Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Peter B]

So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.

The funds from Congress were to fund NASA.  Without NASA funding, all is lost.   Baron and his 500-page report needed to not be in the spotlight, else it cast more doubt on NASA as a whole.  But Baron was relentless, and was roping in more witnesses -- until he wasn't.

NASAX didn't have a public budget - it was rolled into the NASA budget and maybe even some from the DoD.  Shifting money around is an easy govt task.

Yeah, sorry, WHAT?? If Congress ceases NASA's Apollo funding, Apollo is finished, "NASAX" or not. Do you seriously think that people won't ask what's going on if work on Apollo continues after NASA's funding for it has been cut off?

[Peter B]

#1: And this is why you make it seem pointless to just explain stuff to you - you ignore it. See reply #372 in this thread for the explanation for Webb's resignation - the sort of politics that happens in the US government every time a new President is elected:
#2: Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.

#1: The election was a month away, and 3.5 months away from the transition of power.  In the meantime, why not stick around to be a part of this GRAND VICTORY (which is the FIRST TIME EVER that Astronauts have been launched through the Van Allen Belts, and then into orbit around the moon!)...

I hear your "evidence" - but equating "words given from top leaders about reasons for resignation" as Truth - -is a big stretch.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm sorry but you're just being argumentative.

If you weren't biased, you might see this as fishy too.  Think about it more.   Webb was like the "Father of Apollo" - it was his brain-child.  He championed it.  It was based upon his zeal and confidence that Congress approved of the program.

Not only have I thought about it, I've been studying Apollo as history for more than 25 years, so I've examined it in far more detail than you have. Apollo wasn't Webb's "brain-child". It was devised before he was Administrator. Yes, he championed it with Congress, because that was his job as Administrator. But if you read his biography and read his NASA oral history you see that he was very much an eminence grise - a power behind the scenes, and not a rocket fan-boy.

Then he makes what should have been a reckless decision to change the Apollo 8 mission into a Moon Orbit late-in-the-game - and you think that this was "his decision".  In order to make such a bold decision, you must have some real conviction about it...  but, instead he resigns 2 months later -- and does not even attend the launch!  Hmmm....  no fish here.

And once again your lack of knowledge leads you to draw conclusions that you think are suspicious. Webb didn't "make" the Apollo 8 decision. George Low made it and convinced other Apollo senior managers, and between them they convinced Webb, who was the most skeptical of the lot. So we know that your statement "you think that this was "his decision"" is incorrect.

As for not attending the launch, others have already pointed out to you Webb's record on attending launches.

#2: "Paid attention to evidence..."
If you didn't simply give full credence to the narrative they "tell you" and instead looked at the actions/events that are transpiring -- you might see more compelling evidence.

Webb's actions indicate something different than the "excuse" he gave for resigning.  His excuse makes little sense.

And if Apollo 8 was a success, why on earth would Nixon replace the "Father of Apollo"??    Under his leadership/inspiration, wasn't Apollo 8 itself a miracle?   Would Nixon disrupt this leadership 6 months before Apollo 11?

Webb didn't want a part of Apollo anymore...  this is pretty blatant to neutral eyes.   GenZ won't fall for his "excuse" and call it "fact/evidence".

The current Administrator, Bill Nelson, is the 14th Administrator of NASA, and he'll be leaving to make way for Trump's nominee. Of the preceding 13 Administrators, it's reasonable to say that six of them left due to a change of President (Glennan, Webb, Frosch, Griffin, Bolden and Bridenstine). So that would make 50% of NASA Administrators leaving their jobs because of a change of President.

See what happens when you look at "the actions/events that are transpiring"?

[onebigmonkey]

Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf

In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.

Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:

After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?

The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.

What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?

Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an  electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.

Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?

The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.

There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.

[ajv]

First, the link was broken for me - missing a trailing "f".

Thanks for this magazine link. Why do I get the feeling that JayUtah went straight to magazine page 254 and hasn't been seen since?

Did you know you can get a data modem up to 150 baud for only $349? - wow! (The 2400/4800 baud ones are outside my price range.)

[Peter B]

Seeing as NASA's failings are part of najaks's discussion, I happened across this publication while looking into something else:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronic-Design/1969/Electronic-Design-V17-N17-1969-0816.pdf

In it there's an interview with George H. Hage, Apollo Program Deputy Director and Mission Director for Apollo 11.

Here are his responses to some pertinent questions:

After losing 22 months to unscheduled testing, how did you manage to place a man on the moon within the time schedule?

The Apollo program was stabilized before January 1967, so that there was leeway in scheduling until mid-summer of last year. Then, of course, we changed the mission sequence. The pre-fire version of the projected Apollo 7 had no launch designation. If the Apollo 7 had performed as planned, there is no question that we would have been on the moon by now. But when a program of this kind runs into a deficiency of the magnitude of the fire, you have no alternative but to do whatever is required to fix it. Only then were Apollos 8, 9 and 10 sent on their way. During the testing and redesign of the spacecraft, three unmanned flights were launched.

What effort was necessary to compensate for management mistakes?

Any program of this size is going to be faced with errors in human judgment. I suspect there are those who would be critical of this management in trying to determine the cause of the fire that killed the three astronauts three years ago. I suggest that circumstance was created by a technical blind spot—because we did not recognize the hazard in having present simultaneously all the conditions that could lead to a catastrophic fire of that type. The three conditions are: fuel, and we had materials in the spacecraft that were combustible; ignition sources, and any time you have an  electrical system inside a machine you have potential ignition sources; and tmosphere, that will cause the fire to propagate. If all three of these elements are present, you have a potential fire threat. Actions taken as a consequence of that circumstance have been extremely thorough. The interior of the spacecraft, both the Lunar Module and the Command Module, have been redesigned to rigorously remove flammable material. Wiring has been carefully protected to minimize the possibility of shortcircuits, and great care has been taken to protect against over loading circuits. Finally, the atmosphere of the spacecraft at launch was changed to be less of an oxidizing agent. We changed the mixture from pure oxygen to 40% nitrogen and 60% oxygen, an environment that is less sensitive to propagating a fire. Also, a very demanding test program was conducted after this redesign: the interior of an actual boilerplate spacecraft was built with materials, wiring, etc., to duplicate the flight unit. By spotting various ignition sources, we set fires in many places throughout the spacecraft to determine if, in fact, they would propagate. Resolution of this problem cost us time between January, 1967, and October, 1968.

Is it ever possible to correct minor mistakes before they become public knowledge?

The policy of the spaceflight program has been one of complete exposure, not only nationally, but to the world. That’s a very powerful incentive for those of us who are involved in turning out these programs to be extremely careful, and critical, and to do everything that’s reasonably within our power to make every flight a success. Our “power” takes the form of a very complete and extensive ground test program.

There's a couple of other interesting Apollo articles in the edition as well.

The problem is that while most people would consider the interviewee as being honest and open about NASA's shortcomings, I predict Najak's response would be like this:

Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss.    If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest...  He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).

So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way.  To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.

(And yes, that's a direct quote of Najak after I linked a different interview for his reading pleasure.)

[bknight]

Toe be clear all manned spacecraft went through a 100% oxygen test prior to launch, NASA's luck just ran out .

[Obviousman]

Toe be clear all manned spacecraft went through a 100% oxygen test prior to launch, NASA's luck just ran out .

Exactly.

100% O2 was used relatively safely throughout military aviation which probably led to an insidious sense of complacency - people didn't think about the requirement to over-pressurise the CM *with an 100% O2 atmosphere* and what that meant to the risk; the complacency led to people not considering what if there was an emergency on the ground - in the capsule - and would 2-3 minutes be quick enough for a crew to safely egress? This was meant to be an egress test on completion of the Plugs Out Test - how many egress tests had been conducted previously & under what conditions? The pressure to 'keep moving' just added to the conditions affecting the planners, the designers, the builders & the crew.

It is not the only example in the Apollo programme but sadly it is the one that took the most lives.

[Peter B]

#11: Ross Taylor interview - I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.

Found your link, and it's on my list to check out.  Thank you.

UPDATE:
Skimming it -- very long.  I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss.    If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest...  He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).

So once again you casually invent negative character traits while providing no evidence, in order to make the man fit your narrative. Of course, anyone who’s read the interview would know how unlikely those character traits would’ve been in Taylor. It’s also particularly noticeable that you do this while with an equal lack of evidence you beatify Thomas Baron.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Taylor was “paid by NASA”?

So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way.  To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.

And now we have the circular argument that any scientist studying Apollo rocks is “working for NASA” therefore will toe the NASA line; and that because all the scientists agree with each other about the Apollo rocks, they must be “working for NASA”.

Do you have any evidence that these results “can only be proclaimed by those working for NASA”?

I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.

In your opinion, is there anything “unlikely” or “impossible” about scientists working independently from each other reaching identical conclusions about the Apollo rocks? If so, what is the logic hole?

I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do.   Making it look easy, IMO.

Apart from saying that you “think to a large degree they are manufactured”, do you have any evidence?

EDIT#2 - if you have specific things he said in mind that you want to highlight -- please do.  I'd be happy to discuss various points -- I am not suggesting he's "just outright lying about everything" - I do not believe this.   I simply believe that he's apply a subject-pro-nasa filter to his views, where this pertains.

This is why I shifted this part of your post to the top – to address this request. No, I’m not going to highlight anything. I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.

But I’d also like you to stop trying to do the speed-run version of learning. Do all the reading and learning yourself, and use it to present evidence. Your current flurry of evidence-free claims is getting tiresome.

#1: In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterization of your view?

It's a general notion currently.  I also don't think things are clear cut.  I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be.   When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ...  so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them.   And learn more.  And then have a better assessment.

I’ve shown you how to find the information about the hundreds of scientific articles written about the Apollo rocks, and you’ve had time to check them out. Do you accept that your statement that you “didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center” is incorrect?

#2: The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, ...

Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level.   People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it.  So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?
For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't.   Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.

As you say, the masses believed the Cold War and the ideology behind it was real, and the political divide that created in many countries therefore makes it real. Real people voted in real politicians espousing a range of political views into parliaments and congresses across the world. The idea that these politicians were somehow faking their political views doesn’t pass any sort of sniff test.

And the militaries on both sides also believed it was real: you’re apparently too young to know about the nuclear bomb-carrying B-52 bombers which constantly existed in a state of high alert; the cat-and-mouse duels between nuclear submarines; that Che Guevara was a real guerilla fighter and not just a two-tone image on T-shirts; the occasional gun battles between North Korean troops and South Korean and USAnian troops; the Soviet spy trawlers hanging by NATO naval wargames; the East German soldiers who literally shot to kill people attempting to cross the Inter-German border from East to West; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The idea that these activities could be undertaken by people who knew it was all fake again doesn’t pass the sniff test. To use a current example, it would be like saying that the Syrian Civil War of the last decade was fake.

And who gave the orders to the militaries during the Cold War? The political elites of the USA and USSR. Do you think they were playing make-believe? Sure, the Soviet leadership lived lives of luxury which had little to do with Marxism-Leninism or the shortages ordinary Soviet citizens lived with. And sure, the US leadership got the USA involved in South Vietnam on shaky grounds. But that doesn’t make thousands of dead soldiers from each country fake.
Or do you still hold the view that the Cold War was fake?

In 1969 - it was easier for gov't to control the narrative.  Walter Cronkite was generally regarded as fully honest- if he said it, people trusted it.  Just as half of Americans in 2020 were 100% fooled into believing a lie, and to them, their beliefs were "real" -- the same dynamic was active in 1969 - except back then, it was easier to have a more singular unified narrative... such as with Communism (told to fear it - and so we did) ... and Apollo.

You’re making the mistake of assuming the intended audience for Apollo was just the USAnian public. It wasn’t. The audience was literally the world. And the world sent its own journalists to cover Apollo, journalists with their own agendas. And despite that, they were all welcomed by NASA to stick their noses into all the nooks and crannies they wanted to. Why else do you think the crew of Apollo 11 were allowed to speak un-mediated to an auditorium full of the world’s media after the mission? Do you have any evidence to dispute this?

#3: Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?

All-Powerful is an absolute.  I rarely think in absolutes.  I think the "elected unknowns" have power, and that it's out of the public view, and something rarely acknowledged.

And? You’re dodging the question. Throughout this discussion, every time you’re cornered by evidence you just handwave into existence some new ability of The Powers That Be in order to allow your version of reality to continue to exist:

- NASA can’t make Apollo work (you’ve never explained how and you’ve never provided evidence of this inability), so you conjure up NASAX that can just magically make a seamless hoax work;

- the USSR would leap at any opportunity to humiliate the USA for faking Apollo, so the entire Cold War is stage-managed by “Them”;

- the world’s science community would be genuinely seeking to uncover secrets of the Moon by studying rocks (to test those hypotheses about the Moon’s formation), so according to you the USA achieves scientific consensus by paying them off to stick to some arbitrary party line;

- an engineer working at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station says the staff would know whether they were receiving fake or genuine signals, so you just claim he’s being paid to lie.

None of these claims have any evidence from you to back them up. Therefore, given this lack of evidence, do you acknowledge your Apollo hoax hypothesis is based on faith?

#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?

One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations".   In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts.

So your only evidence is “who knows”? Do you agree that means you have no evidence?

I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches...  total loss of interest, it seems.

How many launches did Webb attend prior to his resignation? (The answer is in that oral history interview linked earlier in this thread.)

So those "making decisions" have strings being pulled on them that they do not talk about or admit.

Are those lobbyists somehow also stage managing the Cold War?

#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?

I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution.  This institution was never found out... dropped.  Papers STILL sealed.   I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine...  and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!...  oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War".   Who benefitted from the Cold War??  Contractors...  Military, etc.  Follow the money...

Yes, Kennedy approached the Soviets about a partnership to land on the Moon. Do you know who rejected this plan, and why?

#6: We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart.

Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/
quote: Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?”

You’ve completely misrepresented the point the author made. The author was pointing out that lunar basalts are similar to Earth basalts. I’m talking about the difference between Apollo rocks and lunar meteorites. The irony is that your quote contains a significant pair of words: “fusion crust”. Go back and read the whole article again, along with the related article about lunar meteorites which is linked within your article, then explain to us how NASA could pretend that lunar meteorites were Moon rocks.

#7: Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them.

And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon".   Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics --  I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.

“If these rocks are from Antarctica” they will have very obvious signs of having sat in an Earth environment, regardless that they’re from the Moon. Read the article you linked above (‘How do we know that it’s a rock from the Moon’) – it explains this. Having read it, do you want to withdraw your claim that results could be faked to “show these are from the moon”?

Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with.  The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" ---   so I take results with a grain of salt.

Wrong. It can’t apply to “moon rock studies” because of the inter-connected nature of the evidence, as pointed out in the article you linked, and the lunar meteorites article linked within it. You’re missing this because you keep picking one sentence out of context and ignoring the other 5000 words in the article. That’s pretty egregious cherry-picking.

The recent HUGE difference in composition/size of Chinese regolith vs. Apollo -- is more fuel to support MLH.

No, I’ve already provided the evidence which explains why the Chinese regolith isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be. Having read that article, do you want to withdraw your claim that the difference in results is “more fuel to support MLH”?

#8: "2012 - particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's"

I've already explained your faulty logic here.

Explain it again please.   This is a DRASTIC change.  If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice?  Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE.   This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation.

You really have a problem with remembering evidence which contradicts your hypothesis.

First, there are two data points, so you don’t know the shape of the curve between them. This provides no information about when the size change happened, or whether the size change was sudden or gradual.

Second, they didn’t notice the size change before the second test because no one conducted a similar test between those two tests.

Do you want to challenge either of these points?

I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works.  People serve those who pay them.  And if they don't, they get fired and discredited...

Then how did the results of the second test get released if they’re such a challenge for NASA? You can’t have it both ways.

#9: "Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.

"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance.

No it isn’t. You’re just stretching the meaning of the word to suit your agenda. Ukraine and Russia are co-operating to swap prisoners, but they’re still at war.

Agreed to hold hands and cooperate.   Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit!   This was a refreshing "win".

It’s been pointed out to you that the level of animosity between the USA and USSR varied over the course of the Cold War. Nixon’s presidency was a period of generally decreasing animosity. I’d tell you to go and read a book on the Cold War, but you’ve already poisoned that well by claiming (once again without evidence) that historians don’t know what they’re doing.

#10: Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.

See above.  You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum)  THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed.   Big hole in their story, IMO.

I said “Prove me wrong”. You provided no proof, just an assertion. Try again.

If it were just a smaller change -- sure.  But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts!  THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this...  but NASA wouldn't fund that.  So it'll never get done.   It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.

Still no evidence. Keep trying.

As I write this all out, the one thing that stands out to me is the number of times you’ve failed to provide evidence to back your claims. Do seriously expect to convince people that you have a viable hoax hypothesis when (a) you can’t even explain why the hoax was necessary in the first place, and (b) for your hypothesis to work it relies on so many suppositions for which you have no evidence.

[TimberWolfAu]

I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.

Hey, would you mind relinking the article in question? I'm not sure which post it was originally in, and you've peaked my interest with the reference of specific metals being on the lack lustre side. A small conversation I had with Randy Korotev (yes, the one from the links about lunar meteorites) also noted specific metals being on the lighter side, I was wondering if they are the same ones.

[najak]

1. .. Taylor / Moon Scientists ...
2. .. Trusting "History/government"...

1. Employers are permitted to add clauses to contract that limit your ability to speak badly about your employer in the future.   Also, in the narrow scope of Geology and Moon Science - most jobs are tied to government funding.   If a scientist becomes classified as pseudo-scientist by denying "man's greatest and well-documented achievement" - this may prevent them from getting work, or rising up in the ranks.   This doesn't indicate "bad character" - it's just how things work.  We are wired for a fair amount of self-interest.   And also, we are wired to "truly believe" things that help us... so confirmation bias plays a role throughout.  So I don't entrust my faith to "Scientific Consensus" when it comes to moon science.  This is my right.  If you want to have this faith - go for it.  I won't stop you.

2. I don't trust history, IMO for good reason... especially where govt is involved.
If Bay of Pigs hadn't blundered, "history" would have been recorded differently.
If Gulf of Tonkin hadn't been confessed as false -- history would say it was real.
If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't taken on the risk of whistleblowing -- historic records would have been more false.
Govt' records indicate JFK and RFK assassinations were lone gunmen.
Prison records indicate Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Dirty Trick"??  It was proposed by our DoD to JFK to "blame the Cubans if the next Gemini Mission failed/blew-up", to justify military action.  And THIS is what History would have recorded.

So forgive me for not putting my trust into government reports/documents/claims.

===
What I see is an operation that switched to "Plan B - Slam Dunk - Fake it" in 1967... following the A1 tragedy, exposure of rampant QC/QA issues even at the "end of the production line!" (what about everywhere else, was it peachy?)    This is followed by a 50% rushed schedule instead of slowing down to "get it right" they cut MORE CORNERS - to the point of making people say "That's CRAZY!  you can't do that!  No Way!" (Alan Bean's account)...  And from that point on, more and more difficult milestones were achieved in succession, never slipping the final date again.

Amidst this acceleration and renewed success- we see BOTH heads of NASA RESIGN!... Seamans then Webb...   Just before achieving ultimate success.   These resignations are what first convinced my wife to smell the fish, and break free from her current mainstream views.

I also see Baron's testimony where he gave Congress a 500-page report, then he's killed, and ALL Copies of this report not only go missing, but NO ONE MENTIONS IT... and even today, NASA's site declares it to have NEVER EXISTED.   Then I see NASA lose ALL Telemetry tapes...  And NG discard most of the LM documentation.   And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).

... and there is much more...  that I am not allowed to share in detail.  The fear factor I sense here - is also disconcerting...  the bias should be unwarranted if TD's are truly standing on the truth.

So forgive me if I have doubts, and smell some fish here.   I think this is worth investigating.

My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity.   MANY things MLH claims are bad claims.   I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.

So far, here on these forums, I believe I've established one very solid one -- the 8 flag motions.   And the A12 Dish Flinging is not as solid (because the context isn't as simple), but still good.

I have more that I'd like to investigate.   Meanwhile, I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field.  (which is true, if MLH is true)

[ApolloEnthusiast]

My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity.   MANY things MLH claims are bad claims.   I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.

They are all bad, because the Apollo program wasn't faked. If it were even possible to fake, it would have cost more time and money than the actual landings, and would have been impossible to hide.

Each one that you think is a good claim is because you lack the understanding to explain what's really happen and are unwilling to accept that anything you don't understand can be true.

[Peter B]

I want you to read the whole article. I want you to learn what sort of person Taylor was (to show how inaccurate your character assessment is). And I want you to find the answer to the question I’ve asked a couple of times about the significant finding scientists made about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rocks.

Hey, would you mind relinking the article in question? I'm not sure which post it was originally in, and you've peaked my interest with the reference of specific metals being on the lack lustre side. A small conversation I had with Randy Korotev (yes, the one from the links about lunar meteorites) also noted specific metals being on the lighter side, I was wondering if they are the same ones.

Sure, it's here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html

I hope you don't mind if I don't show you exactly where the relevant point is, due to my desire to make Najak read the whole interview. But I think you'll know how to find it quickly.

[TimberWolfAu]

I hope you don't mind if I don't show you exactly where the relevant point is, due to my desire to make Najak read the whole interview. But I think you'll know how to find it quickly.

Thanks. Different material in the end, but we were talking about surface samples versus lunar-meteorites, and some of the interesting differences.

[Peter B]

1. .. Taylor / Moon Scientists ...
2. .. Trusting "History/government"...

1. Employers are permitted to add clauses to contract that limit your ability to speak badly about your employer in the future. 

Do you have any evidence of this in the cases of Ross Taylor, Mike Dinn (Deputy Director at Honeysuckle Creek), or any scientist who investigated Apollo rocks?

Also, in the narrow scope of Geology and Moon Science - most jobs are tied to government funding.   If a scientist becomes classified as pseudo-scientist by denying "man's greatest and well-documented achievement" - this may prevent them from getting work, or rising up in the ranks.   This doesn't indicate "bad character" - it's just how things work.  We are wired for a fair amount of self-interest.   And also, we are wired to "truly believe" things that help us... so confirmation bias plays a role throughout.  So I don't entrust my faith to "Scientific Consensus" when it comes to moon science.  This is my right.

Once these people leave the industry or retire, what is to stop them from revealing what they know? What stops them from providing a post-death confession?

If you want to have this faith - go for it.  I won't stop you.

Yeah, sophistry noted. The science community is pretty good at self-policing to maintain reliability. There is no requirement to take anything in science on faith. That's the sort of argument creationists and flat earthers use.

2. I don't trust history, IMO for good reason... especially where govt is involved.
If Bay of Pigs hadn't blundered, "history" would have been recorded differently.

Please expand on this statement. When you say "blunder" do you mean the decision to invade (which was made by JFK) or the size of the invasion force or the decision to not send USAnian troops after the initial invasion? When you say "would have been recorded differently" how would it have been recorded differently?

In any case, BOP invasion was an attack against a Communist state. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?

If Gulf of Tonkin hadn't been confessed as false -- history would say it was real.

Which, as I’ve already pointed out, drew the USA into a war against a Communist insurgency; an insurgency supported by a neighbouring Communist state; a state itself supplied with material by two Communist superpowers. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?

If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't taken on the risk of whistleblowing -- historic records would have been more false.

Historic records which again show the US government’s involvement in fighting against a Communist insurgency. Yet you reckon the Cold War was fake?

Govt' records indicate JFK and RFK assassinations were lone gunmen.
Prison records indicate Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
Have you ever heard of "Operation Dirty Trick"??  It was proposed by our DoD to JFK to "blame the Cubans if the next Gemini Mission failed/blew-up", to justify military action.  And THIS is what History would have recorded.
So forgive me for not putting my trust into government reports/documents/claims.

Do you still hold the view that the Cold War was fake?

What I see is an operation that switched to "Plan B - Slam Dunk - Fake it" in 1967... following the A1 tragedy, exposure of rampant QC/QA issues even at the "end of the production line!" (what about everywhere else, was it peachy?)

It’s already been explained to you that the delay caused by the Apollo 1 accident allowed work to continue on other parts of the Apollo program, including the lunar module and the Block 2 command module. Do you dispute this?

This is followed by a 50% rushed schedule

Please show your calculations for how you arrived at the figure of 50%. Or please state clearly that this is a metaphor.

instead of slowing down to "get it right" they cut MORE CORNERS - to the point of making people say "That's CRAZY!  you can't do that!  No Way!" (Alan Bean's account)...  And from that point on, more and more difficult milestones were achieved in succession, never slipping the final date again.

Okay, so you have a narrative. That’s nice. But where’s your evidence?

Amidst this acceleration and renewed success- we see BOTH heads of NASA RESIGN!... Seamans then Webb...   Just before achieving ultimate success.

We have provided evidence in which each man explains why he resigned when he did. You can repeat the claims above as much as you like, but where’s your evidence?

These resignations are what first convinced my wife to smell the fish, and break free from her current mainstream views.

Has your wife read the evidence we’ve provided?

I also see Baron's testimony where he gave Congress a 500-page report, then he's killed, and ALL Copies of this report not only go missing, but NO ONE MENTIONS IT... and even today, NASA's site declares it to have NEVER EXISTED.

I’ve already quoted to you what Baron said about his 500 page report, and my take on it. Would you like me to repeat myself?

Then I see NASA lose ALL Telemetry tapes...  And NG discard most of the LM documentation.   And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).

It took me less than a minute to confirm you’re wrong about the AGC disappearing, and another couple of minutes to confirm why it wouldn’t be particularly marketable. If I can find it online, so can you.

... and there is much more...  that I am not allowed to share in detail.

Please give us one good reason why we should believe you.

The fear factor I sense here - is also disconcerting...  the bias should be unwarranted if TD's are truly standing on the truth.

An alternative explanation is that we’re describing a real event.

So forgive me if I have doubts, and smell some fish here.   I think this is worth investigating.

My approach is to take smaller incidents, and examine them for integrity.   MANY things MLH claims are bad claims.   I'm trying to figure out which ones are bad/crap vs. good.

So far, here on these forums, I believe I've established one very solid one -- the 8 flag motions.   And the A12 Dish Flinging is not as solid (because the context isn't as simple), but still good.

And in the meantime you (a) don’t provide evidence to back up your claims, and (b) dismiss the evidence we provide when it turns out inconvenient for you. Plain and simple, that’s hypocrisy.

In any case, even if for argument’s sake you were right with both those claims (which I don’t agree with), neither is evidence that Apollo was fake. Do you agree?

I have more that I'd like to investigate.   Meanwhile, I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field.  (which is true, if MLH is true)

Sorry, but your intended approach is about as wrong as you can get.

First, regarding your claim that “NASA has maintained control of the scientific consensus for this field”, you (once again) haven’t provided any evidence for this.

Second, you don’t get to a priori dismiss evidence supporting a claim, solely on the basis that if the claim were false then the supporting evidence would consequently be false. That’s a circular argument.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should disregard the CCTV video of my client punching the victim, because if he’s innocent then this video must be fake.”

= = = =

Finally, I note you’ve failed to answer a number of other questions I posed in my previous posts. So here they are. I’d appreciate it if you’d answer them:

In your opinion, is there anything “unlikely” or “impossible” about scientists working independently from each other reaching identical conclusions about the Apollo rocks? If so, what is the logic hole?

In the Ross Taylor interview, what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?

Pre-1950, what were the three main hypotheses for the origin of the Moon?

Do you accept that your statement that you “didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center” is incorrect?

Do you accept that the Apollo 11 crew were allowed to speak un-mediated to an auditorium full of the world’s media after the mission?

How many launches did Jim Webb attend prior to his resignation?

After Kennedy approached the Soviets about a partnership to land on the Moon, do you know who rejected this plan, and why?

Can you explain to us how NASA could pretend that lunar meteorites were Moon rocks?

Having read the article you linked titled ‘How do we know that it’s a rock from the Moon’, do you want to withdraw your claim that results could be faked to pretend a rock from Antarctica is from the Moon?

Given that I’ve already provided the evidence which explains why the Chinese regolith isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be, do you want to withdraw your claim that the difference in results is “more fuel to support MLH”?

Given that I’ve provided two reasons why the change in average particle size between two studies isn’t the smoking gun you claim it to be, do you want to challenge either of these reasons?

If the results of the second study are such a challenge for NASA, how did the results get released?

[BertieSlack]

  And see the AGC+IMU+DAC ability to auto-pilot a complex aircraft completely disappear (a very marketable tech for the military esp).