How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

King Mob wrote: »

So would you like to clarify your position?

I do not believe that the Moon Landing was fake. I do accept the possibility that Nasa or whoever would have had the ability to fake some of the footage, this does not mean I believe that they actually did that.

King Mob wrote: »

A better question is: if they didn't go, why didn't the Russians say anything?

I posted this in another thread, but here it is again.


Testimony of the Author before Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 pm.
This appendix contains the testimony presented by the author before the Republican Party National Security Subcommittee at the 1972 Miami Beach convention. The author's appearance was made under the auspices of the American Conservative Union; the chairman of the subcommittee was Senator John Tower of Texas.
Edith Kermit Roosevelt subsequently used this testimony for her syndicated column in such newspapers as the Union Leader (Manchester, NH). Both major wire services received copies from the American Conservative Union; they were not distributed. Congressman John G. Schmitz then arranged for duplicate copies to be hand-delivered to both UPI and AP. The wire services would not carry the testimony although the author is an internationally known academic researcher with three
{p. 253} books published at Stanford University, and a forthcoming book from the U.S. Naval Institute.
The testimony was later reprinted in full in Human Events (under the title of "The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex") and Review of the News (under the total of "Suppressed Testimony of Anthony C. Sutton"). It was also reprinted and extensively distributed throughout the United States by both the American Party and the Libertarian Party during the 1972 election campaign.
The following is the text of this testimony as it was originally presented in Miami Beach and made available to UPI and AP.
The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex
The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is known to the Administration. The information is probably not known to the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in this instance ignorance may be a blessing in disguise.
I am not a politician. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. My job is to give you facts. Whether you like or dislike what I say doesn't concern me. I am here because I believe - and Congressman Ashbrook believes - that the American public should have these facts.
I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is ?what it can do ? and particularly where it came from. I have published three books and several articles summarizing the work. It was privately financed. But the results have been available to the Government. On the other hand I have had major difficulties with U.S. Government censorship.
I have about 15 minutes to tell you about this work.
In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology.
Almost all - perhaps 90-95 percent - came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/appendix_b.htm

King Mob wrote: »

Well you're going to have to explain to me why this is relevant and why you believe it?

Your question was "why did ussr not mention it", the answer is because they were being supplied with USA weapons and money at the time, contrary to popular belief.

King Mob wrote: »

Still not making much sense at all. Why was there a space race at all then?
Nor is it particularly convincing because in reality "alternative" doesn't equate to being true.

No I understand it doesn't make much sense to you, you believe what your told and whatever way your brain is wired "out of the ordinary" equals not true, your not alone, its fairly common. LINK

Google "Anthony Sutton, Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 pm", you'll find it's all well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
While he was giving this speech he was top notch:
research fellow (is used to denote a research position at a university or similar institution, usually for academic staff or faculty members) at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace 1968 to 1973

BengaLover wrote: »

I totally do after seeing the docu..but then I'm easily fooled..:D
Alls I can say is, IF they went, WHY haven't they gone again, and WHY havent the russians done it too..

(1) It is expensive.
(2) Why would you want to go back since you were there in Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17? How would you sell that to the public?
(3) Currently, they cannot go back.

The space shuttle is a low Earth orbiter. It cannot go to the moon, it just does not go fast enough to get there.

The Redstone rockets could not go fast enough. Only the Saturn V's were able to get a human cargo to the moon and safely back.

Surely, it is a technologically trivial redesign to get the boosters of the shuttle to go to the moon. However, try explaining to the public that you want to redesign the boosters of an antiquated shuttle that has been slated for retirement for years.

shedweller wrote: »

The thing is, the mylar kept spinning as it sped over the surface for what i guess is maybe 100 metres. It wouldn't do that in air, would it.

squod wrote: »

Post up a vdeo, then gives us your explanation of how the yoke is spinning etc.

Shedweller, do you really expect the CT's to understand unbalanced torques, the moment of Inertia, viscous atmospheric fluids, and damped motions?

Also, anyone that believes the gov't was able to pull something like this off has never worked for or contracted with a gov't.

Here's one for the CT's: Does the moon really exist?

You have to check out around 1:10. This "interview" was after Buzz punched that idiot for saying the moon landing was faked. Watch how AliG approaches the question - well done.

FISMA wrote: »

The space shuttle is a low Earth orbiter. It cannot go to the moon, it just does not go fast enough to get there.

The heat shields are not designed for reentry speeds reached while returning from the moon either. They would simply burn up very quickly.

Shedweller, do you really expect the CT's to understand unbalanced torques, the moment of Inertia, viscous atmospheric fluids, and damped motions?

I don't really, but its worth a shot! In any case, i'm no scientist but i do have a feel for physics etc. so i stand by my point about the "flying" mylar. Ballistic trajectory mylar might be more appropriate!:D

squod wrote: »

If you're so sure about the moon landings you could post up some proof and start a discussion.

Well, i made a bit of an effort with the mylar but all i got were non sensical, non scientific responses, frame rate being excepted. It was done on roll film anyway, which wouldn't transfer to digital too smoothly.

Welcome to boards.ie. The the gov't has never had a moon programme. Although it's possible they will do as another excuses to defraud the taxpayer.

Defraud the taxpayer? The money goes towards wages, among other things. People get taxed on that. Whats left is spent on goods and services, part of which is tax. So the way i see it, the country benefits from large expensive programmes like this, immediately! The long term benefits of non stick frying pans is the icing on the top.

We've already seen numerous cover ups by the US government through wikileaks. Also, we've seen the thirty year cover up of Russia's N1 project. The above post is a baseless argument which doesn't need posting again.

Wikileaks. Arent they supposed to be a front of some sort?

Squod,
Not sure if you are just trolling or a true believer. I'll give you the benefit of the later.

One question. If you care to answer it, fair enough. Otherwise, I will leave it as the last word.

Please give us some proof that you would accept as demonstrating the moon landings were true.

We could go on all day and it's not about truth or proof, but whether you accept it or not.

The moon landings are like believing in God. For those that believe, no proof is necessary. For those that don't no evidence is good enough.

I really do not know what to say. There are rocks from the moon that have micro-meteor impact craters. Such effects are not seen on Earth due to our atmosphere and weathering. However, I am sure that you'll have an answer to that.

How about the magnetic field in these rocks - indicitive of the Earth? No, but of the moon. Again, I you'll have a convenient way to answer that.

The list goes on and on - the makeup of the rocks, their formation, the "clocks in the rocks," and so on.

How about the fact that labs across the world and ships at sea shoot LASERS at the reflector on the moon that was left there in order to get pulses back to use the speed of light to determine location. What exactly are they shooting at in your opinion and how did it get there.

Also, before you ask, as many CT's have done, why they don't just turn the Hubble to the moon and view the lunar rover, camera, and all, well again, that's just people not getting Physics.

It's as inappropriate as me wanting to see across the fields with a microscope or using a telescope to see across the street. The Hubble is set up to view deep space. It could not focus on the moon.

Furthermore, if you pointed the Hubble towards the moon and opened its cover, you would toast it in seconds. It's designed for the faintest light from deep space. Not the extremely bright light on the moon.

Again, please explain one concept that we could provide that you would accept as proof.

You're never going to believe what we say, so if you tell us what you would believe, perhaps, we could find it for you. Deal?

Some conspiracy stories are fun, I must admit to such guilty pleasures. But this one is just bad Physics.

Otherwise, I leave the last word to you.


<my snip>

squod wrote: »

You made a point which got shot down

Squod,
It's quotes like this that give CT's a bad name. You ask for proof, but fail to prove your own.

squod wrote: »

If you'd like to discuss some other aspect feel free.

If you're going to ask for science and logic, then act logically and think like a scientist.

It's this kind of: (1) I want proof, (2) you get proof, (3) I reject that proof, because I do, (4) please provide more proof, attitude that hold you back from being able to learn enough to understand where you are wrong.

The point didn't get shot down. The motion of the mylar is exactly the type of motion you would expect in the given environment.

If you would like to shoot it down, please provide your calculation - I'll even help with some of the variables. It's a simple moment of Inertia - sum of the Torques - problem. Even easier, just use the LCOAM.

FISMA wrote: »

Squod,

I really do not know what to say. There are rocks from the moon that have micro-meteor impact craters. Such effects are not seen on Earth due to our atmosphere and weathering. However, I am sure that you'll have an answer to that.
.

Those rocks from Apollo were recently re-tested. They found (some) water in them also they don't match the the scan from the scanned debris of the recent impacts. One of them is even made of wood.

FISMA wrote: »

Some conspiracy stories are fun, I must admit to such guilty pleasures. But this one is just bad Physics.

The the mylar was likely bonded to something. Even if it wasn't it didn't hold it's shape too well in a vacuum and traveled at an angle perpendicular to it's original location. Suggesting it was spinning in an atmosphere.

FISMA wrote: »

The point didn't get shot down.
If you would like to shoot it down, please provide your calculation -

Lets see yours! I asked you three questions about the object. Do you remember the first one? You got shot down, get over it.

FISMA wrote: »

Furthermore, if you pointed the Hubble towards the moon and opened its cover, you would toast it in seconds. It's designed for the faintest light from deep space. Not the extremely bright light on the moon.

Bananas that you should even mention the idea......... while we're on the subject there is a telescope that can ''distinguish the gap between the headlights of a car located on the Moon''. That'd be fine for any sceptic person with an ounce of common sense to see the landing sights.

The reflector argument is an old one. How many reflectors are there do you think? How many arrived on unmanned missions?

FISMA wrote: »

It's this kind of: (1) I want proof, (2) you get proof, (3) I reject that proof, because I do, (4) please provide more proof, attitude that hold you back from being able to learn enough to understand where you are wrong.

.

There's obviously no point in debating with you on this. You clearly have nothing new to say. Have the last word if it makes you feel better.

FISMA wrote: »

Squod,
I'll ask this question again, as you appeared to have missed it. What evidence or proof will you accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real?

It is the question that I always ask CT's, one which they always fail to answer.

It is a simple catch 22 matter. I ask what proof they would accept. In reality, there is no proof they will ever accept. Thus, they fail to answer the question.

Their opinions, coupled with an overall lack of general science result in a bad scientific conclusion, intentions not withstanding. It is really the only way to approach a CT.

So Squod, please advise what evidence or proof you will accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real.

Slan

Get fucked

Re; the fake moon rock. Thats hardly grounds for faking moon landings now is it? I mean, i could go online and buy "genuine moon rock" and it's sure to be fake isn't it!?
Come on, try harder, with all your technical knowlege on the subject please.

shedweller wrote: »

the fake moon rock. Thats hardly grounds for faking moon landings now is it

You're admitting you know the moon rock is fake and that doesn't cause any concern to you regarding the moon landing hoax? How odd.

scudzilla wrote: »

I watched this, and have seen it before, and i've just noticed something else that isn't mentioned.
The ex deputy director of the FBI is the narrator, surely that means it's true

There's a devils advocate interview with Jarrah White up on youtube. Worth a look if this is the kind of thing you're into.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYGZa1QBcUQ&feature=related

FISMA wrote: »

Squod,
That's a very technical response, well thought out. It is all that I have come to expect from you.

If I were to, how would I be able to prove it to you?

Sounds like another conspiracy here.

Better get your dark glasses on. :cool:

Hmmm...

Re-read post.

squod wrote: »

there is a telescope that can ''distinguish the gap between the headlights of a car located on the Moon''. That'd be fine for any sceptic person with an ounce of common sense to see the landing sights.

FISMA added to the ignore list for obvious trolling.