Men on the Moon

Turley

When science is not published and cannot be duplicated, should we accept it as true? For example the USA claims to have landed men on the moon over 35 years ago and a robot 37 years ago.

During 1967 to 1969 computer technology was punch cards, telephones were rotary dial, electric typewritters were "modern" and music was on phonograph records and reel to reel audio tape. Technology in every field from medicine to communications has advanced but lunar travel is frozen in the 1960's and remains a U.S. state secret.

Is the appearance of going to the moon the same as going to the moon?

ecksor

Well, despite what you've posted, you haven't actually argued why having inferior capabilities to compared to those of today would imply that they weren't capable of making it to the moon.

sliabh

James Randi gave a nice rebuttal to this one at his talk a few weeks ago. Essentially it boiled down to - if Nixon couldn't keep Watergate secret within his small Whitehouse team, how the hell could the 600,000 people involved in the Lunar program keep quite about it all this time?

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site has an extensive rebuttal of the usual moon landings were fake claims.

Specific to your post, Lunar travel is not a state secret. Pretty much every part of it from the source code in the computers used (all 300k of it) to the ship designs are in the public domain. What is missing is those parts that were destroyed (such as the Saturn 5 engine designs), for whatever reason, as the program wound down. But you will have trouble claiming that they didn't exist as millions watched those beasts take off in Florida in person.

Turley

I admire James Randi and once saw him lecture at the NASA Goddard Space Center. He completely fooled an auditorium of scientists, but they are easily fooled, because the better educated, the more there is more to work with.

Nixon could not suppress the Watergate scandal because Nixon did not control the media.

It is a common mistake that if something significant was not true, someone would tell us. Hence the question, "how the hell could the 600,000 people involved in the Lunar program keep quiet about it all this time?"

First, it is unlikely and unnecessary for all 600,000 people to know of the hoax. And even if a few people did know the moon landing was a hoax, who could they tell? They would be as powerless as Nixon if the press was not on their side.

Consider in January of 2001 the American press revealed a historic event for the FIRST TIME, that U.S. troops massacred more than 300 innocent civilians at No Gun Ri, Korea, between July 26 and July 29, 1950.

It is unlikely all of the U.S. soldiers in Korea in 1950 knew of this war crime. The killers and the survivors of the massacre knew it was concealed from the public for over 50 years. The survivors and the killers were quoted in the press account in 2001. In 1999 survivors would have had a hard time convincing anyone the event happened. No one would have believed them, until the press made it official.

Clearly the truth was suppressed for over 50 years with the media in control of "truth." Reasoning that someone would tell us if the lunar landing was a hoax is based on the error that the media exists to report the truth.

The truth about many historic events have been, and are currently suppressed by the media. A massacre not in the news "did not happen." And conversely, a moon landing in the news, "did happen."

I am interested in your statement, "...Lunar travel is not a state secret. Pretty much every part of it from the source code in the computers used (all 300k of it) to the ship designs are in the public domain."

Can you tell us specifically where is the Americans have published their methods of lunar travel science?

sliabh

I am not sure by what you mean by "their methods of lunar travel science"? Care to elaborate? As far as I know each time they shot a bloody great big rocket at the moon with 3 men, a tin can for transport and and second one to land and return. The mechanics are rudimentary (and much of it was tought to me in 2nd year mechanical engineering in UCD), the technology required is relatively basic, and the rocks they brought back have been examined the world over and could not have been produced on earth.

But rather than prove again that soemthing happened, have you any extraordinary evidence to back up you extraordinary claim that the landings were faked?

pwd

It did seem funny that the Americans managed to do it ahead of the Communists, when, up to that point, the Communists had been winning the space race. They put the Sputnik rocket into orbit, for instance. The Americans had, on the other hand, really developed their film and entertainment industry.

Here is an anecdote, which I will probably retell wrongly, and I have not verified the trth of:

Some reseacrhers in a university wanted to film something in an extremely cold environment, however they found that the celluloid froze when they attempted to. So they contacted NASA and requested to see the design of the camera that was used to record the moon landing. NASA acquiesced, and sent them a very ordinary design for a film camera, that did nothing to prevent the celluloid from freezing at such extremely cold temperatures as would have been ambient on the moon.

pwd

Google:

"The Spacey Twins - Photo taken inside aircraft simulating 0 g gravity and later passed off as a "space walk".
Divergent shadows which could only have been produced by a spotlight.
Space rocks which have "Hollywood Type" letters.
Backdrops for "The Mountains of the Moon".
See the Astro-nots jump out of their own shadow. (Above photo clearly shows shadow of flag, but shadow of "Astro-not" is absent).
Photo showing absolutely no crater under the main rocket of the LEM.
Photo of Astro-not taken by fellow Astro-not who had no camera.
Read how radiation should have turned the Astro-nots into crispy space bacon.
Why are there never any stars showing in any of the moon pictures? If the Hubble Telescope can see them, why can't the Astro-Nots? "

from http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/


"On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's"

[I would think that the earth would reflect light onto the moon in much the same way as the moon does onto the earth, only much more so? It does seem funny that they never showed the image of the earth from the moon however, in it was a visible light source.]

"An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched. "

http://batesmotel.8m.com/


"Plait and other scientists dismiss such notions. Flags can ripple in a vacuum and the U.S. one is doing so because an astronaut is moving the pole to which it is attached.

Camera crosshairs appear to be behind white objects in some images because the images bled slightly during development, like overexposed film. And why are the stars absent? They are too faint for the camera to pick up, according to Plait. "


"NASA adds another line of defense. The program never raised the issue of more than 800 pounds (363 kg) of lunar rocks that astronauts brought back to Earth.

"Geologists worldwide have been examining these samples for 30 years, and the conclusion is inescapable. The rocks could not have been collected or manufactured on Earth," the NASA site said. "


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/


This site has plenty of links fro both sides of the argument:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010808-moon2.htm

sliabh

The Russian fell behind for a number of reasons, part economic (they only ever comitted a fraction of the funds the US did to their moon program) and part engineering. The rocket they came up with to compete with the Saturn 5 was the N5, but it just wasn't up to the job. It suffered four successive failures and by that time the Soviets realised they would not beat the US to the moon. There are some details here http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/Russian_manned_Moon.html
But a google search on the N1 will bring back loads of info. The program was effectively wound down then. What they settled were unmanned sample and return missions as part of the Luna series of missions.

An interesting question in relation to the Soviets though is why would they choose to keep a faked landing secret when it would be so embarrassing to the US? They (or pretty much anyone else) could easily tell from an analysis of the Apollo telemetry where the signals were coming from. It would be nearly impossible to fake a lunar surface signal, without having a transmitter on the surface.

As for the cameras used, these were modified versions of commerical Hasselblads. Go to the Hasselblad site http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/ and do a search for "space" to get details on the hardware used. There is further information here: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/2.htm

If the landings were a hoax do you think Nasa would be so dumb as to supply "normal" cameras to someone asking questions about them?

This unsupported anecdote is typical of the moon landing fakery nonsense. It is claimed that the whole thing is one of the most sophisticated hoaxes ever carried out, but we found out because of the idiot mistakes made (like the nonsense about the flag flapping in the wind, no stars in the photographs etc).

You can't have it both ways!

Turley

What I mean by NASA's method of lunar travel, which you call "rudimentary" and "relatively basic" technology, is how did they managed to fly off of the lunar surface, accomplishing something never done before in a very hostile environment. The science of how this was done is only available in the most general terms without any specifics. Where in the public domain is the specific method of moon flight published?

Man had many unsuccessful attempts at flight on earth before succeeding but the first landing and flight on the moon, with untested equipment worked perfect, even where temperatures according to NASA range from -400F to +200F
http://history.nasa.gov/EP-95/surface.htm
or maybe they may range from -250F to +250F also according to NASA
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

If NASA actually sent men to the moon they should know what the temperature is on the moon.

Another web site linked to NASA run by Calvin J. Hamilton claims the temperature on the lunar surface is -233C (-451F) to +123C (+253F). Hamilton's site has a section refuting skeptics of the moon landing where he writes, "An average person holding a moon rock in his hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world. 'Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters meteoroid impacts,' explains [David] McKay [Chief scientist at the Johnson Space Center]. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere...like the moon."
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonhoax.htm

Mr. Hamilton is wrong. I have seen and touched a "moon rock" at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. It is not unique. I saw no meteor impacts and it looks like any other rock. According to NASA the rocks are primarily made of plagioclase which consists of sodium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, and oxygen. Plagioclase can be found worldwide.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/answers.html

If anyone visits the Lunar exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum they will find scores of photographs of rockets and scores of photographs of smiling heads of astronauts. There are also endless photos of planets and stars. There are only six or eight photographs of men actually on the moon in the entire exhibit. People go to the seaside for holiday and take more pictures. There should be hundreds of photos of men on the moon with "FIVE trips" to the moon. It is strange we only see the same few pictures.

I am still skeptical.

sliabh

Turley wrote:

The science of how this was done is only available in the most general terms without any specifics.

It is if you choose to go looking for it. Have you ever done a literature review on this stuff?

Turley wrote:

Where in the public domain is the specific method of moon flight published?

A good start is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_module
There are a number of book references at the end of the article as well. Some of these (like Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft) are public domain and the whole text of the book is available for free on the web.

There also is information at: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html

Turley wrote:

Man had many unsuccessful attempts at flight on earth before succeeding but the first landing and flight on the moon, with untested equipment worked perfect,

This has a lot to do with why they had 600,000 people working on the lunar program with a budget of billions. Along the way there was years of testing, with many failures and even deaths. The only thing that had not been tested by the time the Eagle lander left the moon was the final launch from the surface. Every other component and system had been tried. Even Apollo 10 had tested the lander in free flight above the moon (they came within 15km of the surface). It was fueled and provisioned so that in the event of a problem the crew could have landed and returned if needed.

But there is no real comparrison between the lunar landing program and the likes of the Montgolfier brothers, Otto Lilienthal, or the Wright brothers.

Turley wrote:

even where temperatures according to NASA range from -400F to +200F
http://history.nasa.gov/EP-95/surface.htm
or maybe they may range from -250F to +250F also according to NASA
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Probably a units conversion (F to C) thing. But you can be sure the person writing content for a web site is not the person doing the specs for a landing.

Turley wrote:

Mr. Hamilton is wrong. I have seen and touched a "moon rock" at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.

So have I. It looked like a cut specimen rather than a pristine sample to me. And it has been there for years being touched by thousand of people a month. Of course it is going to get worn smooth.

Turley wrote:

There should be hundreds of photos of men on the moon with "FIVE trips" to the moon. It is strange we only see the same few pictures.

It's because they are the best of the lot. ALL the Apollo photos are in the public domain (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/ provides press relase shots) as are mission transcripts and so on.

I'd recommend reviewing the original pictures there before claiming one you see on a website is evidence of a hoax. I have seen hoax "proof" photos that turned out to be altered versions of the originals.

Turley wrote:

I am still skeptical.

Which is fair enough. But the balance of evidence is that the missions happened.

I have heard a load of junk about the landings being a hoax. Dig into any of it and it rapidly falls apart. The most common bits of nonsense that you hear in relation to this are:
Leathal radiation in space - is only present during coronal flares.
No stars in photos - has to do with the exposure levels in photographs
Missing/odd shadows - they were standing on very uneven ground. So shadows will not appear the same
The fluttering flag - had a wire stiffener to keep it up and straight
and so on.

But the questions the hoaxers don't tend to answer and would be pertinent if the landings were a hoax:

• How did NASA manage to get the apollo telemetry to have the same proper motion in the sky as signals that came from the moon?
• Why didn't the Soviets rat them out. They would easily have been able to track the launches in florida and see that they never sent anything in a lunar intercept orbit
• Why engage in a hoax?
• Why has no one involved in the hoax come forward to spill the beans?

And so on.

Taking Occam's razor to this, the easier explanation is that the landings did happen.

Turley

I lived in Washington when the Air and Space museum opened. I was one of the first members of the public to touch the lunar stone. The rock may have been worn smooth by thousands since then, but that excuse does not hold for me. I did not see any meteor impacts on that rock.

I took your advice and looked at those photos of men on the moon at NASA's website. It is just as I had said; there are very few pictures of men actually on the moon. I counted the pictures of men on the moon from the Apollo 11 mission and there were just 16! Just sixteen pictures of man's first trip on the moon.

The same was true for Apollo 12, just 15 pictures showing men on the moon surface, and several of the photos were just a pair of legs or a foot on the ground. I can't believe they would make this historic journey and take fewer photos than a family takes during a weekend holiday.

The astronauts did not even shoot one roll of film (36 exposures) of themselves in "two trips to the moon."

You asked "Why engage in the hoax?" Because, it is far easier to fake going to the moon than to engage in the dangerous mission of actually going. Faking a moon landing eliminated the risk of failure. It was the obvious choice. You do not need to go to the moon, if saying you did will accomplish the same effect.

In 1993, U.S. Senator Cohen, arguing for an independent investigation of some government misdeeds said, "The appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself, in terms of maintaining public confidence..." And so goes America, because the appearance of going to the moon is just as important as going to the moon. Appearance is everything in the U.S. Why go to the moon when you only need to appear to go to the moon?

Your other question as to why no one involved in the hoax comes forward to expose the fraud is reasoning backwards. This old argument is listed among the 17 Techniques For Truth Suppression by David Martin at http://www.dcdave.com/article3/991228.html
This argument is based on the false premise that a lot of people need to be involved and another false premise that the media would publicize serious government misdeeds.

This misunderstanding of the role of the media is constantly reinforced by the Watergate scandal you mentioned earlier. That scandal has been used tirelessly to convince the public that the press and government are adversarial. And the argument goes that if you have evidence of high level corruption you can tell the Watergate journalist Bob Woodward or some other scribe and then the world would know. And therefore, scandals not reported must not be true. It is a simple method but men are always fooled by the simplest methods.

After 35 years with advances in technology why can't the Americans orbit the moon just once in the Space Shuttle? Why can't the Russians orbit the moon without bothering to land on the surface? It should be easy now.

Science experiments that cannot be duplicated by others are probably not true. The Americans recently scored 24th in math, well behind the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, Germany and Ireland. "American high school students have a poorer mastery of basic math concepts than their counterparts in most other leading industrialized nations, according to a major international survey released yesterday." -Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41278-2004Dec6.html

Why can't other countries duplicate the American moon landing and takeoff experiment unmanned? The Americans are not the smartest people on the planet, but they do have a very slick media.

Turley

I also visited that wikipedi link you suggested to view the "technology." The cutaway diagram of the lunar lander shows a water tank inside. I wish they would tell us how they prevented the water from freezing when the daily temperature on the moon plunged to -400F. I do not know the temperature water would boil at in the lunar atmosphere but a man could not drink water at +250F.

If the lunar space suits could be worn in the extreme conditions of the moon other scientists should demonstrate they work by wearing them on earth. Why don't people wear these space suits in the Lybian desert where the temperature can only reach 136F and also wear the same spacesuit in the Antartic where temperatures only drop as low as -129F? NASA space suits should comfortable in either climate. Why don't we see people wear these spacesuits on earth?

Maybe we already did. They took those "lunar pictures" somewhere.

robindch

Hi Turley -

I've no idea whether or not you're winding people up here, but assuming you're not, I can suggest to you a couple of the plenty of ways of stopping water from freezing -- insulation's a good start and electric heaters come in pretty handy too. Correctly, you've noticed that space suits aren't so popular here on earth as they are on the moon, but that's because they're pretty bulky and you don't get to walk around in them for very long before the batteries go flat; they also cost rather a lot, even the russian or chinese ones. WRT getting back and forth from the moon, well, it's really expensive to go there and most countries couldn't be bothered spending the scadloads of cash needed. NASA doesn't send the shuttle there 'coz it doesn't carry enough fuel to get there and back, not to mention not being designed for it, and anyway, it can't land there 'coz there's no runway. Anyway, I don't think that most moon-hoaxers would believe NASA if they did say that they'd sent it there, so what's the point?

hope this helps,

- robin.

Turley

Robin-
NASA spacesuits need not be fashionable but I would like to see an independent study that people can live in these suits in temps ranging from -400 to +250F. The diagrams of the lunar craft online do not show much insulation, if any, to prevent the water tanks from freezing. I would think it would take a lot of insulation and a lot of electricity just to keep the water supply from freezing or boiling.

Imagine how large a battery would be required to heat and cool a space suit to offset the extreme temperatures of -400F to +250F.

Historically mankind has always improved modes of travel. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes have all improved since 1969. If men could fly to the moon 35 years ago they should be able to fly beyond the moon today. Why shouldn't they have learned to fly 1000 or 2000 miles beyond the moon and back? Men have improved their ability to orbit the earth, so lunar travel should have also improved and become more efficient.

Phonograph records and celluloid film have been replaced with audio CDs and DVDs. Lunar travel remains old fashioned and the "moon men" will soon die of old age. It is hard to find anyone that can name the ten men that "walked on the moon" with the exception of, Neil Armstrong. You would think such rare men would be frequently lecturing, appearing often on television, or doing advertising and commercials. Instead, they are unknowns and Armstrong is living in seclusion in Ohio. "But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God." (John 3:21)

The best argument that men went to the moon is that the voice of authority has told us men went to the moon. Thomas Aquinas said the argument from authority is no argument at all.

Until landing on the moon is duplicated by others, why not maintain a healthy skepticism? I would not be worthy of being called a skeptic if I did not suspend judgement of matters generally accepted.

It is not necessary to hold popular beliefs that may be false.
-Turley

robindch

Hi Turley -

You can find guides to spacesuit design on the NASA website here and a more comprehensive guide here, in which you can see the size of the battery required.

The best argument that men went to the moon is that the voice of authority has told us men went to the moon. [...] Until landing on the moon is duplicated by others, why not maintain a healthy skepticism?

No, there is ample physical evidence of many, many kinds to suggest that man went to the moon and I suggest that you try reading up on that as it's all easily available on the internet and elsewhere. WRT returning there, since you don't seem to accept that man went there previously, I can't see why you'd accept any evidence that a return trip might produce, since it's going to be much the same. Perhaps, on your side, you should ask yourself why you're maintaining your disbelief in the face of what most people (a nonrandom selection including qualified engineers like myself, astronomers like Patrick Moore (hardly a media hack), not to add everybody else I can think of) consider to be quite sufficient evidence?

Thomas Aquinas said the argument from authority is no argument at all.

This idea was well-known long, long before Aquinas reproduced it (see almost any of Plato's Socratic dialogs). BTW, in Summa Theologica, Aquinas also said that "woman is defective and misbegotten.". Doesn't mean he was right, even if he was speaking from his self-appointed position of divine authority, as christian authors are endlessly wont to do.

I hope this helps,

- robin.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

Imagine how large a battery would be required to heat and cool a space suit to offset the extreme temperatures of -400F to +250F.

Would this not rule out all space walks in Earth orbit too. These have been performed by Russians as well as Americans. Are all the pictures of such things as the servicing of the Hubble telescope also fakes?

Instead, they are unknowns and Armstrong is living in seclusion in Ohio. (John 3:21)

I saw Niel Armstrong speak to a packed crowd in Dublin's National Concert Hall at an event hosted by Gay Byrne last year.

There was a question and answer session at the end and one 'lunar hoax' guy asked a couple of questions. To his credit, Niel Armstrong gave a straight answer before talking about the 'lunar hoax' phenomenon, but it would have been hilarious if the hoax guy had brought up the 'seclusion in Ohio' thing in the presence of Armstrong.

Do you still want to use the 'seclusion in Ohio' thing as a reason for doubting the lunar landings?

Until landing on the moon is duplicated by others, why not maintain a healthy skepticism? I would not be worthy of being called a skeptic if I did not suspend judgement of matters generally accepted.

But how do you know that this "duplication" won't be another hoax? Isn't it best to maintain a healthy scepticism and believe nothing whatsoever?

Just to deal further with this point:

After 35 years with advances in technology why can't the Americans orbit the moon just once in the Space Shuttle? Why can't the Russians orbit the moon without bothering to land on the surface? It should be easy now.

Science experiments that cannot be duplicated by others are probably not true.

It has already been pointed out that the space shuttle wasn't designed for this purpose, but I think the main issue is being overlooked.

The lunar landings were a massive political venture. Although science was involved, the project itself wasn't a scientific experiment. It was not designed primarily to scientifically prove that Man could land on the moon.

It was more about competing with the Soviets who themselves had a lunar programme but cancelled it when the US beat them to it. If the Soviets had won the moon race, what would that have said about the political system in the US compared to comunism? No US president would have wanted to see the commies land on the moon.

It was not a science experiment anymore than the building of a bridge is a science experiment. It was a politically motivated technological and financial undertaking. There is very little reason for anyone else to repeat it now.

Just wondering, though. If some country were to duplicate the moon landings, would they also need to duplicate the apollo 13 events?

sliabh

I see others have picked up on some of the other points so I will just nail one in particular here:

Turley wrote:

took your advice and looked at those photos of men on the moon at NASA's website. It is just as I had said; there are very few pictures of men actually on the moon. I counted the pictures of men on the moon from the Apollo 11 mission and there were just 16! Just sixteen pictures of man's first trip on the moon.

That particular site only has the photos that were proved as part of the press releases at the time. A more comprehensive display is at:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
They have over 450 Apollo 11 photos alone. But not everything taken is available on the web.

Turley wrote:

The astronauts did not even shoot one roll of film (36 exposures) of themselves in "two trips to the moon."

The Hasselblads used for the photography use large format fim (70mm negatives). A roll of large format film sold in Ireland will have 12 exposures but the lunar camera's used special 200 shot rolls. As the camera used for external shots on the A11 mission was fixed to Armstrong's chest a lot of what he took was poor. But more of it was very good. And it's those shots that you see reproduced again and again.

I am sure there were thousands of people with cameras out the time the Chinese government crushed the Tianamen square protestors. But the photo you always see is of the man in front of the tanks, because it is so memorable. The same with when the Berlin wall came down. The photos used are of someone taking a sledge hammer to the wall, or of people dancing on top with the Brandenburg gate behind them.

There is a load of information on the lunar cameras here:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/1.htm

Turley

I checked the comprehensive display of over 450 Apollo 11 photos at http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
and again the majority are photos taken were on earth or in a spacecraft. Only a few photos are actual "men on the moon."

I saw the flyer at Dublin's National Concert Hall that Armstrong would be making a rare public appearance but I was unable to attend. I was truly sorry I missed his lecture. I don't know why you think it would be "hilarious" to bring up Armstrong's seclusion. It is well known that he rarely is seen in public since he retired from teaching 24 years ago. His online biography states, "Upon retiring from his last job he has spent his life in peaceful seclusion. He has gone to great lengths to protect his privacy. He does not do interviews or publicly speak often. He doesn't even go to his own museum in his hometown in Wapakoneta [Ohio]."

It is a fact that few people have seen Neil Armstrong in the last quarter century. Those lucky to see and hear him speak in Dublin, saw a rare sight. Congratulations on seeing Mr. Armstrong.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect others, to duplicate the moon landing. Being second to reach the moon would be impressive. The Russians were first to put a man in space and the U.S. did not end their manned space exploration program because the Russians won. Other nations followed the Russians with orbiting satellites. People continue to climb Everest and there is not much up there. Generations after the first deep sea divers, divers keep diving deeper. People keep sailing around the world long after someone did it first. Lunar exploration has apparently ended and in a couple of decades no lunar astronauts will still be living.

The question has been asked, "what would convince me that men went to the moon?" Some suggest if another trip to the moon was made I would simply not accept it as true. I would be convinced if lunar travel became more common, just like orbiting the earth. Airplane flight began and others followed. Flight improved and more people flew. More people going to the moon would be more convincing. No one ever going again leads to skepticism. I watched the "moon landing" in 1969 on television and I believed it to be true for decades. But as time passed and no one even flies near the moon (without landing) I have become skeptical.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I'll remain skeptical for now.
-Turley

robindch

Hi again Turley -

Given that Armstrong was the toast of the world around 30 years ago, I really don't find it surprising that he wants to spend his retirement in peace without having to give the same lecture again, and again and again, as his age advances and health declines. WRT not returning, the reasons have already been given, but then again, I'm not sure whether humanity has visited the bottom of the Mariana Trench since the bathyscape Trieste visited there in 1960 or so, but that doesn't mean that they weren't there to start with.

You'll also recall that, somewhat out of the blue, Mr Bush proposed a return to the moon last year, together with a future trip to Mars -- NASA responded by indicating a cost of something around $400 billion dollars for the two of them, something close to the annual spend on the american military, and the plan sank without trace immediately. This may go some way towards cleaing it up in your mind why nobody's gone back to the moon, exciting and fun and dall as it would be. Comparisons between climbing Everest or sailing 'round the world and going to the moon are disingenuous.

The full collection of Apollo photographs can be found by going to the main NASA website at http://www.nasa.gov and entering the search query 'apollo photographs' into the search box and clicking the [+GO] button. The first link of the result set which returns contains over one thousand images of various stages of the Apollo 11 mission, the vast majority from the surface of the moon. Further search hits return archives of other missions.

I'll remain skeptical for now.

You are welcome to remain skeptical, but I would caution you against turning healthy skepticism into a less healthy disbelief, arising, it seems to me, from personal incredulity of the skills of others.

- robin.

Turley

Robin-
You are right there are more photos at the NASA archive you suggested. Many at the end of the file are duplicates of previous images with what appears only a different exposure. Still, you have demonstrated that more photos exist of men on the moon.

Because I am skeptical some of these photos raise more questions. Some have said that the flag should not have been waving where there is no air. Hoax debunkers have explained that the flag was waving because when it was planted in the ground it was twisted and wiggled causing the flag to flutter. The hoax debunkers have posted photos of the astronauts planting the flag. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5949.jpg

In the archive of photos, I see the flag still flying in the distance while the astronauts are in the foreground. I am wondering how long a flag flies on the moon from being planted on a pole in the lunar surface.

It is not disingenuous to compare climbing Everest or sailing around the world to travel to the moon. The comparison is fair. Man has historically built on his accomplishments. Recently a blind man climbed Everest. Men sail the world solo, when it once took a crew. Man learns to do things better. Man may not returne to the Mariana Trench but man continues to explore the oceans. And man may not return to the Sea of Tranquility but curiously man stopped travel to the moon.

Because man no longer travels to the moon I began to wonder if he can, or if he ever did.

If only the American people have the ability to fly to the moon, they may also have the ability to fake going the moon. Hollywood films have already taken space travel beyond the moon.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Russians to at least be able to circumnavigate the moon. Without landing on the surface, it should be simple to just fly around the moon after 35years of advances in technology.

I believed men went to the moon for a long time. I just don't believe it anymore.
-Turley

sliabh

Turley wrote:

Robin-
In the archive of photos, I see the flag still flying in the distance while the astronauts are in the foreground. I am wondering how long a flag flies on the moon from being planted on a pole in the lunar surface.

A wire stiffener was run along the top of the flag so it would remain upright. You can be sure that the flag is still "flying" today on the moon.

Turley wrote:

It is not disingenuous to compare climbing Everest or sailing around the world to travel to the moon. The comparison is fair.

It's about as unfair as it is possible to get. A man can cycle to Everest and climb it for not more cost that the peak fees of $20,000. Even today, over 30 years later, just getting 1 pound of cargo into orbit costs more than that. Getting to the moon requires an engineering and support structure of a massive scale.

It's true with that it could be done much easier today, but it still would be a huge undertaking requiring billions in expenditure. And to what end? I know loads of people would love us to go back, but there just isn't a good enough reason to start a new lunar program at this time.

Even back in 1972 the last two lunar missions were scrubbed because with the race to the moon won, the US government could not justify the spending.

Turley wrote:

Because man no longer travels to the moon I began to wonder if he can, or if he ever did.

There is a lot of things we don't do anymore, like fly across the atlantic in Zeppelins, circumnavigate the world in sailing ships with only a knowledge of latitude measurement and dead reckoning, but no one would argue that just because we don't do it any more we never did it in the first place.

seamus

Turley wrote:

Historically mankind has always improved modes of travel. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes have all improved since 1969. If men could fly to the moon 35 years ago they should be able to fly beyond the moon today. Why shouldn't they have learned to fly 1000 or 2000 miles beyond the moon and back? Men have improved their ability to orbit the earth, so lunar travel should have also improved and become more efficient.

I'm only going to pick up on this one thing.
Space is HUGE. 1000 or 2000 miles is irrelevant in terms of space travel. To travel to the next nearest explorable rock (Mars) would take a trip of the best part of a year. Why haven't we gone out as far as we can - well there are plenty of answers to that. First of all, the laws of gravitation allow that there is (essentially) no zero-g experiment that can't be carried out in orbit. Why fly millions of kilometers to perform an experiment when you can do it a few hundreds miles above earth? What would there be to gain by flying slightly further than the moon, turning around and coming back?
The second big problem is getting back. Space is empty, and the rules we're used to here don't apply. Objects in motion on earth ultimately slow down and stop, thanks to friction and inertia. In space, objects in motion never stop (for all intents and purposes). If we were to fly to an empty area of space at 25,000kph, getting back would require turning the craft around, and increasing it's earthbound velocity by 50,000kph - you need to cancel out your current velocity, then accelerate again. This would require at least twice the amount of fuel to be carried by the craft (probably far far more). Travel to the moon benefits from the fact that we can use gravity to turn around the craft - a craft only needs to be accelerated once, then we can maintain that speed, and use gravity to reverse our direction.

This is why deep space travel has not yet become a simple prospect - we can still only functionally travel between planets and moons, and anything past the moon would be an undertaking like nothing else, which no-one has stepped up to work out.

Poisonwood

I have to say that I'm amazed that Turley, despite obvious interest in the whole moon landing thing, is still impressed by arguments which rely on the fact that the flag was 'flying' when it shouldn't have been. He's mentioned it a couple of times but I really think he ought now drop it from his repetoire of arguments. I thought everyone knew that the flag was wired on top and shaped to simulate 'flapping'.

If he still thinks it is evidence for a hoax, how incredibly silly does he think those NASA are in missing this 'clanger'? Or does he think there was a strong wind blowing on the set of the filmed 'hoax'?

Capt'n Midnight

Turley wrote:

Consider in January of 2001 the American press revealed a historic event for the FIRST TIME, that U.S. troops massacred more than 300 innocent civilians at No Gun Ri, Korea, between July 26 and July 29, 1950.

only 300 ! wow.. how could that have gone unnoticed where the population was litterly decimated* and most of the territory changed hands more than once.
As for innocent civilians they had B29's doing what they did in Japan a few years earlier (except they didn't use incendaries so quite as genocidal ) by the end of they war most north korean industry was underground or destroyed. Dams and bridges were repeateadly hit despite the civilian workers there
When united nations troops first came to Pyongyan over 90% of the population fled, obviously they didn't trust the "liberators" - say what you want about propoganda but the comuminsts had only been in power a few years.

*Decimation - killing 1 in 10 was used by the Romans to brutilise legions, it also accounted for the visciousness of the Kymer Rouge - also caused by US military killings of innocent civilians. Casualty rates of 3% or 4% are about the max a large unit take without causing changes in attiudes to prisioners and genevea conventions and that sort of stuff.

re: space suits - they had heaters and air conditioning built in and the batteries only lasted hours - in 1/6th g it was ok to carry all that weight - down here a different story, also find out how much a new space suit costs, you might as well ask why cars are so dangerous when could replace them all with much safer public transport ..

Carpo

Turley wrote:

Robin-
NASA spacesuits need not be fashionable but I would like to see an independent study that people can live in these suits in temps ranging from -400 to +250F. The diagrams of the lunar craft online do not show much insulation, if any, to prevent the water tanks from freezing. I would think it would take a lot of insulation and a lot of electricity just to keep the water supply from freezing or boiling.

Imagine how large a battery would be required to heat and cool a space suit to offset the extreme temperatures of -400F to +250F.

It wouldnt have to be that big. Within an atmosphere most heat transfer happens via conduction, ie heat being passed from an object to the air or vice versa. Because there is no atmosphere in the vacuum of space, heat transfer can only happen via radiation. This is far slower and less efficient than conduction.

So to keep the water/astronaut from freezing would require relatively little energy (compared with how much would be required for the same temperatures on earth). Similarly, the only heat source is thermal radiation from the sun. A large portion or this can be prevented by a simple white surface. A reflective surface would block even more.

robindch

I am wondering how long a flag flies on the moon

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, this image shows, fairly clearly I think, that there's a horizontal strut which keeps the flag 'flying'. Interestingly, if you examine the other flag photos, you'll see that the flag doesn't appear to move at all -- compelling evidence, I think you'll agree, that there's no air on the moon (unless the photos were all taken at the same time, or that the flag was made of fiberglass, or...).

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Russians to at least be able to circumnavigate the moon. Without landing on the surface, it should be simple to just fly around the moon after 35years of advances in technology.

In February 1966, The Russians dropped the Luna 9 probe onto the surface of the moon, three years before NASA arrived; they have also despatched various probes to Mars. The European Space Agency's Smart-1 popped an ion drive-propelled craft into lunar orbit a few weeks back, the first time this was done.

Because man no longer travels to the moon I began to wonder if he can, or if he ever did.

This is a logical fallacy. I don't go to primary school any more; doesn't mean that I never did (though I probably can't) -- my priorities have changed, as have NASA's.

Personally, I reckon the chinese are going to try a moon shot sometime in the next twenty years or so, and for much the same reasons of 'national prestige' as the Americans did 35 years ago; I wonder how the moon-hoaxers will react to this. Ideas anybody?

- robin.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

I saw the flyer at Dublin's National Concert Hall that Armstrong would be making a rare public appearance but I was unable to attend. I was truly sorry I missed his lecture. I don't know why you think it would be "hilarious" to bring up Armstrong's seclusion.

It is indeed a shame you could not attend. Two things you would have been struck by were his willingness to go into great technical detail about the flight and his comfort in front of a large audience.

There would have been a lot of hard laughter if someone had raised the issue of his being an "obsessive recluse in Ohio". I wish someone had done it.

By the way, how is the fact that he gives relatively few interviews or public appearances evidence of a hoax? If he is uncomfortable about some cover up, why does he speak any events? Would it not be easier to be an actual recluse? Why does Buzz Aldrin not have this 'reclusive' tendency? What is wrong with the idea that Armstrong simply prefers a relatively quiet life?

I think the lunar hoax believer that was there brought up the issue of lack of stars in the pictures iirc. The flaw in this argument has been exposed on several websites so I won't discuss it here.

GuanYin

Apart from anything else lunar rock from the Apollo missions, including Apollo 11 have been independantly analysed by scientists and published in peer reviewed journals.

What would be even harder than covering up a moon landing, would be covering up the development of technology capable of creating rocks that would be sufficiently different from earth rock in terms of elemental composition and radiation exposure to fool mass spec machines and the scientists themselves.

Analyses of nitrogen and argon in single lunar grains: towards a quantification of the asteroidal contribution to planetary surfaces
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 202, Issue 2, 15 September 2002, Pages 201-216
Ko Hashizume, , a, b, Bernard Martyb, c and Rainer Wielerd

Geochemistry of rare elements in different types of lunar rocks (based on XFA-SR data)
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators,Spectrometers,Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 470, Issues 1-2, 1 September 2001, Pages 422-425
V. B. Baryshev, A. F. Kudryashova, L. S. Tarasov, A. A. Ulyanov and K. V. Zolotarev

Abundance of 14 trace elements in lunar rock 12013, 10
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1 September 1970, Pages 211-215
J. C. Laul, R. R. Keays, R. Ganapathy and E. Anders

Incidently "easier to fool more educated because there is more to work with"? Can you back up this statement or is it just a throw away generalisation to make it look like you have an argument??

Turley

I would like to thank everyone who has shared some thoughtful comments on this topic. I have learned some things I did not know before.

It is best to specify and not characterize. I would like to clarify a few issues. I never said Neil Armstrong was "obsessive recluse living in Ohio" yet this quotation was used to characterize my statement that Armstrong was living in seclusion according to Armstrong's online biography.

I do not find the flag waving on the moon the most convincing argument and I did not initially raise this issue. Critics of the flag flying were dismissed by the official NASA website by the "fact" that the flag was twisted into the ground causing it to flutter. I think the argument that a stiff wire, within the flag, is more reasonable as the cause of the flag appearing to fly. Does anyone know if NASA has officially claimed a wire was used to keep the flag in an upright position?

In response to this comment:
"Incidently "easier to fool more educated because there is more to work with"? Can you back up this statement or is it just a throw away generalisation to make it look like you have an argument??"

Yes I can back up the statement that educated people are easy to fool. A good example can be found when magician James Randi used a couple of amateur magicians to fool physicist Peter Philips at the Stanford Research Institute. See the details at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Project%20Alpha

Also see magician Jim Steinmeyer's article "What's Up Their Sleeve, Magicians, Con Artists, and Politicians Enlist Public's Cooperation" published in the Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2004. Steinmeyer wrote, "I can assure you, any successful deception requires a cooperative audience. It's not as simple as finding stupid people who are willing to accept what they're told or happy to overlook obvious clues. The key is finding smart people who bring a lot to the table--cultural experience, shared expectations, preconceptions. The more they bring, the more there is to work with, and easier it is to get the audience to make allowances--to reach the "right" conclusion and unwittingly participate in the deception."

The university intellectual community is easily bamboozled.

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

In response to this comment:
"Incidently "easier to fool more educated because there is more to work with"? Can you back up this statement or is it just a throw away generalisation to make it look like you have an argument??"

Yes I can back up the statement that educated people are easy to fool. A good example can be found when magician James Randi used a couple of amateur magicians to fool physicist Peter Philips at the Stanford Research Institute. See the details at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Project%20Alpha

I didn't see you back anything up. I saw you give one example, on which you seem to have based your whole argument as if it was a universal constant.

Saying "The university intellectual community is easily bamboozled." because a researcher was fooled back in 1980 is akin to saying "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink".

Can you give be ten more examples, specifically giving one where a statistically higher amount of highly educated people were fooled where less/uneducated ones weren't.

What about the analysis of trace metal compunds from moon samples? You conveniently avoided this evidence.

Capt'n Midnight

Please explain how the radio amatures all around the world who picked up the right kind of signals from the right directions were hoaxed ?

Please explain how the communist countries were kept in the dark too.

Please explain the pictures of the Saturn 5 rockets taking off, in front of witnesses - those things weight over 3,000 tonnes, most of which is rocket fuel.

Please explain the 1,000's of people working directly and indirectly for NASA.

Please explain the 1% of US GDP that was spent on the project, remember a lot of that would have been in competition with the funds for the ongoing unplesentness in Vietnam - plenty of Air Force radar stations and motive to rat them out.

robindch

Hi again Turley -

You should be more honest when condeming smart people for being stupid -- Randi is a magician and his job is to fool people, something he does very skilfully, whether they're physicists, brain surgeons or traffic wardens. This doesn't mean that these people are not good at their jobs, but rather that they're not very good magicians which is hardly relevant to the argument at hand.

And while it's easy for magicians to fool even high-qualified people, you'll find in fact that incompetent people far more hopeless at a much wider set of tasks. In the spirit of providing substantive, reliable information to back up this claim, please read the following interesting APA report at http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Does anyone know if NASA has officially claimed a wire was used to keep the flag in an upright position?

If you look at the photo, still available at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5874.jpg, which I went to some trouble to locate for you (but you seem not to have examined) you would see for yourself why NASA may not have released a statement mentioning that a wire was used to keep a flag up since I think we can probably agree that it's fairly obvious there's one there.

It is best to specify and not characterize. [...] The university intellectual community is easily bamboozled.

Your second declaration is an unspecific characterization, and an inaccurate one at that. Have you taken the time to speak with any members of the 'university intellectual community' in order that you might feel justified in making this statement? Or do you simply deny their worth because you neither understand them, nor what they do?

- robin.

Turley

Syke is correct that from one fooled researcher it does not follow that all university intellectuals are fooled. I was using physicist Peter Philips as one example and it is fair for Syke to ask me to present ten more examples to support my statement. I will do better than just ten. I will present an example where the entire American academic community has been bamboozled into teaching something provably false.

All American colleges and universities teach that the White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster committed suicide on July 20, 1993. The renowned Harcourt College Publishers in their textbook on American history “American Passages,” (published 2000) stated, “Vincent Foster committed suicide.” No American university professor of history, political science, or journalism will publicly disagree with the official conclusion that Vincent Foster committed “suicide.”

Some would argue by reasoning backward that since no one has reported Foster was murdered, (including America’s enemies) he could not have been murdered. Some here have also reasoned backward that since radio amateurs, communist countries, 1000’s of NASA employees, and people that saw the moon rockets launch are silent, therefore men must have gone to the moon. BTW I saw the launch of Apollo 16. It was very loud and at the time I still believed men went to the moon.

Some intellectuals might invoke the American Psychological Association as “proof” that Vincent Foster committed “suicide.” See online article published http://www.apa.org/releases/perfect.html
This article demonstrates the unreliability of the APA. Robin recently used the APA as a voice of authority.

Clearly the overwhelming evidence is that Vincent W. Foster was murdered. The official conclusion of “suicide” is false. See www.FBIcover-up.com
Yet this obvious lie remains unchallenged by the American academic community. Since the American intellectual community is 100% wrong about the murder of the highest government official to die violently since President Kennedy it is fair to ask what else could they be wrong about? The same Harcourt College Publishers text, “American Passages” also includes an account of landings on the moon by men.

I did not condemn smart people for being stupid as Robin suggested. I only said that smart people are easy to fool. And one does not have to be a magician to deceive. The techniques of deception are universal. The American CIA employs magicians to teach them how to fool people. Magician John Mulholland wrote a manual on deception for the Agency. The recent interim head of the CIA admitted that he was an “amateur” magician.

Journalists use the same techniques as magicians to fool the public. Information is secretly withheld and people simply reason incorrectly. If someone who participated in faking the moon landings came forward, as U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez came forward, how would we know? Who would tell us? Rodriguez, the lead investigator in charge of the Foster death investigation, told over 100 journalists about the cover-up of the murder and the public does not know. Textbooks and academia perpetuate and defend the lie. Could those that have fooled the intellectual community about the murder of Mr. Foster also fool the intellectuals about other important matters, including landing on the moon?

Turley

Robin
I did find a reference at the NASA site to the rod being used to hold up the flag. And the photo you referenced seems to show the rod as you said. As I said earlier the flag was not an issue that concerned me. But now I am curious how long the flag will be in motion.

“When the astronauts planted the flagpole they twisted it back and forth to sink it into the lunar soil. On the Earth, that would have made the flag ‘wave’ for a few seconds, then stop. But that's because the flag pushes against air as it flaps, and the air slows it down. On the Moon, there was no air to stop the flag's motion, so it continued, just as Newton's First Law of physics says it should. So of course the cloth flag waved and rippled beneath the metal rod holding it out.” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

In answer to your question I have spoken to many members of the "university intellectual community" and I am confident that they are easily bamboozled. The example I gave of Mr. Foster's murder demonstrates that the entire academic community is ignorant of recent history that is officially publicly available.
-Turley

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

Syke is correct that from one fooled researcher it does not follow that all university intellectuals are fooled. I was using physicist Peter Philips as one example and it is fair for Syke to ask me to present ten more examples to support my statement. I will do better than just ten. I will present an example where the entire American academic community has been bamboozled into teaching something provably false.

Again you have given what statistically only counts as one example.

I would refute that this example does not count as anyone being actually fooled rather than a curriculum being politically motivated.

You effectively damaged your own example when you said that no academic would publicly say that the man was murdered. This does not infer that they are "bamboozled" as you say, rather that they value their jobs.

Accusing someone of murder without sufficient proof is a very dangerous game and in the legal minefield that is the US its probably a very costly lawsuit. Sow hile the US acadmeic system could be accused of cowardice, you have offered no proof or even a valid example that they are easily fooled.

Since the American intellectual community is 100% wrong about the murder of the highest government official to die violently since President Kennedy it is fair to ask what else could they be wrong about?

You have contradicted yourself here. In the same post you say that they won't publicly admit he was murdered. This implies that many may believe he was murdered but just won't say it. This would, by your own inferral mean that they are not 100% wrong, but they are merely being forced to teach incorrect material.

Textbooks and academia perpetuate and defend the lie. Could those that have fooled the intellectual community about the murder of Mr. Foster also fool the intellectuals about other important matters, including landing on the moon?

Now thats a different story. Perpetuating a lie is not the same as being fooled. In any case, as you stated, there is no evidence for anyone to launch a counter claim to what happened. There is no proof that you are correct in your allegation either it should be noted.

However, there IS physical evidence of a moon landing. And a mass of spectroscopic data (anyone nerdy enough to get the pun?) showing that the lunar samples are not of earth origin. You have evaded and avoided this point that I repeated to you twice now.

So I hold that you have offered no example, least of all something that validates your argument in a statistical manner.

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

In answer to your question I have spoken to many members of the "university intellectual community" and I am confident that they are easily bamboozled. The example I gave of Mr. Foster's murder demonstrates that the entire academic community is ignorant of recent history that is officially publicly available.
-Turley

If I gave an example of someone who based their opinions on scant evidence and employed what is effectively a conspiracy theory and a magic show as the examples to back up their stance, many people would suggest that the person in that example is easily bamboozled.

Heresay is neither a good pop band nor a means to convince someone of an argument.

robindch

Hi Turley -

But now I am curious how long the flag will be in motion.

Probably not for very long -- I'd imagine that it would stop moving at about the same time as the astronaut removed his hand from it, assuming it's a fixed joint at the top of the flagpole. But I'm curious myself as to why you're concerned now about the motion of the flag? Is this in reference to your comment in your first posting regarding 'how long a flag flies on the moon' which I thought we'd put to bed by agreeing that there's a horizontal bar which holds it out and prevents it from collapsing.

- robin (increasingly perplexed)

robindch

Syke -

Heresay is neither [...]

Um -- is this a mis-spelling, or a pun? I'm opting for the latter and will cheerfully assume that you meant something 'bout half way between heresy and hearsay :-)

- robin.

Turley

syke wrote:

If I gave an example of someone who based their opinions on scant evidence and employed what is effectively a conspiracy theory and a magic show as the examples to back up their stance, many people would suggest that the person in that example is easily bamboozled.

Heresay is neither a good pop band nor a means to convince someone of an argument.

Dear Syke:
"Scant evidence, a conspiracy theory, heresay[sic]"
Is that what you call a 510-page court document supported by 910 footnotes to 630 pages of official documents including official testimony, Senate hearings, police reports, autopsy reports, lab reports and FBI interviews. As well as a court ordered document from the three judge panel on the Special Division of the U.S. Court of appeals, the second highest court in the U.S. And tape recorded telephone conversations from the U.S. attorney that headed the investigation, as well as congressmen and journalists caught on tape.

What kind of evidence would you prefer?
Would you prefer, a statement from the moonmen?

You are quibbling. It does not matters WHY the academic community goes along with the lie about a historical fact or the fanciful notion that men landed on the moon. I have demonstrated that they DO accept nonsense for truth. Whether politically or financially motivated into fooling themselves and others they still have history wrong. Aristotle said that before we seek “why it is” we must first know “that it is.” I have proven that the university intellectuals are fooled. Why or how is not the issue. The issue is they do not know the true American history.

If they have the wrong American history about a White House murder they can have the man on the moon history wrong too. The truth is elusive in America.

It is incorrect to say that I am accusing someone without sufficient proof. Brett Kavanaugh (asst. to President Bush) and John Bates along with former presidential candidate John Kerry played pivotal roles in concealing the murder. Kavanaugh and Bates have been appointed by Bush to serve as powerful judges in the federal courts. I’ve named names now where is that “costly lawsuit” you were talking about?

You wrote, “you have offered no proof” and “[t]here is no proof that you are correct in your allegation either it should be noted.”
I have provided proof. www.FBIcover-up.com
You are being unfair to dismiss so much evidence out of hand as “no proof.”

The moon landing is just another whooper that unskeptical people willingly accept. The point is that there IS proof that the American public and others can and will accept something provably false as historical fact.

I am sorry but believing in men on the moon is not part of my religion. If you want to continue to believe the U.S. government and press would not be able to hide the truth from you, go for it. You will have plenty of company.

I will remain a skeptic because I know American textbooks, scholars, journalists, and leaders conceal America's true history. If you do not know any of the U.S. secret history (most people don't) you might believe what you are told. You may believe that men landed on the moon.

Do you know any U.S. secrets Syke?

Rene Descartes wrote, “it is a mark of prudence never to put our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.”

Turley

robindch wrote:

Probably not for very long -- I'd imagine that it would stop moving at about the same time as the astronaut removed his hand from it, assuming it's a fixed joint at the top of the flagpole.

- robin (increasingly perplexed)

I agree, not for very long. That is why I found it odd that the official NASA site said that it would continue to flutter. If it is hanging from the rod it should just hang and not flutter. It is a mystery to me but not something I would rest my argument on.

BTW I am curious.
Do you know if the U.S. government & press has ever lied about a historic event and gotten away with it to this day? Can you give an example supported by facts?

Or do you think it would be impossible for the U.S. government and press to lie about a historic event without the public learning about it?

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

You are quibbling. It does not matters WHY the academic community goes along with the lie about a historical fact or the fanciful notion that men landed on the moon. I have demonstrated that they DO accept nonsense for truth.

Indeed I am quibbling, would you prefer I accepted the rantings of an anonymous internet person as gospel instead?

There are thousands of pages in FBI files about many many things, that does not make them true.

And for the third time you have evaded the scientific evidence from spectroscopic analysis of lunar samples. Why is it that you avoid the evidence here? Are you only willing to discuss facts you feel you can skirt around or are you willing to examine all the evidence, even if it doesn't fit your beliefs?

You have shown nothing but old wives tales and gossip. Skeptics are supposed to use wits and logic in their analysis.

You have come up short.

Do you know any U.S. secrets Syke?

Rene Descartes wrote, “it is a mark of prudence never to put our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.”

Perhaps I do.

Incidently, once again you use a quote that blow a giant inconsistancy in your own reasoning.

The FBI and US government and the officials you mention have notably and knowingly deceived the world on many occasions - I believe you just quoted and put your trust in their testimonies for the sake of your argument.

Where is your prudence there?

Also, the FBI cover site offers no proof. Iyt puts forward a theory that it tries to convince you of, but it offers no proof at all.

When you have more than flim flam tin foil hat conspiracies to offer for your arguments or perhaps if you wish to discuss the peer reviewed, independant scientific journals I referenced above, come back to me.

robindch

Hi again Turley -

As briefly as I can:

That is why I found it odd that the official NASA site said that it would continue to flutter. If it is hanging from the rod it should just hang and not flutter.

There are plenty of reasons why the flag might have 'waved and rippled', should the astronaut not have left the flag hanging vertically downward and still. Try swinging a pendulum -- these work in pressurized, frictiony environments almost as well as they do in atmosphereless, virtually friction-free environments such as on the moon. A flag dangling from a horizontal bar is a planar pendulum. Think about it -- you may understand what the underlying (frankly, very basic) physics of the situation are. This is not difficult stuff.

[...]Or do you think it would be impossible for the U.S. government and press to lie about a historic event without the public learning about it?[...]

Yes, I think it is virtually impossible that the bunch of third-rate, flag-waving, herd-instinct, religiously-oppressed, politicized bozos -- which, to me, seem to comprise the overwhelming majority of American politicians + media -- could fool the vast majority of the much-smarter remainder of humanity, including their then-sworn-enemies, the highly-skilled Soviets, as well as others, for over 35 years.

However, I do find it very likely, that a faintly-superficially plausible, though actually daft, story propagates within the minds of unskilled, or incompetent, human beings because the opposite thought, that there exist wiser and more productive people, is either poisonous to their self-esteem, or simply beyond their comprehension. I would ask you again to read the APA report on people who are 'incompetent and unaware of it' for further, well-documented, details.

Rene Descartes wrote, it is a mark of prudence [...]

Here, I should point out two things which seem germane:

1. It is NASA, and not the US Government or meeja who originally claimed to go to the moon (though, I frankly wish that GW Bush would become the first man to land on Mars and fail to return)

2. Descartes also wrote that Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: for each man thinks he has enough of it..

...with which entertainingly ironic thought concerning people's self-belief, I wish you a good evening.

- robin.

Turley

syke wrote:

Indeed I am quibbling

Dear Syke,
I don't argue with fools because from a distance it is hard for others to tell who is the fool.

Good luck and may God bless you.
-Turley

ecksor

Hardly consistent with appealing to sceptical minds. It is consistent with your other inconsistencies at least!

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

Dear Syke,
I don't argue with fools because from a distance it is hard for others to tell who is the fool.

Good luck and may God bless you.
-Turley

Well calling other users names because you can't back up your arguments pretty much sums up the strength of your position.

Incidently, abusing users with name calling usually gets you banned in these parts.

robindch

Hi again folks -

I don't argue with fools because from a distance it is hard for others to tell who is the fool.

Perhaps from a distance it is, though, from close up and within earshot, I've usually found that it's quite easy.

A propos of nothing in particular, I've always enjoyed Douglas Adams' parable:

A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box. manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"
-- Douglas Adams, a parable spoofing creationism that Adams often told, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

Enjoy!

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Yes, I think it is virtually impossible that the bunch of third-rate, flag-waving, herd-instinct, religiously-oppressed, politicized bozos -- which, to me, seem to comprise the overwhelming majority of American politicians + media -- could fool the vast majority of the much-smarter remainder of humanity, including their then-sworn-enemies, the highly-skilled Soviets, as well as others, for over 35 years.

That is a good description of the Americans and I think interesting that most Americans would think that they are "the much-smarter remainder of humanity." Would you agree? One reason the Americans think "they are much-smarter" is that they actually "landed on the moon" and the rest of humanity isn't able to go to the moon.

I don't think the Americans are much-smarter and I don't think they went to the moon 35 years ago.

robindch wrote:

However, I do find it very likely, that a faintly-superficially plausible, though actually daft, story propagates within the minds of unskilled, or incompetent, human beings because the opposite thought, that there exist wiser and more productive people, is either poisonous to their self-esteem, or simply beyond their comprehension.

I agree very much with your statement above. The only difference being a matter of perspective. Please consider your statement from the view that the "faintly-superficially plausible, though actually daft story" is that men landed on the moon. And that it is beyond the comprehension of some that there exists a wiser and more productive people, in the sense that they can fool the masses.

I can see and I understand your point of view. You make a very valid point. I hope you can see your view from my persepctive as well. In one sense we agree.

robindch wrote:

I would ask you again to read the APA report on people who are 'incompetent and unaware of it' for further, well-documented, details.

I did read the APA report that you sent me. The report you referenced used professional comedians to determine what is funny. I think a better determination of what is funny is what actually makes people laugh. The delivery of comedy is also an important factor in making people laugh. I confess I am not impressed by the APA especially since they published Dr. Blatt's paper supporting the U.S. government lie about the murder of the White House lawyer.

I think your point from the article is that incompetent people can also be fooled and I would agree. We seem to be debating who is easier to fool. I think we can agree that ALL people can be fooled, the incompetent and the competent.

robindch wrote:

It is NASA, and not the US Government or meeja who originally claimed to go to the moon (though, I frankly wish that GW Bush would become the first man to land on Mars and fail to return)

NASA is part of the U.S. Government and the media is the voice of the government. We both agree getting Bush off of our planet would be a gift to mankind.

In America unpopular candidates like Bush "win" elections and (I am not making this up) dead non-existent people recently "won" elections to the U.S. Senate and Congress. Officials are murdered and it is not reported. The "truth" in the U.S. is whatever the people are told is "the truth." I know for a fact that the official truth is not always the same as reality in the U.S. so I naturally have become skeptical that men landed on the moon.

The Russians and others do ignore provable U.S. lies. I do not know why. I only know that they do.

The Russians were first with a satellite, first with a man in space, first with a woman in space, and first to send a rocket to the moon. I don't understand why a Russian has never even been able to orbit the moon in 35 years since the Americans "landed" on the moon. It should be easy for those "highly skilled" Russians.

For the truth,
Turley

Turley

syke wrote:

Well calling other users names because you can't back up your arguments pretty much sums up the strength of your position.

you wrote, "When you have more than flim flam tin foil hat conspiracies to offer..."

syke wrote:

Incidently, abusing users with name calling usually gets you banned in these parts.

I'm shaking.

Turley

Idling Intellect

Whenever "conspiracy theory" I hear
I know that a brain has just gone out of gear.
The common phenomenon again I behold
Of a person determined to believe what he's told
By the press and political powers-that-be
Who have long had no credibility.
It's a sad thing to witness the widespread condition
Of critical faculties out of commission.

-David Martin

davros

Let's get back to the discussion, please. No name-calling and no accusing others of ranting or acting like fruitcakes (however indirectly).

As the Apollo 8 astronauts said to the people of Earth from lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, 1968:
"we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you - all of you on the good Earth"

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

The Russians were first with a satellite, first with a man in space, first with a woman in space, and first to send a rocket to the moon.

How do you know that?