Faking the moon landings

[gillianren]

Yeah, can you imagine how awful it would be if you had to go into court to prove a negative?

[bknight]

cambo is trying to shift the burden of proof on Apollo/NASA when in fact the burden lies with the CT's as many have pointed out.  Further he has demonstrated no facts to back up his belief, even though he feels he has.  The ball is still in his court and he can't hit it out.

[nomuse]

Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.

You didn't engage with the original reply; all you are doing above is repeating your original assertion.

No, geology doesn't work like that. I really can't think of a science that does. Maybe back in the 18th century there might be a science that merely categorizes, but every science worth the name is built on discovering and expanding from the underlying patterns.

Geologists don't look at a piece of limestone and a piece of marble and say, "well, here's one kind of stone, we'll call it limestone, here's another kind of stone, we'll call it marble." Marble is a metamorphic form of limestone. The geologist understands it as an example of a process seen in other stones that transforms the one into the other and, while doing so, leaves distinct traces of the process.

No geologist would decide a sample must be from the Moon because it is UNLIKE any sample they know. They would do almost entirely the obverse; they would decide a sample is consistent with being from the Moon because it is LIKE other samples -- in the sense that it shows understood processes, but that those processes are appropriate to the lunar environment.

[cambo]

thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.



The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly. For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.

[bknight]

thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots

Personally and this is directed at all HB's, including yourself, You are willfully ignorant concerning physics, project management, and image evaluation.

just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.

Again FE individuals are willfully ignorant and in many ways more so the HB's concerning Apollo, but this thread concerns Apollo and not FE.

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

Not a bit true all the HB's beliefs have been disproved using science, knowledge and technology.
I'll continue with your A15 flag "anomaly"  The flag didn't move from air pushing on it.  Even the blunder could not make it work in the air with his experimentation.  If you knew the force of air in front of your body doesn't have enough force to move a flag, you would understand. QED

because of air, even  For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.

No I don't believe that NASA sent men to the Moon, I know from the evidence that are in the records for all to see, including yourself.  All you need to do is study up and sciences/technology to know the mission happened are NOT fake in any way.

[MBDK]

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false

Wrong.  One of the many logical failures hoax believers wreck with is their inability to recognize simple definitions, such as you just did.  From -
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debunk
"debunk
[dih-buhngk]
verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated:"

And this HAS been done "thousands" of times.  If you bothered to take the time to perform intellectually honest analysis, you would know this.

Also, FYI, "proof" is another term hoax promoters fling around with as much ignorance as they have in the relative scientific fields.

From the same source -
proof
[proof]
noun
1.  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.  anything serving as such evidence

Yet, hoax supporters use their own unreasonable ideas of "proof" when it comes to tangible evidence against their claims, yet promote the most whimsical conjectures as their own "proof" of a hoax.  The hypocrisy runs rampant among them.

it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.

Yes.  Also, it IS a demonstrable FACT that air does not move in FRONT of a person in such a manner as your inane "theory" contends.  So, to a REASONABLE person, that "theory" has been proven false on those grounds.

Regardless, the science is sound and utterly convincing for the reality of the landings, as documented.  Willful ignorance and uneducated incredulity have been demonstrated in almost every hoax claimer's response to criticism.  You know, just like you did in your post.  I can only suggest you toughen up that fragile ego of yours and be honest with the scientific evidence and yourself.

Note:  Edited for spelling and punctuation.

[benparry]

thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.

incorrect. I believe Bart Sibrel is an idiot because he chooses to make a living by lieing. and yes I do believe he knows he is. I believe this because in his documentary he purposely left out 1 of the 3 videos he received from nasa. take a look at a documentary called 'lunar legacy'. Bart does what he does for 15 minutes of fame and tried his upmost to keep that going.



The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly. For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.

[benparry]

incorrect. I believe Bart Sibrel is an idiot because he chooses to make a living by lieing. and yes I do believe he knows he is. I believe this because in his documentary he purposely left out 1 of the 3 videos he received from nasa. take a look at a documentary called 'lunar legacy'. Bart does what he does for 15 minutes of fame and tried his upmost to keep that going.

[benparry]

I don't say all HB's are idiots. just the ones who either make a portion of their living from purporating the hoax or just choose to believe in the hoax because they want to. many people have blocked me on FB because quite simply they couldn't get past my points. before you call me arrogant for thinking I know everything I don't. every single bit of information I have gleened has been mostly from people here. A gent called Bob Braeunig had an excellent page and Clavius is superb.

[nomuse]

Not entirely wrong, but not taking it far enough.

There are multiple possible explanations for any observation. After the fact, none of them can be proven (absolute certainty, in fact, is essentially unobtainable for anything outside of certain specific cases within mathematics.)

However.

All explanations are not equal. Some explanations require fewer assumptions. If I am trying to melt copper in a crucible and it doesn't melt at 1083 the simplest explanation is that I'm measuring wrong. The next explanation in the rank of fewest assumptions is that my supplier slipped up and the sample is actually a brass or other alloy. The explanation with the largest number of assumptions is that copper actually doesn't melt at the book value and there is a massive conspiracy crossing tens of fields to hide the real melting point.

Now, it is tempting to drill down and say that the conspiracy involves the least number of assumptions because it explains all questionable observations. The problem is that is doesn't. If there was a single coherent conspiracy narrative that captured the majority of what the hoax believers have identified as anomalies, this would be a compelling argument. Instead, each has a different mechanism, and each ends up with a vastly different picture of the conspiracy. One picture demands a robot, one a studio, another a whistle-blower. One assumes darkroom trickery, another assumes digital manipulation, a third assumes a model, a fourth...you get the picture.

The embracing meta-explanation with the fewest assumptions is that the project was real and like all things, like all the world, some of the material we are left with today appears contradictory.

And it doesn't stop there. The vast majority of explanations offered by supporters of the reality of the program are consistent with known physics, aerospace practice, human nature et al, and require no further assumptions.

The vast majority of explanations offered by hoax believers require at least one and often multiple assumptions beyond; they require that optics, geometry, physics, chemistry, etc. don't work the way mainstream science and industry experience claim they do.

And you can't wriggle out of it by saying, "Sure, 99% of the stuff OTHER hoax believers is stupid, but MY claims are all solid." Because there isn't a hoax believer that hasn't said the same. From any larger perspective, the grand mass of hoax belief is nothing but straws, none of them capable of bearing any weight because none of them weave together in anything resembling a bundle.

[benparry]

The question I have for you is why don't you believe the earth is flat. there must be a reason you don't buy into the flat earth arguments. there must be a reason why you have dismissed those arguments and yet you fail to dismiss the moon hoax arguments even though every one you have presented has been firmly shown to be wrong by many people here

[benparry]

also Cambo you say things haven't been debunked. yes they have. for example the no stars in the photos is not nasa taking them out its because the cameras were set to low exposure. that is a fact. I believe Bill Kaysing accused nasa of lieing by saying stars cannot be seen in space which is absurd as nasa has released many photos in space with stars in them.

[benparry]

1 final thing cambo and it goes back to the burden of proof. the entire scientific and engineering community over the past 50 years are happy with the landings. therefore it is the job of the HB's to show they didn't happen. I think most people would agree on that. therefore the entirety of the evidence must be refuted. 1 of my favourite items is the behaviour of the dust in the Apollo videos with the rover for example. the dust behaves as it would in an airless environment. for the landings to be faked the HB's have to explain this and other items which show they were in a vacuum.

[MBDK]

The problem with this quote is there is no authentic citation supporting this claim.

The closest thing I have found is in the book "Einstein: His Life and Times" (1972) by Ronald W. Clark.

On page 418, it says that Louis de Broglie, regarding Einstein's discussion of his problem with wave mechanics, quotes Einstein as saying:

"that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

The other anonymous corollary to such a statement SHOULD be obvious:

"I can explain something to you. but I CAN'T understand it for you."

Note:  Edited for ANOTHER punctuation error.  Dang it.

[onebigmonkey]

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

The hoax claims have been debunked 'thousands of times' because people like you keep turning up and regurgitating the same ill-thought out, illogical, badly constructed arguments thousands of times. People like you are not presenting an alternative reason for anything, you're just recycling crap without bothering to check what alternative explanations there might be that make more sense. You stick the word 'anomaly' on there is if it automatically discredits anything, and as if it is actually a fact. I'll keep it simple for you: there are no anomalies whatsoever, just your ignorance of the subject.