Astronauts Gone Wild: Getting To The Bottom Of The "Fakeness" Of The Moon Landing

Submitted by: monkwarrior 6 months ago in Science


How would you act if you were trying to convince people the moon landing was true? Would you publicly swear to it or publicly assault them and talk of assassinating them?

Bart Sibrel, an award-winning filmmaker, personally confronts eight Apollo astronauts with the newly discovered behind-the-scenes outtakes of fake photography which he presented for the first time to the entire world in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." When the filmmaker publicly exposed the astronaut's criminal behavior, he was threatened with violence by one astronaut, physically assaulted by two other astronauts, and threatened to be assassinated by another astronaut... all on camera!

There are 142 comments:
Male 4,953
Just ugh.

I'm glad Fancy used quotation marks around the word "Fakeness," as a way to let readers know we aren't all onboard with this stupidity. I think we also need quotation marks around "the astronauts' criminal behavior." In fact, if we're going to publish this kind of bunkum, maybe a disclaimer right up top would be the way to go: "Note: IAB does not ascribe to nor endorse the views presented here. They are presented only as a topic of discussion."
7
Reply
Male 569
Dude, you can't be serious.  Among the myriad other things that would preclude this from being faked, stated by pretty much everyone else in this thread already, I want to reiterate one: you think the Russians wouldn't have been all over this, looking for any way possible to discredit it, ffs.  If it really were fake, they'd have found it and very publicly exposed it. 
5
Reply
Male 79
I rarely comment, but I have to say that if you believe that the moon landing was fake, you are an anti-science moron. 
5
Reply
Male 5,476
eQuest When you talk about a huge portion of the population and generalize them to insult them in such a way (for example, a recent poll found 52% of Brits believe it was staged), rather than attempt to educate, you actually nullify your judgement.  In fact it tends to have people view you as you judged, however those who generalize the same way as you do will likely agree.
-4
Reply
Male 2,637
monkwarrior
Not surprisingly, young grasshopper, most that were skeptical were younger.

Also, according to your link, they found 64% don't believe dinosaurs existed, but 5% believe that dragons did.

You're welcome to throw in with that lot.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
jaysingrimm you're welcome to assert what you like to defend your fragile world view, but you can't expect others to accept your fallacies.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
5
Reply
Male 2,694
As some of you debate with logic and monkey boy continues to sidestep reality I'm reminded of a little pearl of wisdom passed to me by an old farmer I knew in my youth.  "Don't waste your time teaching a pig to sing boy."  "It just wastes your time and annoys the pig."
3
Reply
Male 74
dromed I know - it's just throughout the day another saying kept popping in my head "Don't feed the trolls". I know monkwarrior may not technically be a troll as he believes in what he posts (at least I think he believes it) but the adage I think still applies...

Sometimes I just get a hankering to do it though. 
2
Reply
Male 5,476
dromed That reminds me of a better quote i heard a while ago: "You know you've got nothing when you come out with an ad-hominem."  it was true back then, just as it is today.
-2
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior 'Sokay, Monk. As pigs go, you're kinda cute.

1
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever like i said, you got nothing, and now you know it :D
-2
Reply
Male 5,476
Anyway folks, the upcoming generation isn't going to really accept "what the tv tells us" anymore.  TV lies, NASA's lies, these have all been proven.  People want facts, so that means we need to start moving to the moon again for people to believe we went.  

20 years of ISS (supposedly) in LEO space living, not to mention the the supposed 'great feats' of the apollo missions going to the moon 45+ years ago, yep you've figured enough out about space travel to make the trip back to the moon again.  

But you want to go to mars you say, or prefer another war on earth to forget about going to the moon?

Well, no one is going to believe any upcoming mars missions unless we can first get a moon base, the most sensible, and logical step for the human race in regards to space travel.

Chop chop!
-2
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior The problem is that whatever happens you're going to claim it was faked. It doesn't matter whether we go back, you'll just say that was faked.

Take as an example the Chinese Chang moon missions. Photos from the moon's surface have debunked argument after argument that the conspiracy theorists tried to make. No blast crater? Lack of stars in photos? Areas of brightness outside the direct glare of the sun? Footprints that "proved" there was moisture in the dust? All of these have been shown in the Change photos (for 'footprints' read 'rover trails'). In other words, the central tenets of the moon hoax theories have been proven to be laughable nonsense propagated by people who just don't understand basic science.

So I suppose the Change missions were faked as well?
0
Reply
Male 2,637
DrCribbens
"Take as an example the Chinese Chang moon missions"

Are you surprised he's sidestepped this?
0
Reply
Female 407
jaysingrimm Well, he's sidestepped everything else. The guy's like a crab.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens Actually the problem is that you think you know me, what i'm going to do, or what i'm going to claim, when you really don't.  Also your ad-hominem and assertion that i don't understand basic science, when i do, is another problem you might need to address..
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Or, instead of hiding behind endless cries of 'ad-hominem' every time anybody mentions anything mildly derogatory about anybody, you could attempt to reply to my points and thereby prove that you do have a basic understanding of the science. Unless, of course, you don't have a reply.

Do you understand why there was no blast crater?
Do you understand why stars weren't visible in the photos?
Do you understand why areas you assume should be in shadow were actually illuminated?
Do you understand why the footprints remained when there was no moisture in the dust?

For that matter, I could go back to basics and ask whether you understand why the flag was 'waving'?

All of these points are trotted out by conspiracy theorists as evidence that the landings were faked, and yet all are answered by basic science. Therefore assuming that anyone who uses them is misunderstanding the basic science is, in my opinion, entirely justified. So. Do you understand it or do you regard all of these as evidence for fakery?
0
Reply
Male 2,637
DrCribbens
The modern 'conspiracy theorist' doesn't want to appear crazy, so they despise the term.

They'll propose their theory, then claim they don't necessarily believe it, just that it's possible, or that they're leaning towards that conclusion. They only want to appear open minded.

They'll often try to avoid explaining the "why" of their theories (eg. 9/11), because that's the part that's often the most absurd.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
jaysingrimm The modern troll doesn't like to be called a troll  They like to assert things about others despite the obvious facts and words people used, which reveals the toll to be a troll.  They often avoid admitting they are a troll because they like to think they're wise.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens My questions lie more along a rough line of what nasa releases, as they have proven to lie already.  There is reason to question it based on the evidence we have.

BTW: did you know the term 'conspiracy theorist' was coined after the death of JFK?  It's a propaganda 'war term' to ridicule and nullify opposing viewpoints, used heavily by the media today, and by association people who feed off its ideals.  I've found that the use of it increases, the closer the opposing viewpoint gets to revealing its propaganda for what it is.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Right. So that's a 'no' then. I thought so.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens actually there's plenty of evidence to question the validity of the landings, but i don't expect someone with such an assertive stance as yours to understand.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Well, I think 'evidence' is putting it strongly. There are assertions made by people who don't understand the science. I'm well aware of many of these assertions--I've looked into this in quite some depth--and I'm equally well aware that every single one of them I've ever come across is explainable in a way that absolutely fits with the facts of a moon landing. I've listed the more common ones in my post above, which I was really hoping you wouldn't be so determined to dodge, each of which is based on very basic misunderstandings.

You seem very keen to cry ad-hominem but when someone wants to discuss the facts with you, it seems you'd rather change the subject.

If you have any questions about the above points, or about any others, that are leading you to believe the landings were faked I'd be more than happy to explain them to you. Except in my experience of dealing with conspiracy theorists (and before you start shouting, this is an observation of many interactions, not an ad-hominem attack on you) the last thing they want is for someone to give them a clear explanation of the facts. Believing it was faked is so much more fun.

0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens i'm sorry, but i am not believing 'it was faked', but that the evidence put forth has put the 'achievement' into question. i have no theory, so you are mistaken in using your propaganda term 'conspiracy theorist' with me.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Monk, here's an idea: Why don't you actually discuss some science with DrCribbens? As opposed to going on about propaganda terms and ad hominem attacks and making dismissive remarks like "I wouldn't expect you to understand"?

Sheesh, you're the one who's raised a science-related topic here. So how about discussing the science?

Also: You've repeatedly stated that NASA has been "proven to lie." To what lie or lies are you referring?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever they've released pictures that are photoshopped.  For example, the 'earthrise' photo with the lunar surface at the bottom and the earth above the surface, when adjusted to view the darks, it can easily be seen the 'earth' was a square picture that was cropped in (you can see the square crop around the 'earth').  Also, nasa's 'official pictures of earth' continue to change, showing different sizes of continents. In fact, there's probably 6-10 official pictures of the earth, that when compared are completely different.

There's no point arguing.  People who insist we went will rely on the evidence i've already seen, ignoring the evidence that puts it into question.  Since the achievement is in question, there is only one thing they can do to resolve it:  Go back.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Which evidence puts it into question? I've asked you to discuss evidence and every time I do you change the subject. Gee, it's almost like you haven't got any evidence.

If you had any real knowledge or evidence you'd have posted it already. You've got nothing.

And yet you're surprised when people who make the film you've posted here get a smack in the face for calling someone a coward and a liar?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens Appealing to ignorance, when i've already pointed out a number of things throughout this post, still isn't going to make your assertions work. Granted, i imagine you think it's enough closure for you, but the evidence that throws the achievement into question still remains..
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior And once again you try to change the subject. 

You claim you have pointed out a number of things. You have pointed out precisely nothing. You have repeatedly claimed that there's evidence, but not once have you attempted to say what the evidence is. When prompted--and not just by me--you have repeatedly and consistently dodged the issue. You have refused to answer direct questions. The only conclusion that any sane reader could come to is that you don't actually have any evidence. Or, alternatively, you know that any evidence you have has already been debunked and will just be shown to be fake if you post it here. Otherwise you would've posted it.

Seriously. Just stop now. You've been found out. You're embarrassing yourself.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens why would i stop just because you think i'm embarrassing myself, when you are really too lazy to scroll down (or do a ctrl+f search for monkwarrior's posts) to where i did point out things that raise questions of the 'achievement'?  Do you want to keep ignoring that, and asserting i have not put forth anything to back up some things i've seen that raise a question?  

Any sane reader can see you are came out initially to ridicule and put words in my mouth, and then have me answer claims that i have never made.  If you want to assert your world view in the face of someone who is searching for answers, but are so offended someone is question it you have to stoop to ridicule, you're part of the problem not the solution.  If you are so sure everything is explainable then please look at the points i've presented and answer them directly.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior OK. I know I shouldn't. I know I should have the strength to just walk away, but I'll bite. I've searched every post you've made in this thread and this is the sum total of the "evidence" you have posted.

* TV and NASA tell lies. This is irrelevant. Even if NASA had faked the earthrise photo (which I'm not going to take your word for, but I've never looked into it) there's a whole world of difference between faking a photo and faking a moon landing. Using one as evidence of the other is like using evidence of a traffic violation to prove a murder.
* We've never been back. Squrlz has already addressed this at length.
* It could have been faked by a few people. PosisDas has addressed this. The idea that nobody out of the 400,000 people who worked on Apollo, and all the 3rd party people (which you can read about here) who monitored the moon shots, realised they were working on a fake project is, frankly, laughable.
* The astronauts have a "guilty demeanor". Oh, please. "We find the defendant guilty, your honour." "Why? There isn't any evidence!" "Well, he just looks a bit shifty, your honour."
* The only images of the Apollo landing sites are by NASA, who are liars. Not true. The Indian, Japanese and Chinese space programs have all photographed the Apollo equipment on the moon. Why would they all lie to support America? Are they all in on the conspiracy as well?
* It's questionable that Russia tracked the moon shots because "Russian officials want to investigate the validity of the moon landing claims." Not true. The man quoted in the article in the free newspaper The Metro (Vitaliy Egorov, which incidentally the newspaper spells incorrectly) isn't an "official". He isn't even (as the article claims) a scientist. According to his profile on the Planetary Society's website, he's a journalist and an "enthusiast". The engineer and programmer is Mikhail Svarichevsky, who's doing it as a hobby. Information which paints this particular clainm in a whole new light. (BTW you claim that it's actually Vladimir Markin, but the article you linked to doesn't mention him.)
* The "wires" helping the Apollo 16 astronaut up. This has been answered by megrendel. When I first saw this video, years ago now, I admit I was confused. It does look suspicious. However, if you pay close attention to the fallen astronaut's left arm, you can see that the standing astronaut is holding on to it with his right arm. This is how he levers himself up. Remember, it's 1/6th gravity. Also, dust doesn't need air in order to move.
* The "banned in America" video. This has been addressed at length by megrendel and it's not worth rehashing it here.

Nothing much, really, is it? Circumstantial at best, and nothing that hasn't been debunked.

So anyway, now I've addressed your evidence, do me the courtesy of addressing mine.

1. Why have the Indian, Japanese and Chinese space agencies all reported seeing the Apollo landing sites and the artefacts left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
2. Explain this.
3. How were 400,000 people kept in the dark?
4. There is a huge huge difference between bouncing lasers off the moon's surface and bouncing them off the retroreflectors that were left there by the Apollo astronauts. This proves the reflectors are there, and they're routinely used by agencies with no affiliation to NASA. Please explain how these reflectors got there.
5. Watch this video of a moon rover. Explain how the dust kicked up by the wheels is able to fall in that manner, without for example forming clouds of dust, if the rover wasn't driving around in a vacuum.
1
Reply
Male 5,476

  • That NASA lies is not irrelevant,  if someone is willing to fake a photo of an achievement, then that achievement is now in question (the photo was allegedly taken from the moon)
  • They haven't been back, but now that the achievement continues to grow in doubt, its really up to them to return.
  • It most certainly could have been faked by a few people in the know, with many people under them in a need-to-know basis, and various other means, that you think it is laughable and want to ignore it on your assertion is your choice though
  • To you a guilty demeanor may not mean anything (considering how hard you are pushing to assert the moon landing is fact it doesn't surprise me), however to many people who excel at reading body language (which just so happens to be our primary language), it reveals much, enough to raise question.
  • When i said the only images i actually meant clear images that we can see (LRO is the only one to have them). Have you looked at the Indian, Japanese, and Chinese photos of the "apollo landing sites"?  I have, and the Japanese and Indian photos don't show anything, China claimed it had seen something, but no images of it have been released.  They all claim to have seen the landing site, but no hardware or tracks are shown until NASA's LRO.
  • Regarding the soviets tracking it, its still questionable.
  • I've heard that too about the apollo astronaut being helped up, but 2 things.  When someone is holding their hand, why does their back go up first instead of their hand. Also if it is 1/6 gravity, why did that thing fall off his back at closer to 9.8m/s^2 rather than 1.6m/s^2, remember it's 1/6 gravity (also about the dust, nothing could blow it that way as both their feet were not causing it)

Now i will address your questions:
  1. (see above) they haven't seen the artifacts. Please feel free to disprove me with pictures that i may have missed that clearly show these artifacts.
  2. (see 1).
  3. (see above) short answer: lies and deception under the guise of "for all humankind" (history is full of this and if you have to ask how you are willfully ignoring facts).
  4. Those reflectors are actually covered quite well in this article: http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ApolloReflectors/ApolloReflectors.HTM  Also National Geographic did a report on the lasers bounce in 1966: http://www.americanmoon.org/NationalGeographic/  And in addition if it was so valuable why was the moon laser bouncing stopped in 2009?
  5. It can be easily explained with slowed down playback.

There are questions still that remain, and this is why the doubt over the achievement exists. I understand that you think it's circumstantial evidence at best, and it's nothing that hasnt been debunked.  But if you aren't open to questions and have solidified your world view that it is fact, even in face of the questions, you are simply putting your head in the sand to ignore them.  You freely admit there are things you haven't looked into, perhaps you should, with the intent to get concrete answer questions, rather than to quell your doubt regarding your world view on it?  Understand i used to be in your shoes for a long time, until the time grew, the questions started to grow, nasa's public releases started to show holes in its narrative.  Now i question.


0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior * A moot point. If anyone else is reading this they can decide whether allegedly faking a photo is evidence of perpetuating the world's greatest hoax over 50 years with 400,000 participants.
* It isn't "up to them" to do anything just to satisfy the allegations of the conspiracy theorists.
* You are underestimating the level of involvement of the 400,000. You seem to think they were just blindly following instructions by attaching bolt A to nut B without understanding the implications. Many many thousands of people, many of which were unafiliated with NASA (apart from being paid as contractors) contributed to the science of the mission. If they were attempting to do something that wasn't possible then someone, somewhere would have known. There's no avoiding it. Considering that this was supposedly the greatest and most complex hoax in history, I'm pretty sure one of them would have said "hang on, this will never work!"
* If a guilty demeanor had any meaningful contribution to anything it would be admissable in a court of law. It isn't. Because it can't be relied on to tell you anything with any reliable degree of accuracy.
* The Japanese photos, for example, while they don't show the actual equipment, show the results of the takeoff on the lunar regolith and also confirm the accuracy of photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts: https://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/. Are you going to claim that this isn't very strong evidence for the Apollo moon landings? You're correct that the Chinese haven't released the photos (yet) but the photos of their lander absolutely confirm that the central claims of the conspiracy theorists are based on fallacies.
* "Regarding the soviets tracking it, its still questionable." That's not an argument. That's an assumption. You linked a news article that made you doubt that the Russians had tracked the mission. I (and others) showed that the news article was meaningless. You continue to hold your belief that it's questionable the Russians tracked it, despite the evidence for that belief being removed. Why?
* "When someone is holding their hand, why does their back go up first instead of their hand." Because he's pushing down with his hand to lever himself back to his feet.
* "why did that thing fall off his back at closer to 9.8m/s^2" Have you measured it or are you assuming that?
* "about the dust, nothing could blow it that way as both their feet were not causing it" Their feet are clearly kicking it.

I have follow up questions about this. Imagine you're Stanley Kubrick and you're on the set filming the Apollo landing.
1. One of the actors in the space suit falls over. Do you a) Do a retake, or b) winch him up with wires and assume that nobody's going to be watching the film closely, so it'll be fine.
2. Some dust blows about in the wind. Do you a) Cut, reset the dust with a brush and go again b) wonder where that wind's coming from on an indoor soundstage or c) just leave it in; nobody will notice.
3. Why does the astronaut have wires attached anyway? Consiracy theorists have often contended that the motion of the astronauts on the moon was made by slowing the film down, not by using wires. From one of your answers to my questions you're in the camp that believe it's achieved by slowing the film down. So why the wires?

You didn't address the huge numnber of third parties (unconnected with NASA) that tracked the moon shots. Were all of these people in on the hoax as well?
Explain to me how slowing down the playback of the film makes clouds of dust disappear.

You seem to be under the impression that I just blindly follow my point of view and aren't open to questions. This is entirely untrue. I have looked into this matter in a huge amount of detail and I have found nothing that provides evidence of a hoax as long as you have a basic understanding of the science involved. I have communicated with many conspiracy theorists who have come to their conclusions because of how they assume things would happen on the moon - their experience on earth makes them think the lack of a blast crater, or lack of dust on the moon lander's feet etc etc is evidence of a hoax when, with a little knowledge, it becomes obvious that it's actually evidence that it wasn't a hoax.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
  • to you.
  • the achievement is in question, and more question it as every year passes.. so yes they need to go back to prove they did it now the evidence is in question for many non-indoctrinated people.
  • you are ignoring history, and the fact that during the cold war there were no doubt secrecy clauses with a lot of people.
  • just because you want to ignore guilty demeanor doesn't mean others must, nor does it mean it's to be ignored because of your false equivolocy.
  • there were no pictures, china could have easily faked it, they have known to be faking spacewalks
  • Tracking is still questionable..  While i agree they could have heard the transmissions and see the telemetry beamed back by the module, i don't agree they were tracking it all the way as the tools to track it weren't there.
  • Yeah you don't seem to understand physics in that respect, but i get you want to make your story to confirm your bias.
  • We have ways to measure the acceleration of an object in free fall, you can easily work it out on your own.
  • Then you need your eyes checked because the delay of the whisp indicates they aren't.  But i get you want to see what you want to see.

As for your 'movie questions' i have no answers because i'm not a movie maker, but i'm sure some others could come up with good answers if you google it.  Also I did address your point even though it wasn't to your liking, but there were points you didn't address too, (eg the reflector).  

But i see it's a complete waste of time to continue this with you, as you clearly are set in your ways and refuse to challenge your world view.  It's almost like, when you question what i question, you're trying to find find answers that confirm what you have been told is true even though you can't prove it was true in the first place (just repeating what you were told). I have many questions, some don't have answers, and i'm sorry i don't accept the stories you have told yourself to answer them, as i feel the answers are more assertive-based (from indoctrination) rather than fact-based (what can be observed).  Notice how you are playing defensive to defend your world view, and i am simply questioning.  

The only thing someone rational can say is this: "They say we went, but others have pointed out flaws and questions about the evidence presented to this achievement, that leave the feat in question for many.  The passage of time without a repeat of the feat, or even a manned outpost on the moon (for obvious scientific reasons (eg. most logical stepping stone to space from earth)) raises further question.  The only thing they can do to null these questions is to go back to prove they can do it and to get humankind on the first stepping stone."

And yes, i get people like yourself want to assert it was done, and accept the assertion it was done.  But like i said, people like myself are fact-based, and evidence exist that throw the achievement into question (even if you want to ignore or re-vision that evidence).
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior * The world record for the deepest dive in a submarine was set in 1960. We haven't been back. So was that a lie as well? Do we have to go back there to prove we did it in the first place?
* And you're ignoring common sense and human nature. 400,000 people couldn't keep that secret. And what secrecy clauses are you talking about? Ones you assume exist?
* It's interesting and indicative of your head in the sand approach that you deny the existence of photos that I've linked to in my post. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALA isn't going to make the facts go away.
* Again, you're making assumptions. The tools to track it were there. You can't just make stuff up and hope that people will believe you. The moon missions were tracked by lots of people, as detailed in the link I posted.
* I'm not sure what physics you claim I don't understand.
* I didn't ask whether or not it's measurable. Of course it's measurable. I asked whether you had measured it. Because you claimed that it was accelerated towards the moons surface at 9.8 m/s/s. I asked whether you had done the analysis of the film to prove this or whether, yet again, you were just making the assumption that 'yeah, I suppose, it sort of kinda looks like I'm right...'
* For the record, you didn't address my point about the 3rd party tracking of the moon shot, and you still haven't. (Apart from 'er... probably not...'
* [Edit: I forgot to address the reflector article again] The article you linked to is full of mistakes and/or misinformation and assumptions in order to persuade you of their point of view. I won't explain every single error here because it would take me a long time, but for a taster...
1. The astronomers don't need to 'sweep' the moon's surface with the laser beam in order to find the reflector. By the time the beam reaches the moon it's about 7km in diameter, and so part of it always hits the reflector.
2. As a further consequence of this, there is no need for the beam to 'follow' the moon as it moves along its orbit.
3. The page makes statements such as "I am convinced that, before the moon missions, NASA systematically swept the laser beam over the lunar surface to try to find the best reflective areas of the moon". In other words, he assumes it and has no evidence for this whatsoever.
4. Each pulse of laser beams contains about 300 quadrillion photons. There are many pulses fired at a time. About 1 in 30 million photons hits the reflector and is therefore reflected back to the astronomer. This is a much higher rate than the background level of reflection from the moon, and plotted on a graph shows as a huge spike. Strangely, the angelfire page doesn't show this graph, because it shows how easy it is to differentiate background reflection from the moon's surface and the reflection from the retroreflectors.
5. I could go on, but what's the point? In summary, it's bullshit and can be shown to be so with just the slightest bit of prior knowledge and/or a willingness to research the subject for a few minutes.

The rest of your latest post is yet more head in the sand comments. Have I not already explained that I haven't just accepted what people have told me and I've actually researched the subject? I'm pretty sure I've said it more than once. And your comments about indoctrination work both ways. I've seen many videos by the biggest names in hoaxdom lying about the evidence. The videos are full of them. No blast crater means it was a hoax. No dust on the landers' feet means it was a hoax. Light where there should be shadows means it was a hoax. Etc etc etc.

Let me be clear here: THESE CLAIMS ARE LIES and easy to prove to be lies and people all over the world watch these videos and assume that they're facts and it informs their opinions. So perhaps I'm not the only one who could be accused of being indoctrinated.

The fact remains that there are lots of videos of the moon landings showing things that would have been impossible to recreate on earth unless the studio had all the air pumped out of it first. Explain this. How would this be possible in a studio on earth?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens yes, as i said it was a waste of time, as you are set in your way.  To you, it is a fact that you don't question, even though you cannot prove it on your own, and if any question arises you try to bring it into the publicly accepted narrative, or assert it even though you cannot prove either.  It seems you are well versed on how to act on those who raise question to that narrative, so no doubt you would fear going against it.

However, not everyone is like this.  The evidence that raises questions of the achievement still persist, have not satisfactorily been explained, or raise more questions of other things that were presented. So naturally, people will question the achievement, and some will take the position opposite of your assertion that the landing was true: that the landing was faked.

But not all of them who question are like this.  Many people view our progress into space as our next step, and have looked into the 'achievement' very very closely, and subsequent releases by similar agencies, and saw there is enough to question, and raise suspicion.  The achievement itself has not continued, and even nasa is now confusing us for example.   

I prefer to follow what can be proven, and neither side has proven it to me, that we went or not. But one thing for certain is these questions can be erased for me and many others if we begin to colonise the moon.  As every year passes without it, only more will question it, and there is nothing you can do about that, it's human nature.

Oh by the way, notice how slow that hammer/feather fell in the video you posted, compared to the item in the previous video i posted?  Aren't you questioning yet?  If not you might still be indoctrinated.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior I think this really is going to be my last post here as you obviously can't understand what I'm writing. Despite explaining to you very clearly on more than one occasion that I have questioned the facts and researched the subject thoroughly before reaching my conclusion, you continue to labour under the misguided assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is indoctrinated and incapable of questioning the evidence. Because you don't have an answer to what I'm saying you fall back on the idea that I must be indoctrinated because I disagree with you.

I have questioned the evidence deeply and spent a lot of time on it, aided by a background in physics, and yet I have never seen any piece of hoax "evidence" that wasn't wrong, deliberate misinformation or downright lies. I have explained how the links you have posted here, for example about the retroreflectors, is factually inaccurate. (Although you could've found that out yourself with 5 minutes' worth of independent Googling instead of just accepting what you were told.)

You have failed to address any of the evidence I've put forward, relying instead on consistently changing the subject, making groundless assumptions on what you expect to be the truth, or relying on unreliable things like body language.

I give up. Carry on watching your YouTube videos on how the flag was waving in a breeze and let the charlatans keep you convinced. Until SpaceX takes tourists around the moon, of course. I'll be interested to see whether your point of view changes then.

And while this is my last post here it would be unfair of me to accuse you of failing to answer my points if I didn't answer your last attempt with the NASA Van Allen video. So, just so you can ignore it...

The little popups that the poster adds to the video as it goes along unfortunately just highlight that this was posted by yet another conspiracy theorist not understanding the science and making judgements based on what he or she assumes to be the case. One question he asks is why NASA has to test a new type of spacecraft because the old one worked. FFS. Really? Is that an intelligent question from an informed source? Or just some idiot who doesn't understand how the world works?

He says for instance that the Apollo spacecraft was unshielded against the Van Allen belts. This is factually inaccurate and I imagine can be checked by 5 minutes on Google. Try it. However, if research isn't your thing, I can tell you that the Apollo spacecraft were shielded. The radiation in the VA belts consists of protons, which were absorbed by the aluminium and steel hull and heat shield of the spacecraft, and electrons, which were absorbed by the insulation material in the spacecraft hull. In addition, the Apollo spacecraft avoided the parts of the VA belts with the strongest radiation. Despite all this, there wasn't 100% protection against the radiation. Luckily, because the effects of radiation are cumulative and the astronauts only spent about 5 hours of their trip (combined outward and return) they would have received a safe dose.

In summary, the Youtube video is yet more bullshit and you would've known that if you cared enough to find out for yourself instead of waiting to be spoonfed. You need to be more critical of the information that's given to you. Instead of just accepting whatever you get told, research it. Before posting videos like that as evidence, find out for yourself whether the Apollo spacecraft were shielded. You'll save yourself some embarrassment. And if you don't want to do that I can provide links to some great videos that provide absolute proof that the earth is flat.

I'm done.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens I can understand exactly what you're writing.  Sadly, right from the gate, and until your last post you continued to assume and ridicule.  So it's no wonder you went off on a tangent assuming and ridiculing about that van allen video i posted, when my point for posting it was that nasa continues to confuse.  My point of view is nimble, based on what can be proven, and can change as more information arises.  Too bad you  don't want to spend that effort focusing on the speed of the fall in your hammer and feather drop video, compared to the speed of the piece that fell off their suit in the video i posted previously. 

In case you lost the links here is the link for the questionable physics pulling up, and when the item falls off:  https://youtu.be/Pqi5ckFr1Ow?t=96

Here is your video at the moment the hammer and feather are dropped: https://youtu.be/KDp1tiUsZw8?t=59

You can see the hammer and feather fall much slower, and don't cover nearly the same distance compared to the distance travelled in the first video where the item falls off.

One other thing you may want to look at (assuming you are still open to questions and i'm wrong and you're not set in your way), is why, on the moon devoid of atmosphere, can we hear them hammering? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij5fdMgj36A  There is no medium for sound to travel in, so how do you explain that?  Will you take the irrational 'it went through the suit/their body', assertions people who don't like to question take?
0
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Monk, as a suggestion, why don't you cut and paste here what you think is your strongest single piece of evidence and let DrCribbens take a crack at it? For the most part, she's been polite in repeatedly asking for you to offer something up. So please do her the courtesy of obliging her request. I mean, in submitting this post, you were essentially calling on people to discuss the topic and that's what she wants to do.

Also, credit where credit is due: This post of yours has garnered 127 comments (and counting), which is remarkable. Clearly, you've got everyone's interest.
0
Reply
Female 407
squrlz4ever Thanks squrlz, but I think we both know by now that he isn't going to paste anything.

I think these posts have shown him and his claims up for what they really are. There's nothing else to say. I'm done.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens you were done with your first post.  You couldn't contain your ridicule, indicating your indoctrination without question to this 'achievement', despite the evidence that leads people less prone to patriotic propaganda to question it.

perhaps next time you want to have a discussion you might want to tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the get go.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
DrCribbens You're welcome. It was an interesting thread while it lasted.

I have to say the thing I find most significant, and most alarming, about all this is that monkwarrior is not alone in his views. You and I might like to think he's a one-off, but poll after poll, and anecdotal evidence, too, show that there's an entire generation growing up that is building its understanding of reality based on fringe YouTube videos and Reddit.

In some ways, the decentralization of knowledge brought about by the internet has been a great thing. In other ways, it's been a giant step backward.
0
Reply
Male 215
Fancylad I asked once before and didn't receive a response (shocking) so I'm asking again: For the life of me I cannot find an Account-Delete option on this broken site. DELETE MY ACCOUNT, I don't want to be associated with material like this. DELETE. MY. ACCOUNT.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
AgamemnonTheGreat ~sigh~ Well, Agamemnon, I'm afraid IAB is a bit like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. ~Squrlz performs an awesome air guitar solo~
2
Reply
Male 6,158
AgamemnonTheGreat t Please do not over react to posts like this. They are not the norm Monk is a conspiracy theorist and often his thinking is a bit out there
1
Reply
Male 5,476
thezigrat Oh really now, mister "i come from outer space"?
-1
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Well... I must admit, Monk. That was a really good rejoinder.
0
Reply
Male 6,158
monkwarrior It's a great place you really ought to see it
0
Reply
Male 5,476
thezigrat Too bad such a 'view' had no effect on your need to ridicule and insult.
-2
Reply
Male 555
AgamemnonTheGreat click the little down arrow to the right of your name on the top left corner of the page.  Click "your profile".  Click the edit button above and to the right of the oversized avatar and your name.  Change /Everything/ in all the fields to complete lies.  Change your passwords to an random string of numbers and letters, and don't write it down.  Don't let your browser remember your password.   Congrats, the only thing that is potentially related to any of your other accounts is the user name.  And if you are anything like me, there are many, many other people out there using similar names.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
AgamemnonTheGreat Now now, let's not overreact too much here.  Honestly.  Sure 747pilot aka monkwarrior is nuts he posted conspiracy theory nonsense but then again he's also a 911 truther as well so. 
1
Reply
Male 5,476
normalfreak2 no point letting your fear of fact lead you to assert something that is not true, but that you want so desperately to be true.  The facts lead people to question the moon landing.  But it is nothing short of blind faith to believe that everything the TV told you about the moon landing was true, especially when the facts paint a different story.  But i understand its important for you to express your patriotism by defending the history of your nation, even in the face of the growing facts of it's continual deceptive practices.  Fanatical Germans did the same under Hitler.
-3
Reply
Male 7,943
monkwarrior You are funny and not funny "haha" funny "uh oh"
2
Reply
Male 5,476
normalfreak2 funny, i thought it was quite funny to wedge you into a position of no escape from your irrationality.  I can see why you wouldn't find it funny though.
-1
Reply
Male 83
AgamemnonTheGreat Please put me on that list too.  
0
Reply
Male 1,347
Some long time back in the IAB dark ages I posted this response to the fake moon crowd. My Dad was the head of data operations at Cape Kennedy for Grumman Aerospace who build the Lunar Module, LM. We moved to Florida in '66 and Dad was one of about 350 folks that kept there jobs after NASA cancelled the Apollo project after Apollo 17. I have seen them build the LM in Bethpage NY. I have seen them tested in the MSOB, Manned Space Flight Operations Building and the site of the planets largest clean room. I have stood in the stands and basically had my bowels liquefied by the Saturn 5 taking off. I have met personally 8 of the men that walked on the moon. I liked the response below about if we didn't go how are we shining lasers at mirrors there. Here's a link to pictures take by the LRO: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html. You can google some others.
So yes we went. I was around for the party and we need to get back into space again. It's really our only hope for the future of mankind since we've shit so much in this nest we call Earth.
6
Reply
Male 4,953
0
Reply
Male 5,028
"...an award-winning filmmaker"

That is quite a stretch to legitimize his work. He won a couple amateur film awards. Awards that are so "prestigious" they aren't even listed on IMDB. But then again his whole gig is quite a stretch so I guess making this statement is fitting.
1
Reply
Male 3,497
I think the moon landing was real.

I am open to the notion that it was fake, but i'm skeptical of those theories.

Either way, I don't think its a thing I would argue with people over, i simply don't have the energy to bother trying to change other people's views on the moonlanding.

Michael Stipe of REM said it best "Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy" (from the slackers movie"
2
Reply
Male 1,746
daegog I take the same approach with the origin of life. It could have been the Big Bang. It could have been some God *zapping* us into existence and then altering the laws of physics to bring us where we are today. Whichever way sounds great, and works for some people better than others.

I care more about what we can and will do in the future than what we may or may not have done in the past during times when records weren't as well-kept as they are today.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
daegog You're right - it's not worth arguing over any more than it's worth arguing with a "flat-earther". Let the ignorant go on with their ignorance, because you're not going to change it anyway, and go on with your life.
1
Reply
Male 44
The Moon landing was real.  We pulled it off multiple times and it was incredibly dangerous every time.  We left a reflective device on the moon used to accurately measure the distance from the moon to the earth.  There is more proof out there that it is real if you just look for it.   A lot of people died to get us there.  It was a cold war race.  It was driven politically to show how smart as a country we where.  If we didn't make it, Russia would have exposed the fraud.  There are a lot better conspiracy theory's out there, some of them I buy into.  That reminds me I need a new tin foil hat.  :)
4
Reply
Male 555
Paraphrasing a book I read recently:

The optimal number of conspirators is 2.  1 person isn't a conspiracy, just a guy (or girl) acting suspicious for no apparent reason.  Each additional person over 2 is an increased opportunity for someone to notice one of the conspirators acting oddly.  Then they must be be decieved/eliminated, or brought in on the conspiracy.  Which then increases the number of opportunities for people to notice the conspiracy.

In short, faking the moon landing is just too damn big.  You would have many people that were in on it directly speaking about their part in it.  You would have rocket scientists explaining how the nozzles on the rockets were the wrong size/shape.

It would be easier to fly a mission to the moon then to fake it.
3
Reply
Male 406
muert No and yes: Greater conspiracies than a fake landing on he moon have been uncovered, but if you were to properly fake a landing on the moon, you could as well send some astronauts, too.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
7eggert You wrote: "Greater conspiracies than a fake landing on the Moon have been uncovered...." Such as? I can think of some big ones (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for one), but nothing that would be as big as a fake Moon landing.
1
Reply
Male 406
squrlz4ever Just one current example: Nasa: About 17000 people, 18 billion $ annually. VW: 626.715 people, about 194 billion $ annually.

(The IAB forum does only work in the seldom used browser)

0
Reply
Male 5,476
muert Faking the moon landing could have been easily done by a few people in the know, making sure all of the people under them were on a 'need to know basis' as they did their work.  

It's looking like the assertion of that book has been challenged over the last 50 years, as it seems it was likely easier to fake the mission to the moon than actually make it.
-4
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior So you're saying THOUSANDS of manufacturers, engineers, scientists...  generally some of the absolute smartest people on the planet were ALL duped? The people who actually PUT TOGETHER the rocket, lander, command module, and return vehicle where actually making what?

That the hundreds or thousands of people who actually watched the Saturn V rocket take off with their own eyes, were being tricked? How?

That the Soviet Union, who was basically at WAR with the United States (though no shooting directly at each other, hence "cold" war) - who had the capability to track our rockets and spaceships...  just decided to let the United States win the space race? Why would they do that?

That Australia which first received the transmissions from the DIRECTION OF THE MOON after the landing and relayed them to the rest of the world...  somehow got that very specific signal, from a very specific direction by some other means. Where did the signal come from?

There are so many holes in the the concept of faking a moon landing. Yes, I have heard of each one against a landing (or at least a lot of them) and I actually LOOKED for the answer and found everything from the camera lenses, to the signals, to the engineering, to you just can't fake the look of moving around in a place with 1/6 the gravity of earth - ESPECIALLY with 1960's technology. Maybe today you could fake the look of bouncing astronauts in a lower gravity environment but that itself would require dozens to hundreds of people working the camera, lights, sound, and computer animations to make it all look correct.
3
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas There's only holes in the concept of faking a moon landing because you want it to be true and are using your confirmation bias to assert it.  I'm sorry, but if you studied the evidence unbiased there is only one conclusion you can come to:  "They say they went to the moon, but there is evidence they didn't, so i have to remain undecided until further information arises, or until i A) set foot on the moon myself or B)see with my own eyes through a telescope a moon base we put up there"

Great fallacious assertions though, i can see you think you're a heavyweight arguer, but trust me, you're not.
-3
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior He is a "heavyweight arguer" (or, to use a better phrase, an adept debater). Your failure to appreciate that, Monk, doesn't make it not so.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever sorry young grasshopper, but when you come out the gate putting words in other's mouths, with multiple assertions which are questionable and some found false, you know you are not dealing with an adept debater.
-1
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Hmmm. I think you lost the right to criticize others for making questionable assertions when you opened one of your comments with, "Faking the Moon landings could have been easily done by a few people in the know...."
1
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever actually that right would have been lost if i had said:
"Faking the Moon landings was easily done by a few people in the know...."
instead of :
"Faking the Moon landings could have been easily done by a few people in the know...."
I know where i stand on this issue
-1
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Still doing the slippery, slippery eel routine, I see. ~sigh~ Regardless: Both statements are not only questionable assertions, they border on the ridiculous.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever  not at all, the wording is quite clear, the only reason you think it's a 'slippery eel routine' is because you haven't paid close attention to the words that were used.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior Well, you're probably right about that. I arrived late to this party and have only now been catching up. So lemme get this straight: Your position is that you don't have a position on whether or not the Moon landings were faked? In other words, you think it's up for debate?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever My stance is i dont know if we went to the moon or not, they say we went and i used to believe we did, but reasonable evidence continues to arise pointing to that we didn't, along with these astronauts' combined guilty demeanor.  This, combined with the incrementing years since we last went to the moon (assuming we went at all), the (now) lower-cost of return, and knowledge of the the benefit of using the moon as a stepping stone into space being ignored, really makes people wonder. 

As more time passes without a moon return, more will continue to question if we even went or not.  Because this is the first time in human history where explorers and inventors went to or found new things (the moon), and never went back or furthered their hands on knowledge of it in 50 years.    50 years after the airplane was made, airplanes were everywhere, same with sailing the ocean, creating machines, cars, solar panels, transistors, telephones, LCD, Computers.  All of them exploded in 50 years after their initial finding (some even more so than others).  But moon landing?  *crickets chip*
0
Reply
Male 4,953
monkwarrior These are all reasonable points you've just made in this last comment. I'll take a crack at addressing them, if you're game.

You are correct in identifying this odd state of affairs with regards to the Moon: If we went there (I, of course, think we did), why did we leave and haven't returned in 45 years? The answer, I'd posit, is that it was really irrational to go there when we did. There was no compelling reason to go to the Moon in the 1960s: It was a tremendously expensive project, it was at the very limits of our technological abilities, and we had little, in a practical way, to gain from the endeavor. There was no reason to believe the hills of the Moon were filled with gold, for example.

The whole project was a product of the peculiar circumstances of the time: You had two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, who were both itching to demonstrate on the global stage that they were superior to their rival. In the modern era, that meant superior in terms of scientific and technological achievement, and preferably something to do with rockets. The United States had come out of the Second World War relatively unscathed and now dominated the globe in terms of business. We had a burgeoning middle class, and the money was available. JFK made the call in 1961 and it was off to the races.

Once we'd made it to the Moon--and returned eight times to show that it wasn't a fluke--the Space Race, as it was dubbed, was over. The United Stated had won and the world's interest in the endeavor quickly waned. As we entered the 1970s, the nation's focus shifted. JFK--the original visionary for the Moon landings--had been assassinated. Johnson and Nixon had priorities closer to home, such as the Vietnam War. Soon, NASA's budget was cut and the Moon was abandoned in favor or nearer-to-Earth space projects, such as the space shuttle program.

Had gold been discovered in the lunar hills, or some new element that provided abundant, cheap energy, the trips to the Moon, no doubt, would have continued. But after nine trips, it was determined that sampling more lunar rocks, for example, just didn't justify the risks and expense.

There are precedents for this human behavior of going someplace very far and not returning for a long time. The Vikings had a few small settlements in Newfoundland for hundreds of years, which they eventually abandoned. It was a long voyage between Scandinavia and North America and apparently it was felt that whatever benefits Newfoundland had weren't worth the trip. It would be at least 300 years before Europeans returned to the New World, in the guise of Christopher Columbus.

As far as the behavior of the astronauts in this film of yours goes, I see no traces of guilt in their behavior whatsoever. The astronauts were the hotshots of their day--former fighter pilots and test pilots. What in blue blazes did this filmmaker think would happen when he confronted them as he did on camera? You don't get into the face of a former fighter pilot of that generation and declare "You're a coward and a liar!" unless you're looking to get punched in the face. These men risked their lives for the Apollo program. Many of them were friends with or at least knew those astronauts who died in the effort. I found the filmmaker's behavior reprehensible, frankly.

As far as the proofs you've been offering that the Moon landings were faked, I haven't seen anything yet that isn't easily explained. For example, the footage you linked to, where the movements of the astronauts on the lunar surface is scrutinized (I won't dignify it by using the word analyzed because it doesn't rise to that level): The clip makes a big deal about one astronaut rising off the lunar surface unassisted and claims he's being pulled upright by wires. Ludicrous. I'll admit it looked odd and took me a few viewings to discern what was going on. If you watch carefully, you'll see that the astronaut on the right is lifting the fallen astronaut up off the surface. His right arm, which is obscured, is grasping the fallen astronaut's left arm and pulling him up. Because of the positions of the two figures, both arms are hard to make out, but if you look, it becomes obvious that that's the case.

You asked Grendel about what you thought was a wisp of wind blowing some lunar dust dislodged by one of the rising astronaut's boots. In fact, what you spotted is more evidence supporting the lunar landings. That's not a wisp of wind you're observing: that's the behavior of lunar dust in an environment devoid of an atmosphere that could slow the particles down. Dust moves differently in the vacuum of space and when subjected to the Moon's low gravity and the video does a great job recording the phenomenon. At least one study has been done on the behavior of lunar dust in the Apollo footage that confirms the video was shot on the Moon. You can learn something about the study in this video by the YouTube channel Vintage Space.

Hope this helps.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever I get your position, i really do, i've heard it so many times.  It's the position i came from.  However there are far too many unanswered questions about it all, and too many telling signs to the keen-eyed to make them wonder.  This combined with the fact that NASA has found to be lying, i'm left to take the position of the town that a boy who cried "wolf!" to: no one can believe a liar, even when they tell the truth.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
1
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 http://i.imgur.com/IknVO3T.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IknVO3T.jpg
-2
Reply
Male 6,158
monkwarrior Are you sure you are not confusing reality with the movie Capricorn One. It happens all the time. People think the Oman exists, or Pazuzu, or Fear the Blair Witch. Just continue to see your doctor and take your anti-psychotic meds as directed and soon these beliefs will go away
0
Reply
Male 5,476
thezigrat I didn't watch the movie, but please continue your ad-hominems, i love to see people lose arguments with them, much less typing for me to do.
-1
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior And yet you didn't answer a single one of my questions. Just waved your hand, saying everything I said was a "fallacious assertion" and made no attempt to explain.

All "evidence" I've seen that the landing was a fake has been shown to be assertions made by those who actually don't know what they are talking about. Yet you take everything they say as gospel while the actual scientists and engineers who actually working on the space programs are all liars and/or incredibly stupid. Same type of mindset that thinks we faked the moon landing is the same that thinks the earth is flat.

While we did not put a base on the moon, we have left a lot back there. Including the lower part of landing modules, footprints, tire tracks, and even reflective mirrors that HAD to be placed by hand. I have seen pictures on the web of some of the landing sites. I'm sure you will say they are faked... by shadowing people for unknown shadowy reasons. If you need to look through a telescope to see the evidence for yourself, FIND ONE TO LOOK THROUGH. Seriously.

Those reflective mirrors are used to this day by scientists. How do you explain shooting a laser at an exact spot on the moon sends a return laser signal but no where else? 
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas you have to accept that when you make fallacious assertions.  Thanks for using ad-hominem claiming i take anything people talk against the moon landing as gospel, when i actually don't and deal with facts like the video supposedly filmed by the apollo 11 crew en route to the moon (go see it i posted it in a reply below). 

Oh if you want to bring up the 'telescope' argument, be sure to check out this thread between whosadwhat and myself here, before you get too deep into that territory.  But in short, I'd love to find a telescope to look through to see all this fine machinery you haven't seen there through a telescope here on earth (but assert is there).

Also about those 'reflective mirrors'  they were bouncing laser beams off the moon long before they sent a rocket to the moon.

Seriously man, you're a light weight i can tell.
-3
Reply
56
monkwarrior Seriously, you are claiming that the laser pulse reflected from one of the mirrors is no different from from one of the earlier ones that reflected from the lunar surface?  If you're going to make such assertions, maybe some references to back that claim up?  

And no, saying "You give me a reference first!", is not a valid answer.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
stevopusser Are you denying they were bouncing laser beams off the moon long before they sent a rocket to the moon?
-1
Reply
56
monkwarrior That's not what I said; don't you go putting words into my mouth to change the question--sure sign of a dishonest debater!

 I asked if you claim there is no difference between what's returned to Earth from a laser pulse off the lunar regolith versus what we get returned from one of the reflectors--don't dodge the question this time.  I already know the answer; perhaps you do also, based on how you squirmed away from answering.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
stevopusser I'm glad you picked that up as a sure sign of a 'dishonest debater' because i picked it up when you said it:

you are claiming that the laser pulse reflected from one of the mirrors is no different from from one of the earlier onesthat reflected from the lunar surface?

You actually put words in my mouth.

However i asked if you were denying what i said.
0
Reply
56
monkwarrior OK--let's go back to the start and avoid your diversionary tactics:  my point, which you seem determined to avoid, is that there is a very big difference between a pulse reflected from the lunar regolith and one of the mirrors.  Can your conspiracy theory account for this?

And what would you accept as proof that the moon landings actually occurred? 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
stevopusser i don't have a theory, simply questions i am searching for answers to. 

The current evidence is in question, based on a number of reasonable factors, and the achievement has raised doubt.  So to fix that they would need to prove they can do it again under the watch of the modern eyes (and also un-cut live-streamed for independent comparison).  Land on the moon and unfold a huge blanket of LED's and send a message to earth.  Then i might be able to re-evaluate the evidence we currently have in a light that may seem more favorable to you.
0
Reply
56
monkwarrior 
And so you don't have any answer to the fact that we are getting a distinct mirror reflection from the apparatus set up by the astronauts.  You simply again ignored the question and tried another diversion.  Somehow I am not surprised.  

If they put a huge visible LED sign on the Moon, the conspiracy nuts would simply say that it was actually just a hologram beamed from HARP onto the ionosphere.  Or we just had robots put the sign there. Anybody with a little actual scientific knowledge can easily make up more entertaining and plausible garbage then they can.

What will the landing deniers do in the next few years when the private moon orbiters show the landing sites--claim that they are all part of the cover up, too? Of course they will.  There's nothing that can be done to argue logically with crazy.
0
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior I never claimed to be a great debater - just had a few questions for you. I'll take back saying you take all the conspiracy as gospel, I apologize if you found it insulting. But I do find it interesting and revealing in the same post you say I'm using an ad hominem attack against you, the final line has nothing to do with the argument at hand but a comment directed at me saying I am a light weight.

I did about 5 minutes of research and due to optics, we cannot see something as small as what was left on the mood from the earth. The images I saw were from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

Though you still have not answered any of my original questions.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas exactly, the only images people see are NASA's LRO.  Your original questions are too fallacious to waste time going in more depth than this: People were on a need-to know basis at NASA, meaning one team didn't know what the other did, someone at the top likely knew it all though (Maybe that's why Gus Grissom was killed after hanging a lemon on the NASA logo earlier that day - specualtion i know).  People saw rockets taking off, but they didn't see them fly all the way to the moon.  About the cold war 'tracking', that's questionable because Russian officials have said, not 6 months ago, that they want to investigate the validity of the moon landing claims.  Heck, even the moon rock Buzz and Neil gave to Holland turned out to be fake.  
-2
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior "So I thought guys, let’s just fly there and have a look. The flag isn’t going anywhere. Let’s stop wasting time on the internet and have a look ourselves."

It is not Russian officials who are questioning whether the US landed on the moon or not. 1.5 years ago, space blogger & enthusiast Vitaly Egorov (think the Russian version of Phil Plait) said he was tired of the debates that weren't going anywhere (like this one on this thread) and wanted to send a micro-satellite to take pictures of the landing sites. He believes the landings did happen and basically just wants to shut up the hoaxers once and for all. Which is kind of cute as they would say his pictures were faked too. 
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas It's actually Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Russian government's Investigative Committee, who says he wants an inquiry after the video from 1969 and a piece of lunar rock, which was brought back to earth, went missing.  They want to send a micro-satellite to see whats up there on the moon.  

You are trying hard to assert your point, but you are not succeeding.  I'm not for or against a hoax, but i will admit i lean towards it being a hoax every year as more evidence is exposed to point to it as a hoax.  My stance is simply that there is enough evidence to question the validity of the moon landing and therefore puts the entire thing into question.  That the nation who supposedly sent men to the moon is known/proven to be deceptive doesn't help their case either.
-1
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior “We are not contending that they did not fly (to the moon), and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific – or perhaps cultural – artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened.” – Vladimir Markin

You mean the Vladimir Markin that wasn't calling for an investigation on whether it happened - but calling for an investigation on the disappearance of some of the artifacts from the moon landings?
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas Exactly, they want to send a micro-satellite to see whats up there on the moon for the sake of historical clarity.  No point carrying a lie into the future whether it was a hoax or not.
-1
Reply
Male 3,447
Why do you persist in believing that one of man-kinds greatest achievements is a lame ass hoax?  We did it, it was amazing, these men are heroes.  Go home...
2
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 because there is evidence leading people to believe we didn't, and that lies were told.  You can assert we went, but evidence that we didn't still persists.  Perhaps they should have put a moon base on the moon?
-3
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior No such evidence exists.  Just your wild fantasies that because you can't believe it, it did not happen. 

The evidence, in it's entirety, proves we did, indeed, land on the moon.  Had we attempted to fake it, it would have easily been exposed within weeks, if not days.

The only 'evidence' that proves otherwise is proposed by, and believed by, ignorant people with little to no knowledge of math, science, physics and photography. 
3
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel here is plenty of evidence against the landings, that you dismiss by ad-hominems, when in fact people with a vast knowledge of maths, sciences, physics, and photography are providing the evidence that you want to ignore.
-4
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior here is plenty of evidence against the landings

Correction: You are presenting plenty of bullshit that ignorant people consider 'evidence'.  That does not make it so. 

All such claims are either disproven by actual facts or so outlandish to receive a facepalm due to the simple fact that all actual evidence proves the moon landings. 

Pick any claim supporting the hoax theory, and there will be plenty of evidence and fact to blow it out of the water. 

Go ahead.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel The point is there are many valid questions about the supposed moon landing, that here in the information age, are really throwing a wedge in the claims that we landed on the moon.  For me personally there are too many questions to claim we did, especially in the face of the evidence against the landings.
-1
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel In addition to the above video i've thought of a 3rd question.  at 1:24, when he tries to stand up, why is there a whip of wind taking the moon dust away from his foot at an accelerated rate when that shouldn't have happened on the moon with no atmosphere?
-1
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel Next i'd like you to look at this video shot (supposedly) from the lunar surface:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqi5ckFr1Ow

Pay specific attention to what is happening after the 1:00 mark (to the end).  I have two questions:
1> how is it physically possible for the astronaut to be helped up that way.
2>About the object that fell from the astronaut, how is it possible for that object to fall at a rate similar to earth (closer to 9.8m/s^2 rather than 1.6m/s^2)?
-1
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior 1)  While it looks awkward, take into account that they are in 1/6th Gravity and he has a high-center of gravity due to the life-support backpack.  At 1:25 you will see that the downed astronaut uses his left hand to grab the right hand of the standing astronaut and uses his assistance to get up.

2) I'd have to do a frame by frame to get the actual speed, but it seems less than 9.8m/s^2. It does seem more than 1.6m/s^2, but that could be accounted for by the fact that it didn't 'drop', it was propelled out of it's pocket when he hit the ground. 

3) At 1:24, there is no wind.  He kicked the ground, and the regolith.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel Correction: what you claim is bs is simply your confirmation bias working to deny facts.  I'll gladly show you a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Hmjklmy6o
Check it out.  Here is what is claimed by the astronauts:
1: the camera is right up by the window
2: we are seeing the earth from space en route to the moon.
oh what's that at 7:20?  is something coming between the spacecraft and the earth?  
oh, what's that at 7:57? a UFO? 
oh, what's that at 8:15? something else comes between the spacecraft and earth?
OH NO at 8:25 it shows it was all filmed in the cabin!!!

Looks like you have your work cut out for you, a lie was told.  Blow it out of the water, go on.
-2
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior The video tries to prove Armstrong was lying because he agreed with the ship's logs?  At no time do they say 'the camera is right up by the window' or 'to the window's glass'.  His exact words were 'We only have one window that has a view of the Earth, and it's filled up with the TV camera."   You can tell by how the camera moves that it is not within the confines of the window, but it doesn't have to be block other's view out. So there is room for something to occlude the lens (7:20).  At 7:57? You mean there might be lights in the capsule? WOW! (notice the camera had been pulled back from the window).   At 8:15, something comes between camera and window.

It's rather obvious that the camera is being moved about the craft.  Imagine that. 

The Manned Spacecraft center disclaim was stating that THIS REPORT of footage compiled during the mission was not for general public distribution. Not that the footage itself had never been seen.  She claims it's 'raw unedited footage'.  Well, yes it is. But that's because that's the way it was shot when they were doing it.

This video is proof of nothing.  Just a lot of "I'm telling you it's this way so any difference on the video is proof of tampering."

But, anyone can post links to easily debunked videos. Hell, I can show you a video that proves a man on his horse travels the universe.

I want to hear an argument from YOU. Prove you're capable of independent thought.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
megrendel The transcript is viewable here. I did paraphrase, and you are right that he said "We only have one window that has a view of the Earth, and it's filled up with the TV camera."  But there is no difference in the meaning of 'the camera is right up by the window' as i stated, and that widow was "Filled up with the TV camera" as Armstrong stated. He then goes on to move the camera back "That's correct. We're moving it back and reconfiguring for interior lighting."

However the image of the earth remains the same.  Instead of the port cutting off the earth as you would expect when someone backs the camera away from the window, the earth remains the same when the camera was filling up the window, as seen just when it was moved away to reconfigure for interior lighting. Meaning that it was very likely that the camera never filled up that port at all, we are looking at a fake image, Armstrong was lying, a hoax is being voiced, or all of the above. This is evidence enough to throw this footage into question, and also the trip to the moon.  Though people set in their ways like yourself will likely insist it's legit despite the questions it raises.  
If they genuinely went to the moon why would they be faking any part of it? Why this trickery with the window?

Also i've proven i'm capable of independent thought many times.  Just as you have proven you are capable of group-think here by asserting something doesn't raise question, when in fact it does.

-1
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior But there is no difference in the meaning of 'the camera is right up by the window' as i stated, and that widow was "Filled up with the TV camera" 

Actually, there is a big difference.  'Filled up' is more ambiguous than 'right up to'.  If the camera is large enough, it can 'fill up' the area with being in contact with, or 'right up to' the window. Remember, we're dealing with a porthole here.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior Please education yourself properly on the subject.  

http://www.clavius.org/
https://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Because SCIENCE!
1
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 kal i have educated myself properly on the subject, meaning i am able to see through the propaganda and examine facts.  There is enough facts to question the validity of the moon landings, because SCIENCE! (FYI your links are simply your own confirmation bias, a fallacy, not science).
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior 

Read my links or go home...
1
Reply
Male 5,476
monkwarrior I have educated myself in those things years ago, it seems where you stopped, and said "Ahh, this is what i agree with because my TV told me so, and its what i watched on tv, and what everyone tells me is true", i went further to gather evidence from all sides and can see there is enough facts to question the validity of the moon landings.
-2
Reply
Male 7,943
Here we go.....

4
Reply
Male 682
Imagine if some schmuck goes up to you, denouncing your life's work and on top of that ask you to swear on a bible (I dunno what's the point of swearing on a bible seeing how ineffective swearing on a bible is) that the thing you dedicated your life to, risking your life for is all a hoax.

Also describing him as an award winning filmmaker is quite a stretch.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
fuad119 If someone came up to me denouncing my life work, and they wanted me to swear on the bible that i did it, i would do so if it would help them believe it.  I wouldn't flip out, get angry, assault people, try to scare them by saying i could call someone to have them killed.

But of course, if i didn't do something and said i did, and people were questioning it, i would have to come clean and say "what i said before wasn't true, you're right i didn't do it" (but i don't think i would ever get to that point tbh, since i likely wouldn't lie in the first place saying i did something i didn't do).
-1
Reply
Male 1,746
monkwarrior OK, you go ahead and do so to everyone you meet and see what their responses are.

Go up to your mom and tell her that she wasted her entire life giving birth to you and raising you and ask her to swear on the Bible that she did a good job. After all, it's easier to neglect a baby than it is to take care of it.

Go up to soldiers who came back from a 6 year tour in Afghanistan and tell them that the entire middle East conflict is faked, and ask them to swear on the Bible that they really had a reason to go there with weapons. After all, it's easier to fake a war than it is to fight it.

Go up to Stephen King and tell him that he plagiarized every book written and insist that he swear on the Bible that he didn't copy each and every word that has ever been produced. After all, it's easier to copy a book than it is to write it.

Better yet, make a documentary about it and have them do so in front of a bunch of cameras.

Keep doing so, and look at all the people who deal with it in a healthy, calm, and mature manner. 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
bliznik Perhaps you missed that i was saying if someone came up to me and ask that, that's what i would do.  If i want to find out something i have my ways to find things out.  But when there is evidence that something was faked, such as the moon landings, i'll certainly raise a stink about it until a) they prove it by going back and setting up a moon base that we can all see from earth, or b) admit they didn't go.  After 1/2 a century since the 'moon landing' and we still can't exit LEO, even the Russians tried to exit LEO and couldn't.  Every year that passes it looks more and more likely we didn't go.
-1
Reply
Male 555
monkwarrior The implication of "swear on the bible this is true." is "you are a lying liar who has been lying to literally everyone for decades."  I am pretty sure that for anyone with a violent bone anywhere in their body, those are fighting words.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
muert fighting words to a lier, no doubt.  But to someone who wasn't lying it would be like "sure, why not?".
-1
Reply
Male 555
monkwarrior The first couple of times?  Sure.  But after well over 40 years?  This one guy comes up and thinks he is special.   He thinks that after 40 years that his magic book will prove once and for all that Buzz is speaking the truth. He is calling Buzz a liar thousands of times over.  

Worse, Buzz would know that his oath would mean nothing to this asshole. The video would be p
0
Reply
Male 5,476
muert Nothing a sensible person can't handle.  Seriously if you tell the truth it's not hard to keep telling the truth, and doing so without becoming visibly agitated (even after 40+ years).  But i understand when you lie, it's difficult to keep coming up with reasoning to hide that lie when it becomes more and more unstable.  Perfectly understandable if someone lying for a long time can't keep it any longer and erupts with violence.
0
Reply
Male 555
monkwarrior Speaking the truth is easy.  Being accused (repeatedly) of being a liar when you consider yourself honest?  That is how blood feuds start.

I have friends that (rightly) were going to quit going to a restaurant because one of the managers accused them of lying about their takeout order missing an order of wings.

Accusing an astronaut of lying about going to the moon is several orders of magnitude larger, and his response is that of an honest man pushed to far.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
muert His response could also be that of a liar who was pushed to close to revealing the truth.  However what is more revealing is their body language, and that is something that clearly shows guilt in this video.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior Man, you have no clue how far Bart Sibrel went, especially when stalking Aldrin, and stalking is what he did.  It was a personal attack and insulting to the man's pride, over several very offensive and personal space violations on the part of Sibrel.  Aldrin is from the Old School and as muert states "them's fight'n words"
1
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 Again, if someone was telling the truth why would they run away from re-confirming it, and turn violent?  confirming it again is the nature of his job, FOR LIFE, because he was one of the people that 'supposedly' set foot on another celestial body.  If any sensible even "old-school' person was faced with the same situation that they had gone through (assuming they really walked on the moon), it would be cheery "Haha! Sure give me the book i'll re-confirm it for you if it helps you", or "Sir i see you're a bit upset, let me re-confirm it for you any way possible".  Not all the defensiveness violence, and verbal assaulting, signs of a guilty consciouses.
-2
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior You missed the point entirely.  Sibrel had been stalking Aldrin for a LONG time.  This had nothing to do with Aldrin feeling guilty and resorting to violence, it had everything to do with a man being pushed to the point of violence due to the invasion of privacy and straight up stalking Sibrel had been doing.

Habitual Line Stepper!
1
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 The point is not being missed, these are all things which he could have easily avoided by saying "Haha! Sure give me the book i'll re-confirm it for you if it helps you", or "Sir i see you're a bit upset, let me re-confirm it for you any way possible"
-2
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior Or maybe he was just sick and damned tired of being harassed by an asshole. Do you truly think that if Aldrin swore on the bible that he did it that Bart Sibrel would go "Oh, ok, thanks for confirming, I now believe you and will no longer bother you again good sir!" F-ing no! He'd continue to harass Aldrin and call him a liar.

Also, I've starting looking for what "awards" this Bart Sibrel has won...  haven't found any yet. What are they? Can you link to the awards?
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas Nothing that could have been nipped on the bud by saying "Haha! Sure give me the book i'll re-confirm it for you if it helps you", or "Sir i see you're a bit upset, let me re-confirm it for you any way possible"

That's what a leader would do.  This guy supposedly lead humankind to the moon, but can't take a lead in his own life to recognize possible problems and nip them in the bud?

BTW: you're probably not looking hard enough regarding the awards (no surprise considering your other assertions here).
-2
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior So far, all I could find on his awards were "Best Cinematography" and "Best Editing" from the American Motion Picture Society (AMPS). AMPS is an amateur, non-commercial film festival. While maybe they had more categories for awards before, right now the only awards they have are for Best Drama, Best Comedy, and Best Documentary. That is all. I have so far not found anything that would confirm he won any awards except for repeating his own self-written bio.

By his standards, I can claim I am an award winning botanist.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas so you found an award, but are trying to reject it? not rational dude.
-2
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior Apparently my reply was eaten by the internet gods. I have sent a message to AMPS asking if they have ever had more than just the best Drama, Comedy, and Documentary. While it may be possible he received awards that are no longer handed out, saying he is an "award winning" filmmaker makes him sound much more impressive than he actually is.

AMPS is so small it isn't even notable enough to be included on Wikipedia's list of film awards. Yes I know wiki isn't the best, most reliable source but AMPS own page is fairly sparse and I cannot find any other information on them.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas i'll leave you to mount your attack on the award you found to build your ad-hominem case against the filmmaker.
0
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior If I find that they never gave him any award, what would that say about the validity of the man and anything he has to say?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
PosisDas the same thing i said on the first post to this topic: "Their body language is so revealing, it reminds me of someone caught in a lie."   For you it's about discrediting the film maker.  For me it's about what they are going to do to undo what their body language and words have already revealed on camera.

You're looking to discredit to deny, your choice has been made in the matter.  Mine, however, has not. I'm looking for explanations as to why they appear so dishonest, and why the facts aren't adding up to a moon mission being made.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
This is fucking stupid.
3
Reply
Male 5,476
Their body language is so revealing, it reminds me of someone caught in a lie.  I think at the 9:17 mark it shines with buzz, because he was so desperate he started to fold a towel in the interview, lol.
-3
Reply