Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[Jeff]

I don't find that "Apollo 20" video at all convincing, and I find your use of it confusing: are you contending Apollo 11-17 were hoaxed, but the scrapped missions that were to follow, weren't? And that doesn't look like a flyover shot so much as a close up of a dried and pitted patch of dirt.

Amazing how credulity can pass for skepticism simply because it's "alternative."

[yesferatu]

I don't find that "Apollo 20" video at all convincing, and I find your use of it confusing: are you contending Apollo 11-17 were hoaxed, but the scrapped missions that were to follow, weren't? And that doesn't look like a flyover shot so much as a close up of a dried and pitted patch of dirt.

Amazing how credulity can pass for skepticism simply because it's "alternative."

I'm contending that the believer who wants to believe in the original VIDEO flyover and then use another VIDEO flyover as proof that THAT flyover is faked, thus using it as an argument to support his "evidence" that the original flyover was NOT faked is an argument flawed up and down, sideways, and every other way.

Leave it to you to bring in clutter (apollo 11-17...scrapped missions... "here, look over here" - tried and true to your tactics, at least) to miss the point:
The point being that the faux skeptic will say this video looks fake because it was not presented as official...and that the official video does not look fake because it was not presented as fake.

Post-JFK government gave you the original. Apollo 20? Who knows? I don't know. Probably not. Maybe. Maybe not. Convincing? What is so convincing about the first flyover? It probably was a flyover of the moon...maybe...maybe not. But convincing?

Why the fake shit on top of the real shit? As I asked earlier in this thread.

And you missed the lesson. I was offering the video as a lesson in hypocrisy in debating and arguing. Yet you want to make it appear I was presenting the video because I "believe" in it.
I could care less about the eff'n video. I was pointing out the deplorable logic and debating skills of the faux skeptic who will use the same "proofs" against one another and then take sides with the proof he likes.

You want to bring in more than what I brought... to litter my argument in order to lose it.

[Jeff]

Leave it to you to bring in clutter (apollo 11-17...scrapped missions... "here, look over here" - tried and true to your tactics, at least) to miss the point: The point being that the faux skeptic will say this video looks fake because it was not presented as official...and that the official video does not look fake because it was not presented as fake.

No, I'm saying it looks fake because is so clearly is. Have you watched the other "Apollo 20" videos? The patch depicting retrieval of an alien craft? The "alien city"? I don't need officials to tell me how to recognize bullshit, and I don't take their word when they do.

"Faux skeptic" - lovely. I'm just using my discernment. I don't care if it doesn't take me to where the cool kids hang out. But if you're claiming the word skeptic for yourself, you're abusing it just as much as the CSICOP and Randi crowd.

The Moon hoax, like too much in conspiracy culture, isn't argument but contradiction. It comes down to: They lie about everything, so I'll believe the opposite and fabricate the rationale to support it. It isn't critical thinking; it's reflex.

[erosoplier]

I'm new to all this, so I'm going to walk myself through it.

Here is a Fox documentary (a Fox documentary??) where the NASA representative looks like a born liar, out of his depth and incapable of making more than vague assertions, and the conspiracy theorist looks like an honest man.

It turns out the conspiracy theorist in the Fox doc - Bill Kaysing - is the "father" of the moon hoax community, and wrote his first book on it a few years after the Apollo missions ended.

Here is the transcript of an interview with Kaysing. He certainly doesn't come across as a complete loon.

NASA and the CIA and the whole U.S. government is a rotten and corrupt organization, designed just to get all the tax money they can out of people, to manipulate their minds, to keep them amused with sporting events and silly TV sitcoms. We, unfortunately, in the U.S. are pretty well brainwashed, believing whatever the government says. And they have control, as you well know, of the media.

Bill Kaysing

And here is the documentary A funny thing happened on the way to the moon, which has the strange footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts appearing to set up a fake shot of the earth to make it look as if they are far away from the earth, when they are not far away from the earth at all.

For me at the moment, the most suspicious thing about Apollo 11 is the lack of evidence of any rocket blast from landing the lunar module on the surface. A 3000 pound lunar module in 1/6th gravity = 500lb. Now all a rocket does is create a wind in order to propel the rocket, and whatever is attached to it, in the other direction to that wind. So in order to land softly, the rocket-wind from the LM needed to have 500lb of thrust happening, right up to the point that the feet of the LM touched the ground. No ifs or buts. And yet in the photos the feet of the LM sit on powdery moon dirt. That strikes me as a little bit incomprehensible. (The response is "well the LM was moving laterally while it was descending so the thrust was never focused on one spot for long." To me that means I'd expect to see a snake-like landing blast artifact, not a simple single spot on the ground...but we see neither in the photos).

[sandymac]

Words and prases meant to stop people from listening and thinking:

Conspiracy Theorist
CD Truthers
Orthodoxist
Moon Hoax Fans
Faux Skeptics

The main issue:

1969 - Antiquated Technology - Out of earth orbit space travel, moon landings and takeoffs, and travels back and forth through the Van Allen radiation belt are very dangerous and complex (!). Lots easier to film the whole thing in a sound studio already built and ready to go. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968.

Then in 1978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

[yesferatu]

Leave it to you to bring in clutter (apollo 11-17...scrapped missions... "here, look over here" - tried and true to your tactics, at least) to miss the point: The point being that the faux skeptic will say this video looks fake because it was not presented as official...and that the official video does not look fake because it was not presented as fake.

No, I'm saying it looks fake because is so clearly is. Have you watched the other "Apollo 20" videos? The patch depicting retrieval of an alien craft? The "alien city"? I don't need officials to tell me how to recognize bullshit, and I don't take their word when they do.

"Faux skeptic" - lovely. I'm just using my discernment. I don't care if it doesn't take me to where the cool kids hang out. But if you're claiming the word skeptic for yourself, you're abusing it just as much as the CSICOP and Randi crowd.

The Moon hoax, like too much in conspiracy culture, isn't argument but contradiction. It comes down to: They lie about everything, so I'll believe the opposite and fabricate the rationale to support it. It isn't critical thinking; it's reflex.

So your video you know was not faked is a gnosis you "just know" it's not fake? But the video you know which is faked is proof to you that the gnosis of the first video vindicates that special gnosis you have?

Don't address the physical evidence of fakery...just point to your strong suit of special gnosis to disprove all the other discrepancies which is that nasty physical evidence shit you have an aversion to.

You so want me to be on the other side...yet re-read what I say...I think they went. I'm just not "all in" so that is not good enough for your orthodoxy. I say they probably went, yet that is not good enough for you . That "probably" just gnaws at you that someone does not have that special gnosis you have. I don't believe the right way. I say they probably went, but there is evidence of lots of fake shit.

You won't acknowledge the fake shit. Just "they went". End of research.

[erosoplier]

"lunar surface (inadvertent shutter release)"

From here.

[rothbardian]

I revisited the moon hoax issue after coming across several credible whistleblowers reporting cover-ups at NASA. I cited two of them. Ms. Hare (and Sergeant Wolfe)...and the guy who posted his report about working at NASA.

Here again, are those two links...the first one, a short video testimony...the second one, a post at a discussion board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rt7mnz4J5E&mode=related&search=

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4737

After the fact, I have only then begun to take a closer look at some of these NASA photos...and I have seen a lot of weird circumstances surrounding NASA photography, to say the least.

These photographic anomalies are just the icing on the cake. They're not the starting point. It is a straw man to say this is only a "reflex". Most people I know, see this in a larger context of weird goings-on with the whole NASA/Roswell/"Area 51" thing.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the 'moon hoax" issue consistently being isolated and separated from a larger context (some of you diehard non-'moon hoaxers' seem to be trying to do that right now)...but it's a mistake.

I would set this in the larger context: NASA smells...from all the way across the galaxy. They're tied into creepy government ops...the CIA...Paperclip Nazis...reports of involvement in mind control...freaky astronauts who kill themselves and wear diapers...reports of "non-terrestrial officers" at government websites...on and on.

Then we have General Douglas MacArthur making statements in a speech at West Point (in the late 50's/early 60's) in which he warns of a possible interplanetary confrontation (or words to that effect). What had he seen or heard? (His executive assistant shed some light later on. Especially about Roswell.)

Why non-hoaxers will fight tooth-and-nail to refute absolutely 100% of all photographic anomalies...is unfathomable. And if I find somebody who concedes some anomalies, or concedes the credibility of a "Ms. Hare" (et al)...good! Then we have virtual agreement and can move on to the next question: These NASA government creeps are trying to hide something. What is it?

Strangely though (and conveniently?) things here keep getting stuck...15-page threads arguing over whether a particular "shadow" is 'converging' or 'intersecting'. (Through the fault of no one in particular, I guess?) This seems to be the land of Eternal Inconclusiveness. Oh well...

[yesferatu]

"Faux skeptic" - lovely. I'm just using my discernment. I don't care if it doesn't take me to where the cool kids hang out. But if you're claiming the word skeptic for yourself, you're abusing it just as much as the CSICOP and Randi crowd.

No.
I am a Skeptic. Old school. Sorry....but CSICOP is just some modern hostile takeover of Skepticism, and they spell out a word using the right letters, but meaning something else entirely.
Sorry. No abuse on my end. Your saying I am abusing it, is just you saying that. It is a sentence. Just not a true sentence. I claim Skepticism - but I can do that without claiming it "for myself" as you insinuate so misleadingly.

I approach things point for point.

You never address a theory about diverging shadows. Maybe you have a good one. I will listen to it. But instead you talk about this gnosis you have, and to hell with addressing discrepancies like diverging shadows. You "just know" they went. Sorry...that is faux skepticism.
A Skeptic will meet head on the troubling stuff and honestly say "Yeah, that shit is faked. Why?"...or perhaps they will say "here is the science behind why shadows can diverge" and then explain it for others.

btw, since you are not a cool kid like me, does that make you the Heroic Rebel/Nerd? Why are you into establishing cliques? Might explain your "high school" debating skills.

[erosoplier]

What makes you think they are credible sources Rothbardian?

As a would-be "hoaxer," I don't see the need for there to be space men/space bases on the moon in order for the NASA crew to have faked the moon landings. These two things are mutually exclusive.

And people lie. Some people are good at lying. (Edit: And sometimes liars are good at tricking other people into lying). Some people will tell you that someone else showed them top secret photos of strange structures on the moon, and then show you photos of the moon (apparently) with smudged areas, and say that the smudges are where the strange structures were, before they were smudged away...

This is not evidence that there are structures on the moon. All it is is evidence that some photos of what appears to be the moon have what appears to be smudged areas on them.

[KeenInsight]

I think all these 'moon hoax' issues are really just a distraction from serious questions like, "who or what is on the moon?"

[orz]

As i predicted, the same old circular logic, the same old thoroughly debunked moon hoax memes... FOX NEWS documentary ...divirging shadows blah blah... How depressing. What a waste of time. What a petty, worthless, anti-thinking conspiracy fandom.

[Jeff]

I would set this in the larger context: NASA smells...from all the way across the galaxy. They're tied into creepy government ops...the CIA...Paperclip Nazis...reports of involvement in mind control...freaky astronauts who kill themselves and wear diapers...reports of "non-terrestrial officers" at government websites...on and on.

I certainly agree that NASA isn't clean, but Moon hoax claims are also subject to a larger context of science and sensibility, and for me they fail on both counts.

[Jeff]

The main issue:

1969 - Antiquated Technology - Out of earth orbit space travel, moon landings and takeoffs, and travels back and forth through the Van Allen radiation belt are very dangerous and complex (!). Lots easier to film the whole thing in a sound studio already built and ready to go. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968.

Then in 1978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

About transiting the Van Allen Belts, please consider this page.

If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

[rothbardian]

There's some weird stuff going on here with Orz and Jeff. Both yesferatu and I are saying--yes, the Moon landings probably happened but there are so many surrounding anomalies...there are any number of NASA whistle blowers telling horror stories...there is Gordon Cooper testifying to UFOs landing and "aliens" climbing out...on and on and on.

So it's a little weird that you guys keep dragging the discussion over to "but there were moon landings". Who are you arguing with?

And 'orz'----just yesterday you flat out conceded there has been photo alteration going with NASA...but today, in a very broad sweeping way, you're denouncing all efforts to pinpoint any such alterations. (?)

I guess one avenue of discussion that might narrow this thing down is to ask a given individual---"Do you or do you not concede that NASA has, at times, altered photos?