Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

...

I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic, and it's quite involved, and currently only drafted... It needs another run through.

[JayUtah]

I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic...

No.

You raised the issue here as part of an established discussion on the operation of the LM guidance system. Your desire to continue the discussion in a different thread is hamstrung by the restriction currently upon you that you may not create any new threads until you answer the questions pending in your existing threads. This is a question pending in a current thread, so I will press you to answer it here and now.

If you lack confidence in your draft analysis, then withdraw the claim until you have something you're willing to stand by.

[LunarOrbit]

...

I'll present my math, model, and logic on this in a new thread, as this is a new topic, and it's quite involved, and currently only drafted... It needs another run through.

You will not be starting any new threads until we all agree that your existing threads have been resolved.

[Zakalwe]

I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.

My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"...   My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.

I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback".  I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.

The cry of schoolyard bullies everywhere once finally confronted with the dawning realisation that they aren't the hardest guy in the yard "My dad is harder than all of you and I'll get him to beat you all up".

This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.

[najak]

This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.

That's why I came here.  Loving the resistance.  And believe my defenses are valid, and the threads have wound down.  They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses.  We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.

Time for a few new threads.  Just waiting for the green light from the grandmaster overseer, @LunarOrbit.

[onebigmonkey]

My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"...   My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.

I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback". 

If you're the only person in a crowd of intellectuals and intelligent experts in relevant fields that believes the way you do, perhaps that should tell you something.

Everyone here is devoting their time to this topic for no financial reward. It costs me quite a lot of money to maintain a website and buy books and other material.

I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.

You don't have a monopoly on integrity and honesty. Everyone here values the truth. The truth is we landed on the moon. We dispute claims like yours not for financial gain, but to defend the truth against ignorance and stupidity.

[JayUtah]

They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses.  We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.

No. You're asking questions for which there are distinct right and wrong answers. Your inability to understand them and your unwillingness to learn them does not earn you the right to try something new. Your unwillingness to defend your claims in existing threads does not justify getting to shift topics and try again. There is every reason to believe you will be just as dishonest and evasive in new threads as you are in existing threads.

[Zakalwe]

This isn't a schoolyard (I've said this before), but your claims will be tested. If you cannot defend them then at least have the good grace to admit it and try to learn from it.

That's why I came here.  Loving the resistance.  And believe my defenses are valid, and the threads have wound down.  They are now going in circles, so it's time to move on, and stop beating dead horses.  We'll have to agree to disagree, and both sides have been presented, for readers to make their own minds up.

Time for a few new threads.  Just waiting for the green light from the grandmaster overseer, @LunarOrbit.

Not at all, and the gish-gallop is a well recognised trait around here. You aren't the first to try to hide your failure to grasp basic understanding with a flurry of threads.
Stand and show your work.

[najak]

Not at all, and the gish-gallop is a well recognized trait around here. You aren't the first to try to hide your failure to grasp basic understanding with a flurry of threads.
Stand and show your work.

I've stood and showed my work.  I stand by my work.

Each thread has come to an expected end.   No more new ideas are being presented, and the ideas already presented have reached an impasse.  We are now re-beating dead horses.

In every single heated debate, there are two sides -- each thinking the other side is wrong.   We've both presented our cases, and have nothing more to present.  Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.

It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.

[najak]

You don't have a monopoly on integrity and honesty. Everyone here values the truth. The truth is we landed on the moon. We dispute claims like yours not for financial gain, but to defend the truth against ignorance and stupidity.

I appreciate this about you.  I believe we all here are arguing in good faith.  I have nothing to gain here by making false points -- but only loss.  But my beliefs are sincere.

[JayUtah]

I've stood and showed my work.  I stand by my work.

No.

In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it. You want a fresh start without bearing the consequences of your present failure. That's dishonest; so much for you desire for full integrity.

In the lunar module liftoff thread you assert that "many rocket scientists" and "most articles" support your beliefs. But when pressed you will not provide a single name or a single citation.

Each thread has come to an expected end. No more new ideas are being presented, and the ideas already presented have reached an impasse.  We are now re-beating dead horses.

The impasse exists in most cases only because you are unwilling to take responsibility for your errors and misconceptions. That will not be solved by allowing you to change subjects and reset the debate. In the lunar module liftoff thread there is no impasse. You refuse to participate in the estimation of the factors that apply to your claims, but which you dispute. You simply declared your unwillingness to continue.

Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.

Except that we're still confronted with your practice of selectively reporting the debate in a document you control, which we suspect you will present in lieu of the actual debate to convince readers that something else happened here than what actually happened. Where have we heard that before?

It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.

Your unwillingness to continue the existing debates does not entitle you to open new ones.

[JayUtah]

I believe we all here are arguing in good faith.

You are not arguing in good faith.

I have nothing to gain here by making false points -- but only loss.

I disagree. Conspiracy theorists gain notoriety and respect among their peers by making false points that others are either unwilling or indisposed to dispute, and thereby establish the claimant as kind of icon or authority. You have made it plain that you believe you are engaged in an ideological conflict, which naturally provides the incentive to misrepresent the facts insofar as you think you can get away with it.

But my beliefs are sincere.

Irrelevant. Your behavior here is indistinguishable from those who deliberately intend to deceive.

[Zakalwe]

.
..  Now is the time in the debate to close it out, and let the readers decide.

It's time to move on to other threads, and cover new ground, where I'm sure to be "destroyed" again - in the views of most (all others?) here.

I disagree.
It's also a well known trait of hoax believers to shut the conversation down as soon as it becomes apparent that they are on a sticky wicket.
Many also try to get banned so they can claim "they had to ban me as they couldn't answer my points". It's just another way of trying to limit and control the discussion. Not too dissimilar to your use of Google Docs where you present a one sided view of the points.

[najak]

I've stood and showed my work.  I stand by my work.

In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it.

I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates.  I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".

You think this is not integrity?

I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending.  I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.

I'll make another pass at each thread - to ensure each is tied up.

For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references.  But then that thread is done... unless you want to make a proof that hasn't been shown before (that anyone seems to know of).  Otherwise, demanding that I present the proof that no Apollogist has ever been able to supply -- is Salem Witch treatment -- it's fully unreasonable.

[Peter B]

Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.

Thank you for responding.  For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.

The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule.   Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip?   And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon?   - we don't.

Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves?  Gone.   With all of the rest of the source tapes.

The dirty details behind each claim are not noted...  purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.

Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes.   They CLAIM.  Where are these recordings?  How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings?  ZERO, AFAIK...     This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.

I'll stop here.  You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know. 

Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.

That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.

If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.

And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:

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