Men on the Moon

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?

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

How do you know that?

Good question. How do we know what we know?

We know things from our senses. I remember seeing the Sputnik satellite in the night sky in 1957. To the naked eye it looked like a star moving across the sky. I think probability also plays a role in what we know. We "know" a train will arrive at the station at a given time because the train is usually on time. We tend to believe the train will arrive on time.

I tend to believe the Russian Sputnik was the first satellite because other satellites have also been launched by many countries including the USA, China, Israel, Japan, France, etc. I tend to believe that satellites are in orbit because this seems to be confirmed by practical results in weather satellite images, communications, and GPS devices. Satellite technology has improved since 1957. I think it is a good probability that satellites are in orbit and men orbit the earth. If you stare at the sky at night you can see many satellites. I expect the future will bring improved satellite technology.

OTOH it is curious that manned lunar landing technology is the same today as is it was in 1969. Lunar landing technology is reserved to only one country 35 years ago. Therefore I give less proability to belief that men landed on the moon. And as years pass the more I tend to doubt men landed on the moon. In a couple of decades all of the moon men will be dead, and in 65 years it will be 100 years since men "landed on the moon", and it will be unlikely anyone alive will remember the event.

GuanYin

So are you avoiding my question about lunar rock samples because you don't know how to answer or you just don't like points that blow your whole argument apart?

DapperGent

All the scientists must be lieing about the lunar rocks 'cos they're in on it.

One of my lecturers in college worked on the lunar rock samples. Shifty character.

GuanYin

DapperGent wrote:

All the scientists must be lieing about the lunar rocks 'cos they're in on it.

One of my lecturers in college worked on the lunar rock samples. Shifty character.

They're an easily fooled bunch those scientists!

robindch

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.

Yes, I agree that almost everybody can be fooled, but I disagree that the fooling is equally easy in all cases. Professionally, I'm a software engineer who writes payments network + cryptographic test + verification software and there are few enough people around who can pull the wool over my eyes in my field. However, outside this speciality, for example in the areas of soccer, knitting, etc, etc, I am functionally useless and can probably be fooled quite easily in those fields. Likewise, the guys in JPL, Baikonur, Guyana and elsewhere are in the business of making things fly into space and it will be virtually impossible to fool any of them for very long regarding the moon landings.

NASA is part of the U.S. Government and the media is the voice of the government.

You are wrong on both counts -- NASA is an independent, federally-funded agency; it is not a part of the US government. The American media is as diverse as the UK's, extending from republican-party soapboxes such as Fox News, to more thoughtful outlets such as the NY Times, or the Washington Post (which brought down Nixon, you'll recall; hardly the act of a government-controlled media conspiracy).

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.

The Russians travelled to the moon several times since 1969 -- see http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/timeline.html for further details. The Russians killed off their L3 moon-landing program in 1971, firstly, since the Americans had already succeeded and there were no further political brownie points to be had by going there, and secondly and rather more sadly, on account of the successive failures of three test boosters, failures not unrelated to the brilliant, but fatally complex, design chosen by Korolëv, their remarkably talented Chief Designer. Following the L3 failure, the Russians turned to low-earth orbit and attained considerable success there ahead of the Americans. Many of the details of L3 and the other soviet programs are available on the internet and elsewhere.

OTOH it is curious that manned lunar landing technology is the same today as is it was in 1969.

Again, wrong. The tech is at 1969-level because NASA didn't *need* to update it, since (a) they weren't going back to the moon and (b) the moon-shot budgets were terminated in the early 70's, so they had no money to upgrade, even if they had wished to. What on earth is curious about this?

And as years pass the more I tend to doubt men landed on the moon.

You've already stated this and at this stage, you've failed to provide any firm evidence to support your assertions, other than dubious blanket claims for the universal mendacity of the US government and the unwarranted conclusion that everything they say is false. The points of doubt you've raised have been clarified to my satisfaction, though not apparently to yours, since you've repeated several points which I dealt with a week or two back and I'm not going to raise, or deal with, again.

In the end, I really don't know -- though I'd love to -- why you've homed in on the moon landings as something to try to 'debunk'. Why not spend your time worrying about something more useful to humanity?

- robin.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

I tend to believe the Russian Sputnik was the first satellite because other satellites have also been launched by many countries including the USA, China, Israel, Japan, France, etc. I tend to believe that satellites are in orbit because this seems to be confirmed by practical results in weather satellite images, communications, and GPS devices. Satellite technology has improved since 1957. I think it is a good probability that satellites are in orbit and men orbit the earth. If you stare at the sky at night you can see many satellites. I expect the future will bring improved satellite technology.

What about Russia's claim to have put the first man in space and the first space walk?

Actually you have already ruled out the possibility of space walks since due to the extremes of temperature. And anyway, why aren't these 'space suits' not in use in arctic or desert conditions here on earth? These are your arguments.

OTOH it is curious that manned lunar landing technology is the same today as is it was in 1969. Lunar landing technology is reserved to only one country 35 years ago. Therefore I give less proability to belief that men landed on the moon.

Less probability than what? Than if other countries had their own lunar programme?

But what would be the commercial, political, military and scientific motivation for continued manned missions to the moon compared to that of earth satellite and unmanned space probes and other uses for that sort of money?

We don't live in a world of competing superpowers anymore and robotic advances mean that a lot (not all) of the job of manned missions can be done with machines.

The only reason to repeat it would be to convince a few excentrics that it happened the first time around. But if they did repeat it, of course, they would use up to date technology from other parts of the space programme.

And as years pass the more I tend to doubt men landed on the moon. In a couple of decades all of the moon men will be dead, and in 65 years it will be 100 years since men "landed on the moon", and it will be unlikely anyone alive will remember the event.

How is this an argument against an event?

I'm surprised though, that you seem place a very high probability to Russian manned missions. Although the US does lie and cover up things, the Soviet Union was a society almost entirely based on lies.

I think a lot of the 'Lunar Hoax' stuff is politically motivated.

Turley

DapperGent wrote:

All the scientists must be lieing about the lunar rocks 'cos they're in on it.

One of my lecturers in college worked on the lunar rock samples. Shifty character.

You are making a very big mistake. You obviously are totally unaware of the significance of what is available to you at http://www.fbicover-up.com/

"There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what is going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everybody makes a very big mistake when they believe tht a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of - some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is..." -Assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodriguez

Do you have any idea what this man is talking about?

Turley

robindch wrote:

However, outside this speciality, for example in the areas of soccer, knitting, etc, etc, I am functionally useless and can probably be fooled quite easily in those fields. Likewise, the guys in JPL, Baikonur, Guyana and elsewhere are in the business of making things fly into space and it will be virtually impossible to fool any of them for very long regarding the moon landings.

Landing on the moon is not in your field and the other guys fall into my previous response to Dappergent.

robindch wrote:

You are wrong on both counts -- NASA is an independent, federally-funded agency; it is not a part of the US government.

If you are federally funded you are not independent you are federally controlled.

robindch wrote:

The American media is as diverse as the UK's, extending from republican-party soapboxes such as Fox News, to more thoughtful outlets such as the NY Times, or the Washington Post (which brought down Nixon, you'll recall; hardly the act of a government-controlled media conspiracy).

The media is the heart of the matter. As diverse as from A down to B. The Watergate scandal is eternally raised by journalists and trusting consumers of American news that the press and government are "adversarial." Minds that are closed do not notice Toto the dog pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz http://www.fbicover-up.com/
It is called Failure of the Public Trust.

Not knowing that the Amercan press is the voice of the American government is a severe handicap. Consumers are not uninformed they are misinformed. The only difference between the American press and the press in North Korea is a bigger budget and a better quality illusion.

If you like the illusion of the American press you'll love their illusion of landing on the moon.

SkepticOne asked a very good question.
"How do you know that?"

robindch wrote:

In the end, I really don't know -- though I'd love to -- why you've homed in on the moon landings as something to try to 'debunk'. Why not spend your time worrying about something more useful to humanity?

It is not the moon landings Robin.

Veritas,
Turley

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

Although the US does lie and cover up things, the Soviet Union was a society almost entirely based on lies.

And if the US is a society almost entirely based on lies how would you know?
How could you know?
Who would tell you?
Me?

Turley

Turley wrote:

Me?

No one would believe me.