Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[PhantomWolf]

The public should be warned.

I don't think the FAA need be told, I seriously doubt the truthfulness of his claims which is why I want to know what the computer and aircraft are. I also doubt that he'll answer the question because I don't believe he can.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Um... I'd like to think this only happens if you're being tried by the Quintessons.

No. As the prosecutor explained the last time I was called for jury duty, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (at least in the US).

 

[Sledge]

No. As the prosecutor explained the last time I was called for jury duty, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (at least in the US).

Yes, I get that. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that a jury convicts someone who they acknowledge is innocent.

 

[The Don]

They are used by three biggest airline manufacturers. You can't avoid it. Your family is safe because of my efforts. Take valium.

So the top two are Boeing and Airbus and the third is ?

- Bombardier ?
- EMBRAER ?
- Tupolev ?

I'm sorry, I don't see much overlap and sharing of technology between the first two and if Tupolev is the third then I certainly don't think so.

 

[Justinian2]

Not a lie probably an internalized false memory.

Ha! That's funny. (The forum on Amanda Knox has discussed whether or not Amanda Knox's confession was an internalized false memory)

 

[Justinian2]

So the top two are Boeing and Airbus and the third is ?

- Bombardier ?
- EMBRAER ?
- Tupolev ?

I'm sorry, I don't see much overlap and sharing of technology between the first two and if Tupolev is the third then I certainly don't think so.

Where do Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas fit into the list of top manufacturers? I have no recent information on rankings of the airline manufacturers.

I can't really discuss this. I don't want to mention my former employer.

 

[Justinian2]

Uh huh. And you said 1, where the actual number was more in the high tens. Placing it being off between 1 and 2 magnitudes.

This is the twilight zone. I'm exiting the thread.

Professor Justinian explains:

An order-of-magnitude estimate of a variable whose precise value is unknown is an estimate rounded to the nearest power of ten. For example, an order-of-magnitude estimate for a variable between about 3 billion and 30 billion (such as the human population of the Earth) is 10 billion.

Your homework is to read more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

 

[dafydd]

Where do Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas fit into the list of top manufacturers? I have no recent information on rankings of the airline manufacturers.

I can't really discuss this. I don't want to mention my former employer.

I don't believe that you ever worked for top manufacturer,but we'll let it go. Are you calling Buzz Aldrin a liar,what about the mirrors on the Moon,and you have yet to address the question about the Russians.

 

[tsig]

That's somewhat rich.

"Again," why do you cling to this astoundingly foolhardy claim? You're not going to find a smoking gun that blows the conspiracy wide open. There is no smoke. There isn't even a gun.

And yet he still manages to shoot himself in the foot.

 

[Justinian2]

That's somewhat rich.

"Again," why do you cling to this astoundingly foolhardy claim? You're not going to find a smoking gun that blows the conspiracy wide open. There is no smoke. There isn't even a gun.

Are we talking about gunsmoke? Good western. I used to watch it every sunday night.

What conspiracy?

NASA did include in it's presentation of a movie on space flight scenes where they recreated portions of the landing. They explained that they made the recreation to replace grainy portions of the original. They showed wires being used to help the astronauts simulate 1/6th gravity. They did a great job too. The scenes looked exactly like the original. I saw this movie on my trip to the Space Center in September 2010.

The point is, NASA has the ability to realistically film scenes like those taken of the 'landing' (whether it was real or imagined).

 

[Justinian2]

I don't believe that you ever worked for top manufacturer,but we'll let it go. Are you calling Buzz Aldrin a liar,what about the mirrors on the Moon,and you have yet to address the question about the Russians.

As a consultant, I've worked for twenty huge and well know companies. My permanent positions were at companies that are well known. I've also taught courses to engineers and scientists at large companies throughout the USA and Europe.

I think it's wrong that the youth of this country have a tough time getting jobs. My generation had less difficulty gaining highly compensated positions.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm discussing why there isn't evidence of 1/6th gravity in the landing video and film. I'm also discussing why this government would fake the actual landings.

The Russians could tell by monitoring our radio transmissions that some were coming from the moon. They could tell from radar that we sent a vehicle to the moon. It's my estimate that no country on earth had the ability to monitor our activity on or around the moon. No telescope or radar of that era had sufficient resolution to see our vehicles orbiting the moon.

 

[sts60]

I don't believe that you ever worked for top manufacturer,but we'll let it go. Are you calling Buzz Aldrin a liar,what about the mirrors on the Moon,and you have yet to address the question about the Russians.

Before Justinian2 addresses anything about the lunar retroreflectors, or the Soviets, or any of the rest of the staggeringly large amount of data, artifacts, samples, expertise, and documentation supporting the landings (six of them, not "the landing"), he needs to address:

- Why, after claiming to have "analyzed" the entire record, he could not find examples of the sort of high jumps he claimed didn't happen - but were promptly provided to him. And why he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge these examples.
- Identify his smoking gun of a movie and specify exactly how it proves a hoax; in particular, he needs to show why those of us who actually know something about Apollo can't distinguish staged imagery from the real thing.
- Identify exactly why the AGC was inadequate for the landing. Not cite Wikipedia to us again as if we needed information we already provided to him; not compare it to a later general-purpose desktop computer; he needs to say quantitatively what the AGC had to do, and why it couldn't.
- Explain his own self-contradictory statements.
- Acknowledge and correct the numerous errors of fact he has made.

Then we can start talking about other issues. Until then, there's really nothing to talk about. Everything else - especially trying to tap-dance around how his initial guess of 1KB is off by more than an order of magnitude - is simply diversionary.

 

[dafydd]

Are we talking about gunsmoke? Good western. I used to watch it every sunday night.

What conspiracy?

NASA did include in it's presentation of a movie on space flight scenes where they recreated portions of the landing. They explained that they made the recreation to replace grainy portions of the original. They showed wires being used to help the astronauts simulate 1/6th gravity. They did a great job too. The scenes looked exactly like the original. I saw this movie on my trip to the Space Center in September 2010.

The point is, NASA has the ability to realistically film scenes like those taken of the 'landing' (whether it was real or imagined).

So now you are saying that there was no conspiracy and that the Moon landings were real? Welcome back to reality.

 

[dafydd]

As a consultant, I've worked for twenty huge and well know companies. Ditto for my permanent positions.

I think it's wrong that the youth of this country have a tough time getting jobs. That wasn't the case when I graduated.

Why can't conspiracy buffs answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer? Are you calling Buzz Aldrin a liar?

 

[dafydd]

As a consultant, I've worked for twenty huge and well know companies. My permanent positions were at companies that are well known. I've also taught courses to engineers and scientists at large companies throughout the USA and Europe.

I think it's wrong that the youth of this country have a tough time getting jobs. My generation had less difficulty gaining highly compensated positions.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm discussing why there isn't evidence of 1/6th gravity in the landing video and film. I'm also discussing why this government would fake the actual landings.

The Russians could tell by monitoring our radio transmissions that some were coming from the moon. They could tell from radar that we sent a vehicle to the moon. It's my estimate that no country on earth had the ability to monitor our activity on or around the moon. No telescope or radar of that era had sufficient resolution to see our vehicles orbiting the moon.

So NASA went and didn't go to to the Moon? What is your game here? Do you believe that Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon? It's a simple question,why won't you answer it? The gravity thing has been debunked many times,do some research.

 

[Justinian2]

Here's an article and photographs that actually hurts my position and helps yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:369234main_lroc_apollo11labeled_256x256.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/369234main_lroc_apollo11labeled_256x256.jpg

This still doesn't explain the lack of evidence of 1/6th gravity in the films and video.

 

[Justinian2]

So NASA went and didn't go to to the Moon? What is your game here? Do you believe that Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon? It's a simple question,why won't you answer it? The gravity thing has been debunked many times,do some research.

OK, you have a mystery source of a debunking that you don't post a link to.

I love mystery sources.

 

[dafydd]

OK, you have a mystery source of a debunking that you don't post a link to.

I love mystery sources.

No mystery,it was all explained earlier in this thread. If you choose to ignore the evidence that's your loss.

 

[dafydd]

This explains it in simple terms.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_hoax

and this
http://rayvillard.com/articles/MOON HOAX REV2 FINAL .htm

http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

http://www.science20.com/rugbyologist/galileo_gravity_and_moon

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

From http://www.content4reprint.com/science/challenging-the-moon-hoax-conspiracy-theory-part-two.htm

Low Gravity Video

Another area that is popular with the hoax theorists is the accusation that the astronaut footage looks like it is simply earth gravity slowed down to simulate lower gravity. This is very misleading. It is up to an individual to decide if they feel it looks like this, however i personally do not think that it does show this.

Even when sped up the moon footage does not look like earth gravity as the movements of the astronauts still looks wrong. However, this will not be a view shared by the hoax theorists. Fortunately there is something else on the moon that proves that they actually were there!

Take a look at the Lunar Rover wheels and see how the dust moves. If the Lunar Rover were moving around on earth and the footage was simply slowed down then you would expect to see the dust move upwards over the wheels and the float over the surface. This does not happen.

What we see with the Lunar Rover is the dust move straight up and down again demonstrating ballistic flight in a vacuum. The only way to ensure you can achieve a shot such as this is by creating a very large space in which you could house your moon set and then remove all the air from it.

This was not possible in 1969 and cannot even be achieved today. Video footage of the Lunar Rover on the moon is 100% proof that it must have been on the moon - there is no other explanation! Had the hoax theorists investigated this they would have known that this argument is a non-starter. Using it as evidence simply illustrates their complete lack of understanding of space and the way objects move.

 

[Travis]

Yeah I'd love to see a huge film stage that can be turned into a vacuum. The machinery necessary would be impressive. The building itself would be a technical wonder.