Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

Najak's Posts

(1/11) > >>

smartcooky:
There seems to be a patterm emegering with najak's posts here

1. He post something he thinks a new, thinks that no-one else has thought of, and thinks is a slam dunk argument for a hoax.

2. Turns out that its not new, but it is old, sometimes very old, and has been repeatedly debunked for the past 40+ years.

3. He gets handed his arse and can't convince anyone of anything.

4. Abandons the argument, and goes on to the next shuny object, which is invariably another lame, stale, repeatedly debunked claim

- Dish falls with gravity (debunked)
- Sand falls too fast (debunked)
- Flag moves without being touched (debunked)
- Saturn V was not capable of launching a 110,000 lb payload (debunked)
- LM was not capable of landing humans on the surface (debunked)


Next few things I expect will be shadows, light sources, no stars and the rest of the usual bollocks we get from hoaxtards!

najak:

--- Quote from: smartcooky on December 02, 2024, 04:50:12 AM ---Next few things I expect will be shadows, light sources, no stars and the rest of the usual bollocks we get from hoaxtards!

--- End quote ---
Wishful thinking.  The presentations I've made have been mostly unique in approach, and depth that I go to make the proof.

I believe a number of these presentations stand unrefuted, so far.

1. Lunar Launches Too Fast -- unrefuted..   Awaiting a magic response from JayUtah
2. Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - unrefuted, but am still debating it with OneBigMonkey.
3. Sand Falls to Fast - I believe the argument I'm making is sound with physics.
4. Apollo 12's Dish bouncing in a way that can only be explained by a "pendulum in gravity", along with 4 other sub-points.


I get that Apollogists are like "Ministers of the Faith" - you have a LOT invested here.  And if I were to debate the authenticity/authority of the Bible with a Minister - I would never count on him deconverting.   Ministry is his life...  he's going to believe in the Bible no matter what you show him.

Likewise, I think the same thing may be happening here.

I haven't seen anyone hand me my ass here.   I've made some mistakes, which I admit, then I adjust and continue (as we should).

I have more to show, but first, need to wait for these few I've posted already to become officially "resolved" (which I'm guessing will be "agree to disagree", as people like you cast undeserved insults at me).

ApolloEnthusiast:

--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---
I believe


--- End quote ---

This is representative of most of your "arguments". You say things like, "it seems...", "I would expect...", "this should...".

You're not actually making any arguments. You're stating a conclusion based on your inferences, suppositions, and ignorance, and expecting that if no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're mistaken that your conclusion stands.

The fact is, however, you are not the gatekeeper of what is true, and nothing needs to be proven to your satisfaction. If you were intellectually honest you would see discrepancies in this minutiae you've found (or more accurately, had fed to you), assume you are mistaken and exert all of your efforts to understanding why. If you fail to find the reason or reasons, you might then seek help from others to help you see what you're missing. Not from the perspective of someone who believes that Apollo is a hoax, but from someone who is trying to understand why the facts of a situation don't match their expectations. And even then, if you and all of the people you get to help you, fail to find the cause of your misunderstanding, none of these minutiae can ever disprove the truth about the Apollo landings. The best they can do is serve as a catalyst to find actual evidence of a fraud.

The money spent on the machines to execute the moon landings is documented in transparent government budget lines. Any money spent on a hoax would, by necessity, not be documented. Where did that money come from? Who paid for it? How did they hide it from people whose jobs are to make sure money can't be misappropriated?

The rockets all launched. If not the moon, where did they go? Obviously the rockets worked, so if your claim is that they went to the moon and didn't land, what actual facts demonstrate the incapability of the LM from successfully landing? If they went to the moon with a lander that could land, then why did they elect not to?

If you believe they stayed in orbit, why was Apollo 13 observed in lunar transit by amateur astronomers?

Most importantly, if this was all staged, there is a location on Earth where it was filmed and many people who worked at that location to film it. Where was the studio, who worked on it, how did they keep all of this a secret, and why has no one revealed what they did?

You've made it quite clear that no evidence will be convincing to you. Anything from NASA is obviously biased, doctored, or otherwise faked, but anything that isn't from NASA is unofficial and without credibility. The burden is on you to prove your claims. You can't just state it's a hoax and then simply dismiss evidence to the contrary and claim victory. If you believe Apollo was faked then prove it. If you can't, then admit it, and humbly ask for help with the things you're having trouble understanding.

PS - any evidence of high intellect that you may or may not actually possess doesn't make you immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is simply a situation in which the person is unaware of what they don't know, so it is possible that if you are very intelligent, your arrogance is blinding you to the giant gaps in your understanding. It is always more likely that an individual is mistaken is their conclusion is at odds with hundreds of thousands of experts and decades of recorded history. While it is possible the individual is correct (see Copernicus or Galileo), one should always assume they are wrong and work with that hypothesis to exhaustion. You have definitely failed to meet that standard. Please do better.

smartcooky:

--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---Wishful thinking.
--- End quote ---

Nope


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---The presentations I've made have been mostly unique in approach
--- End quote ---

Wrong. They are old claims that have been previously debunked


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---...and depth that I go to make the proof.
--- End quote ---

You have offered no proofs of anything so far. All you have done is offer your own perspectives and opinions.... "this" doesn't look right, "that" doesn't sound right etc. 


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---I believe
--- End quote ---

What you believe is irrelevant, what you can prove is all that matters.


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---...a number of these presentations stand unrefuted, so far.

1. Lunar Launches Too Fast -- unrefuted..   Awaiting a magic response from JayUtah
--- End quote ---

First claimed by Ralph Rene over 20 years ago, using the timing marks on VHS video tape. He was too stupid to understand what a poor method this was. There were no VHS tapes in 1969 so what he used to take his measurements had to have been at least second generation (more likely 4th or 5th generation) copies.

You have offered no proof other than your own speculation. Where are your calculations showing the mass, thrust, and specific impulse of the F1 and J2 engines? You need to provide these to show the difference between the launch profile that would be required to put the upper stage into orbit and subsequently to TLI, and the launch profile YOU are claiming for the Saturn V. You haven't shown any of those calculations, I doubt you are even capable of doing them. Well some of us are, but we're not going to to do your homework for you. YOU are making the claims here not us, it YOUR job to prove your claim. So far, you have failed, and failed spectacularly.   


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---2. Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - unrefuted, but am still debating it with OneBigMonkey.
--- End quote ---

First claimed by Bill Kaysing more years ago that I care to remember, and again, debunked multiple times by multiple people on multiple platforms over the course of multiple years. Again, where are your calculations. Where are your frame-by-frame photogrammetric measurements show show fast you claim the flag moved? Did you detect any vertical component of this claimed movement? If you did, would you even understand the imlications of such movement  Do you have any understanding that, even in a vacuum, things can move as a result of outside outside influences such as gravity and vibration?     


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---3. Sand Falls to Fast - I believe the argument I'm making is sound with physics.

4. Apollo 12's Dish bouncing in a way that can only be explained by a "pendulum in gravity", along with 4 other sub-points.
--- End quote ---

Previously claimed by the Blunder from Down Under, I don't know who first claimed this rubbish. You and physics are totally unacquainted. Where are your gravity, mass and acceleration calculations? I'm not seeing any of the necessary mathematical evidence you need to back up this claim. Your arguments pretty much amount to nothing more than what you believe.   


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---I get that Apollogists are like "Ministers of the Faith" - you have a LOT invested here.  And if I were to debate the authenticity/authority of the Bible with a Minister - I would never count on him deconverting.   Ministry is his life...  he's going to believe in the Bible no matter what you show him.

Likewise, I think the same thing may be happening here.
--- End quote ---

We are not apologists (because facts need no apology) and we have nothing invested (becaseu facts need no investment). We use maths and science to come to our conclusions. Not faith. For someone who claims others are faith-based, you say stuff like  "I believe", "I would expect...", "this should..." and "It seems" an awful lot.


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM ---I haven't seen anyone hand me my ass here.
--- End quote ---

Of course you haven't. You don't understand that you are doing a great job of handing yourself your own arse.... all claims and speculation, no substance.


--- Quote from: najak on December 02, 2024, 05:34:30 AM --- I've made some mistakes, which I admit, then I adjust and continue (as we should).

I have more to show, but first, need to wait for these few I've posted already to become officially "resolved" (which I'm guessing will be "agree to disagree", as people like you cast undeserved insults at me).
--- End quote ---

Ahh yes... there's the next (predictable) conspiritard tactic, claiming that you have this secret stash of other claims, proofs and evidence that you haven't revealed yet. Who did you learn that from... Bart Sibrel?

najak:

--- Quote from: ApolloEnthusiast on December 02, 2024, 08:56:06 AM ---You're not actually making any arguments. You're stating a conclusion based on your inferences, suppositions, and ignorance, and expecting that if no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're mistaken that your conclusion stands.

--- End quote ---
I really enjoyed your response.  You seem to have a high IQ too. :)  Thank you for your responses here.  I'll address a few.


--- Quote ---The money spent on the machines to execute the moon landings is documented in transparent government budget lines. Any money spent on a hoax would, by necessity, not be documented. Where did that money come from? Who paid for it? How did they hide it from people whose jobs are to make sure money can't be misappropriated?

--- End quote ---
With high profit NASA contracts, and all accounting done on paper, it would be immensely EASY to siphon the required money for NASAX under the guise of "something else" (maybe QA work). 


--- Quote ---The rockets all launched. If not the moon, where did they go? Obviously the rockets worked, so if your claim is that they went to the moon and didn't land, what actual facts demonstrate the incapability of the LM from successfully landing? If they went to the moon with a lander that could land, then why did they elect not to?

--- End quote ---
The Landing maneuvers followed by Ascent to Rendezvous was at least 10x harder than all of the rest of their claims.   I believe it was "impossible with the tech at the time" - and have many reasons for believing this.   I plan to cover these in online articles "as we go".  But being a rookie, I'm only 9 weeks into this mess.  My disbelief in Apollo's Landing came from professional experience with 3D free-floating rigid body physics simulations... and the claims of Apollo in 1969 we impossible -- or at least "far more dangerous by a billion times that they'd never risk it -- and then luckily succeed 6x in a row without fatality".


--- Quote ---If you believe they stayed in orbit, why was Apollo 13 observed in lunar transit by amateur astronomers?

--- End quote ---
Do you have a citation?  I'm only aware of them seeing "Fuel dumps" - stuff that happened in Earth orbit.


--- Quote ---Most importantly, if this was all staged, there is a location on Earth where it was filmed and many people who worked at that location to film it. Where was the studio, who worked on it, how did they keep all of this a secret, and why has no one revealed what they did?

--- End quote ---
MLH theory puts it in Arizona/NM desert regions where military has large swaths of land and no-fly-zones.  Also Canon AF base NM, hangars also has evidence implicating it as the location for filming Apollo 11/12 sets.  Others may have ventured into the desert regions inside their high security regions.


--- Quote ---You've made it quite clear that no evidence will be convincing to you.

--- End quote ---
Ditto?  I would LOVE to change sides and be proven wrong - and admit it, confess it, etc...  The world is in dire need of more people willing to "change sides" when presented with enough compelling evidence.

At this point, for me, it's like showing up to a magic show where the whole audience believes he "cut a woman in half" but do not want to deal with the sheer "impossibility" of it, and any evidence shown to them that indicates "something wasn't right during the presentation" they simply refute, similar to how Christians will always defend the Bible, no matter what - to the end -- and proudly so, while insulting anyone who presents evidence that undermines their faith.


--- Quote ---PS - any evidence of high intellect that you may or may not actually possess doesn't make you immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is simply a situation in which the person is unaware of what they don't know, so it is possible that if you are very intelligent, your arrogance is blinding you to the giant gaps in your understanding. It is always more likely that an individual is mistaken is their conclusion is at odds with hundreds of thousands of experts and decades of recorded history. While it is possible the individual is correct (see Copernicus or Galileo), one should always assume they are wrong and work with that hypothesis to exhaustion. You have definitely failed to meet that standard. Please do better.

--- End quote ---
This is why I'm HERE, instead of hanging out in MLH echo chambers.  I believe I'm fairly good at realizing "where I don't know enough" to say "I don't know enough to have a reliable/legitimate opinion".  For example, Politics -- most people think they "know what's best for the nation" -- I however, conclude - "this is too complex to REALLY know what is best"... and although I have opinions of what "seems best to me" - I always say "I really don't have a clue, as it's too complex/muddy and too many moving parts and concepts."

As for Apollo -- I'm sticking to VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS... not within the realm of Dunning Kruger.   Newtonian Physics, for example.  Pendulum physics.   

In which of my claims do you think I've journeyed forth into the Dunning-Kruger effect? (where I'm making claims that are beyond my grasp of physics, etc)

And if a medical doctor shows up to the magic show, with enough knowledge to know "cutting a woman in half isn't possible" - is this Dunning Kruger?  Could he be wrong?  Sure -- but would want to see a LOT more evidence.  Is he required to "know how the magician pulled off the trick" for that doctor to remain firm in his beliefs?  Nope.

PS: Thank you for engaging.  I'd like it if you addressed some of these threads I've started to provide me with a viable/legitimate Apollogist explanation.   Give it your best shot, please.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page