.A.F.]

All I can do is point out the illogical things about NASA's 'evidence'.

...and just when will you be doing that?

How do we know how the Incas moved HUGE stones to the mountain tops? One way is to look at the unfinished work - the stones that were being moved when they fled the Spainards. If you want to know - look at the little details.

Irrelevant to this discussion, so why post it??

America's lunar landing was probably filmed on earth.

Prove it.

 

[R.A.F.]

That works both ways. Prove that the astronauts jumped five feet.

No, it doesn't "work both ways". There's this pesky little thing called the burden of proof, and it is all yours.

In other words, we don't have to prove the landings happened as that is established fact. On the other hand, you have made the extraordinary claim that they didn't happen therefore it is up to you to prove yourself correct.

That's how science "works".

 

[Andy_Ross]

With the mixed footage of the lunar landing, only a return trip would convince me that the landing was real. When the Chinese land on the moon, they may tell us what we want to know. Or they may lie

So if what they find supports your ideas it's the truth and if it doesn' tthen it's a lie?

 

[Justinian2]

Go ask Buzz Aldrin if he's lying.

I know what will happen.

We would would be afraid of A & B charges but if it did come to fisticuffs, it would be a fight between two members of AARP. You would probably laugh.

Actually, I admire the man even if he didn't land on the moon. I would be forthright and I would ask him why nobody on the moon never jumped high. I would first just listen and try to get at the innuendoes.

 

[tsig]

We would would be afraid of A & B charges but if it did come to fisticuffs, it would be a fight between two members of AARP. You would probably laugh.

Actually, I admire the man even if he didn't land on the moon. I would be forthright and I would ask him why nobody on the moon never jumped high. I would first just listen and try to get at the innuendoes.

Where do you get this certainty that everything you believe is true?

 

[frenat]

The training vehicle used for simulating the lunar lander crashed before the first moon landing and almost killed the astronaut that was practicing his landings. They never practiced after that.

It crashed due to a mechanical defect NOT due to anything related to simulating 1/6 gravity. It happened a YEAR before Apollo 11 and yes they did practice much more after that. The simulators had HUNDREDS of successful flights.

 

[sts60]

I would be forthright and I would ask him why nobody on the moon never jumped high.

This claim doesn't get any less wrong with repetition. You have already been provided with a reference to motion imagery explicitly refuting your original claim. You said you never saw such a thing despite your extensive "research", but it has been provided to you already.

And there is a very good reason the Apollo astronauts avoided (not "never") jumping high. The suits weren't made for athletic activity; such jumps incurred a tendency to fall over on descent, with concurrent risk of damage to their suit or PLSS.

You're not only simply imposing your own uninformed opinions on how things should have been done (the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy); your very premise is demonstrably wrong, and documentary evidence supplied to that effect.

I would first just listen and try to get at the innuendoes.

I think you need to get to the facts first. How about addressing your numerous errors first, and offering something to back up your opinions?

 

[TraneWreck]

You think you could jump 20 inches in a suit that barely let you bend your knees?

So they can make rockets that go to the moon, but not suits that let you bend your knees?

Riiiiiiight.

It's much more reasonable that they built a massive vaccuum chamber that is more or less impossible with today's technology.

 

[matt.tansy]

Questions aren't arguments.
Opinions aren't arguments.
Requests for sources aren't arguments.

I can't find sources for all of you. One need to do some of the work.

You made the claim the LM computer was not capable of landing on the Moon. I ask again, how many bytes does it take to land a spacecraft on the Moon?

 

[dafydd]

The movie exists at the Kennedy Space Center.

Look, I don't care if I lose this argument. I'm just trying to tell you what I know about this. I've won enough so that I have no insecurity about winning. If you want to say I've lost, so what?

Has anyone else been to the Kennedy Space Center in the last year?

I have just emailed the Space Center about this. If I get an answer I will let you all know.

 

[dafydd]

The movie exists at the Kennedy Space Center.

Look, I don't care if I lose this argument. I'm just trying to tell you what I know about this. I've won enough so that I have no insecurity about winning. If you want to say I've lost, so what?

Has anyone else been to the Kennedy Space Center in the last year?

You have neither won nor lost,you are not even in the game. In order to do that you have to bring something to the table,i.e, evidence,not idiosyncratic opinions.

 

[Corsair 115]

When I watched the lunar landing I thought to myself that the environment didn't at all seem like 1/6 th gravity.

What you think it ought to look like has absolutely no bearing on what it actually looks like. Your expectations are immaterial and utterly irrelevant. And are most definitely not proof. Of anything.

Photographs are proof. Telemetry is proof. Training manuals are proof. Film is proof. Eyewitness testimony is proof. Soil and rock samples are proof. Debriefing transcripts are proof. ALSEP data is proof. Recorded transmissions are proof. Your opinion on what it ought to look like is not proof. Especially since your expectations have been conditioned by what you've seen in Hollywood movies and TV shows, which are notorious for fudging reality, often greatly so.

There is an enormous wealth of documentary material on all facets of the Apollo program. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it before continuing on your present fool's errand.

 

[Corsair 115]

By the way, Justinian2, you never answered my questions:

They crashed the LM into the Moon six times? They never landed six times yet made sure each landing was to involve longer and more complex activities on the surface?

Your conspiracy fails on purely logical grounds, let alone when actual evidence is considered...

Look, I don't care if I lose this argument.

You lost the moment you took up a silly and ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I'm just trying to tell you what I know about this.

Actually, what you're telling us is what you don't know about it, which is an enormous amount. Once again, get yourself to the library, open up some books, read, and learn.

Nice list! A few there I don't have, I will have to find them.

I can't vouch for how good of a read some of them make. I just did a quick online search of what's available in the public library system 'round here, as well as a search of what Amazon has on offer. I do have Andrew Chaikin's A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts and thought it pretty good.

Someday I'm going to buy some of Apogee's books. I remember seeing a DVD one time in the store that was on the Saturn V, and included all sorts of actual footage. Wish I had bought it now...

 

[matt.tansy]

Young and Duke jumping, with narrative by Duke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0

 

[Andy_Ross]

ALSEP

I have yet to come across a Hoax Believer that even knows what this Acronym means.

 

[Shalamar]

Young and Duke jumping, with narrative by Duke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0

The image of the last scene where one of them falls on his back illustrates the great danger they had of jumping on the moon.

 

[JohnG]

Have you ever tried the old lunar lander program in which you control the throttle and try to set the lunar lander on the surface of the moon? It's almost impossible! I played it for days and never was able to make two perfect landings in a row! I would run out of fuel and drop a 1000 feet to the surface or not be able to slow down near the surface and damage the lander to the point that I couldn't take off.

I think something in me just died a little reading that. That may be the most woefully inept bit reasoning I've ever encountered in my life. It's like something a seven year old boy would say, rather than a supposed adult who is old enough to have voted for Nixon. Please tell me you're not serious.*

BTW, I once created a fairly clever lunar lander game in Flash/ActionScript and even I had trouble mastering it. Difficult things (from silly little computer games to well, rocket science) take time, hard work and a little raw talent to master. How can you not know this??

With the mixed footage of the lunar landing, only a return trip would convince me that the landing was real. When the Chinese land on the moon, they may tell us what we want to know. Or they may lie.

I was going to ask you what you'd say if the Russians or Chinese landed on the moon and confirmed the evidence of the Apollo landings and lo and behold you anticipated my question.

Rational adults don't want to be told "what they want to know", they want to be told the truth, no matter how disappointing or embarrassing that truth may be. Not that I'm not occasionally irrational, though. In fact I am currently nursing the no doubt irrational and baseless hope that you are merely a troll who just wants a little attention.





*About either your lunar lander argument or voting for Nixon.