Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
If NASA is providing fake data about Sunspots, Solar Flares and the Van Allen Belts etc, why hasn't this been pointed out by any of the other organisations or countries that have their own independant data?
WHy aren't all the satellite manufacturers and othe space engineering companies around the world that rely on the NASA data complaining that equipment built using the data is not working as expected?
Click to expand...
It's plausible that other governments are either willingly collaberating with NASA, or bending to pressure not to make the real data public. Anyone who designs satellites obviously needs the real data. If we're being given bogus data to study in school, one would need a high security clearance to have access to the real data.

Here's a link to some info on why we can't trust what they tell us.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

For all we know the real info may be public in some places. We'd never hear about it in any mainstream publications here if that were the case as everything is under strict control including science journals.

Now trying examining the absolutely ENORMOUS amount of documentary material available. Which includes video and still photographs, amongst many, many other things.
Click to expand...
I've scanned some of the official data that pro-Apollo people have linked to on other forums. I could read it until I've got it memorized; how would that prove it was the real data?

NASA is not the only agency with space assets.
Other countries have them.
Private corporations have them.
Amateur clubs have send probes into space.

They are just as open about their data as NASA.
Those data sets all corroborate each other.
Click to expand...
See above.

And all you have is "I don't wanna believe..."
Click to expand...
As I said before, my position is that I don't know. All I have is second-hand info on space radiation. Look at the info in the link I posted above. The government lies about history and news. There are a couple of videos in that link in which scientists allege science fraud and censorship in science journals. There is a case in which two groups of scientist have opposite views on an issue. Anyone who simply accepts what he reads in an environment such as this is simply naive.

One can have neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity or he may wind up believing something that is factually false.
 
when he moves opposite because he is pushing himself against the hull above him, the jacket will follow him.
Click to expand...
You're seeing what you want to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(50 second time mark)

When he goes back down, there's no identifiable force making the corner of the jacket go back down except for gravity. The fabric is so loose that whatever may be pushing from above wouldn't be able to push the whole corner back down. It would wrinkle.

Anyone can take a loose jacket on a coat hanger and bounce it up and down and exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket here on earth. The same goes for the dogtags hanging around his neck (00:59 second time mark). I put some keys on a string and hung them around my neck and jogged in place. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of the dogtags around Collins' neck by imparting a little extra forward motion to my upper body. Collins seems to be on some kind of exercise device; that may account for the extra motion. Are you saying it's possible to exactly duplicate zero-G movement here on earth?

However in that footage and other cabin footage on the Lunar coast, there are times when clear weightlessness is obvious.
Click to expand...
Please point those cases out so we can discuss whether this is really the case. I see none.

Your comment about the cuffs is not relevant, since fabric will pull from the elbow and do this regardless
Click to expand...
As soon as both Collins and Armstrong stop moving their arms, their cuffs immediately rest on their wrists the way they would in gravity. You are wrong.
 
Oh - so everyone else, other nations, organisations, universities, etc - they are all "in on it".

Okay... yeah... fine...

(backs away slowly)
 
Okay, scientific proof via Youtube is an instant fail - enough already. In any case, your own links debunk you.

Impress me with some actual evidence - find me a bunch of scientists who have actually done some real work and been able to call foul on the moon landing claim. You know, people who actually know what they're talking about..
 
Oh - so everyone else, other nations, organisations, universities, etc - they are all "in on it".
Click to expand...

Okay, scientific proof via Youtube is an instant fail
Click to expand...
YouTube is neutral. It has stuff from objective thinking people, government shills who don't believe their own arguments, and kooks. We have to analyze the actual material to come to a conclusion; the fact that it's from YouTube has no bearing on whether it's valid or not.

In any case, your own links debunk you.
Click to expand...
Please go into some detail. Empty rhetoric doesn't sway thining people.

Impress me with some actual evidence - find me a bunch of scientists who have actually done some real work and been able to call foul on the moon landing claim. You know, people who actually know what they're talking about..
Click to expand...
There may be lots of them. If one of them were to try to come forward, he'd find a few obstacles. He'd be putting his career in jeopardy. He might even be putting his life in jeopardy.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU


This is from the link I posted above.
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
---------------------------------------------
 
Okay, out of that what is it that makes you think that Van Allen was pressured into changing his data?
Click to expand...
What this article says seems to point to that. You're talking as if you hadn't even read the article.

http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
 
No proof there and at least one very definite innaccuracy.
Aluminium IS shielding.

Very sloppy journalism.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What this article says seems to point to that. You're talking as if you hadn't even read the article.
Click to expand...

We've read the article. Its incredibly poor thinking. It fails to account that Van Allen was giving warnings that the belt should (and could) be avoided, not that it was a death trap that keeps us locked onto Earth.

Seriously, this is as if someone told you not to cross a high speed freeway on foot and then you complain when you see someone crossing a quiet country street at a crosswalk.

Van Allen didn't change his data, kooks just read it wrong in the first place.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
According to Jarrah White the slow-motion used to simulate lunar gravity is about 67%. It would have to be sped up 1.5 times to see the original speed.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. You completely ignored the gravity videos I presented showing inanimate objects that are nowhere near the correct fall speeds for Earth when sped up 1.5 times. Why do you rely so heavily on a person who has all his arguments systematically torn apart?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A

This is the flaw in your argument. It looks lighter to me.
Click to expand...
It is one of a hundred flaws in your argument. Jarrah White has used a cloth flag that is heavier fabric, less likely to be slowed by atmosphere. What you think is actually completely irelevant. What you can prove is what matters.

You have offered no argument as to why his flag slows in 4.5 seconds, yet the Apollo flag slowed down to your criteria takes 20 seconds. It just sways back and forth with no progressive slowing, just exactly how it would behave in a vacuum.

Explain the time difference, and explain why White's flag shows no similarity whatsoever.

If it's lighter, it will come to a stop faster. People can look at both flags and decide for themselves whether it's heaver or lighter.
Click to expand...
The Apollo flag is made of nylon. There is no comparison between the two times or the way they move. One is in atmosphere, one is in a vacuum.


In order to show that an alleged anomaly is not an anomaly, the exact situation must be duplicated. The conditions of a falling book will be different from those of a trotting person. I hanged a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light in my living room and trotted by it at aobut a 40 degree angle. It moved away from me just before I got close to it and then back toward me the way the Apollo flag did.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that. No way can you determine that a flag would do that, if you were moving fast enough to have a small amount of air in front of you, it would be a split second before you went past it.

The conditions of a wide flat book will indeed be different. The book is travelling faster and has a flatter surface, and much more likely to push air in front of it. Yet it only moves the extremely light bag when it is a few inches away. As opposed to the 2 feet that the Apollo astronaut is away from the flag.

Put it on youtube. Oh, I forgot you can't, because you don't have a video camera, or know anybody who can lend you one:rolleyes:


In the Apollo footage the flag was at about a 40 degree angle to the astronaut. Jarrah runs by it at a 90 degree angle in that clip.
Click to expand...
So if anything the Apollo flag is further away, yet White's flag doesn't move until he is level with it.

Why is that?

Your whole argument is completely debunked.

If anyone hangs a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trots by it at about a 40 degree angle, he or she will see the the cloth will move the way it did in the Apollo clip.
Click to expand...
Only if they film it and slow it down. But it won't stop the way the Apollo flag does. It will stop quicker with progressively reduced back and forth motion. The Apollo flag just went back and forward for 30 seconds at Lunar speed, completely consistent with being filmed in a vacuum.

Here is a test that shows it and demonstrates why your argument is nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuQYbvf-lc

This video shows that argument to be false. It's obviously a movement.
Click to expand...
No, that video is just a repeat of the one already posted and debunked. The fact that you cannot see it is not my concern. The flag pole itself shifts right with the same 'movement', it is a blooming effect.

Or, are you suggesting that the flagpole and area to the left of the flag is still?

"Here is a short Apollo 15 flag cropped and repeated with a 10 frame gap. It appears to show a movement, but if you look carefully, you will see this cannot be, Watch full screen, and you see the WHOLE flag actually shifts to the right. This indicates an anomaly with the colour wheels on the Apollo camera, compensating for an addition to the screen, and a rapid increase in contrast."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kalT4NGdDsk


What experience have you got with the type of camera used on that mission? None.

Please explain how a man pushes air 2 feet in front of him. Show me any website that explains this amazing phenomenon. In a non-restricted area(open space)the air will form a wake to the side, and only a very small amount will be pushed forward, certainly nowhere near enough to move a flag from 2 feet. A few inches maybe.

Here are two videos that show the flag was brushed by his arm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5H7Rwfkjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU

Here is a picture from a Jarrah White video(sourced from that forum you linked to;)) demonstrating how daft he is, by debunking himself:
jwflag.png



Next.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
You're seeing what you want to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(50 second time mark)
Click to expand...
Now there is a stunning comment. I would fire it back at you, but "you are seeing what you want to see and don't understand that it is completely wrong", would be better.

When he goes back down, there's no identifiable force making the corner of the jacket go back down except for gravity.
Click to expand...
You have been told this hundreds of times. It is inertia.

The fabric is so loose that whatever may be pushing from above wouldn't be able to push the whole corner back down. It would wrinkle.
Click to expand...
He is changing direction. It is inertia. There is obvious movement caused by the mass of the object attached to his chest bouncing back and forth.

Please explain to everybody your scientific qualifications, particularly pertaining to motion in a weightless environment. You are just not well versed enough in this to understand, either that, or you are in 5 years denial(that is how long you have been pushing this same issue on multiple forums and ignoring the same answer).

Anyone can take a loose jacket on a coat hanger and bounce it up and down and exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket here on earth.
Click to expand...
Irelevant. If you did it side to side, the fabric would still change direction the same way.

The same goes for the dogtags hanging around his neck (00:59 second time mark).
Click to expand...

Now that just debunks your whole case initself. Please explain why they are hovering in front of his chin? :eye-poppi

I put some keys on a string and hung them around my neck and jogged in place. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of the dogtags around Collins' neck by imparting a little extra forward motion to my upper body.
Click to expand...
I call BS again. Film it and put it on youtube.

Collins seems to be on some kind of exercise device; that may account for the extra motion.
Click to expand...
Really? You think they snuck a treadmill in the CSM? The extra motion as you put it, is caused by him being weightless.

Are you saying it's possible to exactly duplicate zero-G movement here on earth?
Click to expand...
I have to scratch my head on that comment? Errrrm no, is the answer. I am saying it is impossible to duplicate zero-g movement here on Earth. You can do it in a plane for a brief time.

Please point those cases out so we can discuss whether this is really the case. I see none.
Click to expand...
Since you already say there is none, when there clearly are, what point is there to discuss it? Various loose cuff and sleeve movements, the hovering object between his legs, the dogtags suspended in space, tubes floating above Armstrong. The other two transmisions have numerous obvious weightless signs.


Please answer this(considerably longer than could be done on a plane btw):
Here is some cabin footage that shows a whole film of weightless stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE

As soon as both Collins and Armstrong stop moving their arms, their cuffs immediately rest on their wrists the way they would in gravity. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

No, saying I am wrong makes your opinion uninformed. When anybody bends their elbow, regardless of where they are, the garment will foreshorten more on the inside than the outside. This will push the sleeve against the top part of the wrist and pull the sleeve slightly further up the arm.


Next.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
The only way I could prove NASA wrong would be to send up my own space probe. If you ask the impossible, you know what people are going to think.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Radio transmissions from the moon, tracked by people all over the world. Explain.
 
What about the mirrors on the Moon Freddy? They are there,hard evidence that you cannot wish away or ignore.
 
Please answer this(considerably longer than could be done on a plane btw):
Here is some cabin footage that shows a whole film of weightless stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE
Click to expand...
I know there is other footage that was probably taken in low-earth-orbit but that doesn't make the fakery shown above go away. Evidently they faked some of it and some of it was real.

People can look at the movement of Collins' jacket corner and dogtags and the cuffs and decide for themselves.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5237480&postcount=2245

I doubt your explanations for that obvious in-gravity movement are swaying anybody. I know you pro-Apollo people are always going to make the last post no matter how unconvincing your arguments are.

Radio transmissions from the moon, tracked by people all over the world. Explain.
Click to expand...
What we read isn't necessarily what happened. Some possible explanations are put forth in this six part video.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Russia,+Jodrell+Bank+&+Frequencies&aq=f

Mythbusters on the so-called Moon Hoax
Click to expand...
Mythbusters is just an attempt by the government at damage-control. Take a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Phil+Plait,+Mythbusters+&+Dirty+Tricks&aq=f

What about the mirrors on the Moon Freddy? They are there,hard evidence that you cannot wish away or ignore.
Click to expand...
If the Surveyor missions were real, they had the technology to soft-land robotic craft on the moon back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_Program

Adjustable reflectors could have been attached to an unmanned craft that also relayed transmissions back to earth to make the signals really come from the moon to fool people who were listening in.

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon and transmissions coming from the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

There's a mountain of proof that they never went to the moon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599
 
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
Click to expand...

Why would Sir Patrick need access to Hubble?

What about the astronomers that don't rely on NASA data?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I know you pro-Apollo people are always going to make the last post no matter how unconvincing your arguments are.
Click to expand...

What a joke. Why in the world do you believe that the burden of proof is on "us" to prove the landings happened? Like it or not, the landings are historical FACT, and YOU are the one who needs to prove that fact wrong.

So stop trying to shift the burden of proof away from yourself...it makes you look like an amateur.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
According to Jarrah White...
Click to expand...

No one cares what this "kid" has to say...he is completely clueless, and if you allow him to do your "thinking" for you, then expect to be ridiculed for it.

Fact is, Jarrah is too cowardly to actually debate this topic...he "hides' behind his youtube videos.

Let him come here (or to the BAUT board) and actually put his "money where his mouth is"...but that will never happen because he knows he is wrong, and he is just a run of the mill coward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom