Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[onebigmonkey]

And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

[Zakalwe]

I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Your interpretation is incorrect. You've queried this and you have been corrected. So crack on and prove your claims remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). I don't believe that you've met even a small fraction of what could be constituted as "extraordinary evidence".

In common with the majority of hoax believers you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your interlocutors. That is not how the world works. As others have said, try that in a court of law and see how you get on.

[Derek K Willis]

And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

I didn't "fly by" here. I was asked by some members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of ApolloHoax if I would join. Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine.

[Derek K Willis]

I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Your interpretation is incorrect. You've queried this and you have been corrected. So crack on and prove your claims remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). I don't believe that you've met even a small fraction of what could be constituted as "extraordinary evidence".

In common with the majority of hoax believers you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your interlocutors. That is not how the world works. As others have said, try that in a court of law and see how you get on.

You might consider the claims that some of the Apollo missions were faked to be extraordinary, but I don't. In the past I would have, but not now.

[Derek K Willis]

I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Because proving your claims is not a rule of the site, it's a standard for debate in any field. People don't walk into a court and accuse someone and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove the accusations. Scientists don't write papers and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove their conclusions. What you have is not evidence, it's a speculative trail laid out in response to something you see as anomalous.

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so. That is not to say I won't be providing my proof elsewhere.

[Mag40]

Forgive my rather exaggerated crude diagram, but I wanted to post a refutation of the claim about the Surveyor craft being 3m tall and the entrainment being so low to the ground:-



https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1810/surveyor3_ap12c_1488.jpg

[Derek K Willis]

I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

You can't possibly have believed that you could simply start a thread here with:  "The moon landings were faked.  Discuss." and expect to be taken seriously.

This is simple common sense and dialectic:  You are not entitled to have people believe your claims or take them seriously.  You must make your case.  From what I can tell, so far, you have not.

For example, you write:  "The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked."  Why should I believe that?  How do you know that there couldn't be other explanations?  As others here have pointed out, you seem to have overlooked some fairly obvious possible alternatives.

Even worse, you seem not to have thought things through.  If the missions were faked, why wouldn't the astronauts and mission control be on the same page from the start?  Why would they have, and voice, differing assumptions about whether they would be dust?  They would have to be following, and to have extensively *practiced*, the same script.  They would have seen the props, and the concept art for the props, and there would be no surprises except scripted ones.  It's almost like they were commenting on a situation they didn't know about beforehand, the details of which surprised them.  Proposing that the missions were fake is not only not the best explanation for this "bizarre situation", it doesn't even work very well as *an* explanation.

Like I have said, I was asked by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of this site if I would join.

As far as I am concerned I have made my case in the article. If you are not happy then use whatever means you wish to counter my claims and refute my case.

That said, in due course I will be responding to the points made by Jason.

To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

[benparry]

Derek. I haven't read your article as I probably won't understand it. I have read Jays answers and again for the most part I don't understand them. However I can see they go into some depth.

However as has been stated the moon landings are a historical fact. All of them.

I know you claim here that you believe some of them to be but not all.

However the entire scientific community have no issues with these missions. The are happy with every aspect of them as far as I know.

In this thread you have brought up an aspect of one of the missions and asked a question regarding it and you have been given several answers from several people which you have either disregarded, ignored or don't agree with.

If you have disregarded or ignored them clearly this is wrong.

However if you don't agree with them then you are not just disagreeing with 3 or 4 people here you are disagreeing with the mainstream science which is both accepted worldwide and is the source of the answers here. Jay and various others draw their answers from this mainstream science as it is this that they are experts in.

In summary, regarding all of the above, clearly it is down to you to explain in full your position as to why you disagree with their answers / claims as it is you who is going against the mainstream.

Just like flat earth people for example have to prove the earth is flat. It is not down to everybody else to prove it is round.

[benparry]

I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

You can't possibly have believed that you could simply start a thread here with:  "The moon landings were faked.  Discuss." and expect to be taken seriously.

This is simple common sense and dialectic:  You are not entitled to have people believe your claims or take them seriously.  You must make your case.  From what I can tell, so far, you have not.

For example, you write:  "The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked."  Why should I believe that?  How do you know that there couldn't be other explanations?  As others here have pointed out, you seem to have overlooked some fairly obvious possible alternatives.

Even worse, you seem not to have thought things through.  If the missions were faked, why wouldn't the astronauts and mission control be on the same page from the start?  Why would they have, and voice, differing assumptions about whether they would be dust?  They would have to be following, and to have extensively *practiced*, the same script.  They would have seen the props, and the concept art for the props, and there would be no surprises except scripted ones.  It's almost like they were commenting on a situation they didn't know about beforehand, the details of which surprised them.  Proposing that the missions were fake is not only not the best explanation for this "bizarre situation", it doesn't even work very well as *an* explanation.

Like I have said, I was asked by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of this site if I would join.

As far as I am concerned I have made my case in the article. If you are not happy then use whatever means you wish to counter my claims and refute my case.

That said, in due course I will be responding to the points made by Jason.

To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

Which missions are you now saying are fake. I thought above you said men walked on the moon ??

[Jason Thompson]

To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

This is a standard claim that also fails for reasons of practicality. Just from the Apollo 12 case you have 3 astronauts who must know, plus the stand-ins you suggest were used in the advance photographs, plus anyone and everyone who worked in the soundstage, plus those at mission control who had the script you claim they worked to. That's already a lot of people who know it was faked. How have they all kept silent?

But what of the companies who built the spacecraft? How many of them know it was faked? If you don't tell a bunch of engineers you have asked to build something that it doesn't have to work, they build working hardware, so why fake it? If Apollo 14, 15 and 16 were genuine then the hardware must have worked. Why was it not used on the other missions?

It is not sufficient to handwave 'a few' people know it was faked. You have to demonstrate you have understood who would need to be in on the fake, who would definitely spot it, and how all these people have been kept silent.

[Jason Thompson]

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so.

It really depends how seriously you want us to take you and your arguments. If you have arrived at them rationally it should be no trouble for you to defend them when asked. A huffy 'well I don't have to' doesn't engender any respect or encourage us to take your claims seriously.

[Zakalwe]

You might consider the claims that some of the Apollo missions were faked to be extraordinary, but I don't. In the past I would have, but not now.

Its a fringe belief pushed by those with poor understanding or those with a vested interest in selling books/talks.  You don't consider it an extraordinary claim because you are part of that fringe.

You are also trying to disprove tens of thousands of pieces of documented and supported evidence with a couple of cherry-picked quotations. That in itself makes the claim extraordinary.

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so.

You are if you really want to learn where your interpretations are in error. It is clear that you don't so I can see that you rapidly will be given the equivalent of a pat on the head and a "that must be nice for you" approach.

[onebigmonkey]

And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

I didn't "fly by" here. I was asked by some members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of ApolloHoax if I would join.

You seem to have a problem with precision in the use of language. I didn't say that you were 'flying by here'. I said you shared a common trait with many who have. It is to your credit that you have come here and are prepared to discuss the subject.

Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. [My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine.

This despite the many articles on the site to which you contribute claiming the opposite of that? Including, by inference, you. On your article on Apollo 17 you say this:

Either all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel, or the same Rover was used for the photo shoots for all three missions.

Not sure how you can square a claim that Apollo 16 and 17 used the same rover as Apollo 15 when you are happy that Apollo 15's rover went to the moon. Did they bring it back? Unless, of course, Henderson's claims are complete BS and you haven't really thought that through.

I've examined all of the Apollo missions in great detail and can find no reason to dispute the reality of any of them. I have a long list of irrelevant qualifications and experience. Where does that leave us?

[Derek K Willis]

Derek. I haven't read your article as I probably won't understand it. I have read Jays answers and again for the most part I don't understand them. However I can see they go into some depth.

However as has been stated the moon landings are a historical fact. All of them.

I know you claim here that you believe some of them to be but not all.

However the entire scientific community have no issues with these missions. The are happy with every aspect of them as far as I know.

In this thread you have brought up an aspect of one of the missions and asked a question regarding it and you have been given several answers from several people which you have either disregarded, ignored or don't agree with.

If you have disregarded or ignored them clearly this is wrong.

However if you don't agree with them then you are not just disagreeing with 3 or 4 people here you are disagreeing with the mainstream science which is both accepted worldwide and is the source of the answers here. Jay and various others draw their answers from this mainstream science as it is this that they are experts in.

In summary, regarding all of the above, clearly it is down to you to explain in full your position as to why you disagree with their answers / claims as it is you who is going against the mainstream.

Just like flat earth people for example have to prove the earth is flat. It is not down to everybody else to prove it is round.

My point is, I don't have to prove anything on this site. As I have mentioned above, I was asked to join this site by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members here. I did so on the basis that I would provide the claims in the form of my article, and that I would attempt to answer questions.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
 

[Zakalwe]

My point is, I don't have to prove anything on this site. As I have mentioned above, I was asked to join this site by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members here. I did so on the basis that I would provide the claims in the form of my article, and that I would attempt to answer questions.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
 

There's not much point in you continuing here then, is there?