Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

You have started from the position it was impossible. Not that you don't understand how it was possible, but that it was impossible.

This is how the best work between minds is done -- Iron-sharpens-Iron.  Echo Chambers produce much less fruit.

We we have a wonderful dynamic here -- I'm proposing "this particular event has no viable explanation", and the rest of you can say "you are wrong -- here's a viable explanation".

I encourage you to do the same -- pick your best argument that you claim is "not possible to have faked", and we can delve into it.  Just as I did, when you make this proposal, you will start with the presumption that your overall theory of Apollo is correct -- and I'll take the opposite stance.

Iron-sharpens-Iron.   Resistance provides lift.

[Mag40]

#1: .. instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge.
#2: It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!
#3: You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!

#1: Please outline your theory for how edge distortion explains it ONLY impacted the flag, but nothing else.  Then see if you can find anyone here to agree with your theory.

#2: Not "weird" but rather "expected".  Cloth is flexible, no stretching required here.

#3: Of all the people commenting, "ditto".  Maybe you should consider saving your time then. I would appreciate this as well.  Others here seem more qualified to give responses, so rely on them.

But you said you understood photogrammetry - was that a bit of an exaggeration? You don't get to present a flag as pointing in the direction you want, when the bloody stripes say it is pointing in the same direction it was before the camera fell over. Lenses on their far edges distort. It's not much on some and more on others.



Why is your screenshot so useless? The flag is moving more at the bottom, twisting. Oxygen exiting the LM will mingle in atmosphere. In a vacuum, the molecules have mass and will head towards the ground. That would make it more likely to swing the lower half of the flag.

[Zakalwe]

MLH is not asking Apollogists to say "how we KNOW the flags moved", but simply "how COULD they have been moved!"..

No, you are completely incorrect on this point. Belief in conspiracy has many motivators, often driven by a psychological need to feel superior and to be the holder of some secret "special truth" to which only a select few are party to. It fulfills a need within the person that makes them think that they are somehow superior to others (witness your earlier posts about how advanced you reckoned your abilities were).

As someone far cleverer than me said "conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition".  Your own self-declared history aligns with this.....it wasn't enough to just believe in Christianity, you were compelled to fundementalism*.

You're probably far better served by investing your time in some good therapy than investing your time trying to prove black is white in places like this. You need to address the root cause flaws in your own personality. Far better for you in the long term.


*Putting the "mental" into "fundementalism" since 1643.....

[TimberWolfAu]

....

Well, that was a lot to say, 'no, I cannot provide any evidence for my claim of a studio, so please stop asking me to provide positive evidence for my claims'.

Since you keep asking everyone for their single best item, when are you going to provide yours? Personally, I would have started with that.

Myself, I prefer the entire Apollo program, the works. You see, you can't boil a multi year project down to a single item, it just doesn't work that way.

You could also play with these;
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a11/a11psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a12/a12psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a15/a15psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16psr.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a17/a17psr.html

I'd be interested to hear how you explain away all the data, research, and reports that have come from Apollo, details that are still used today, and so far, no one of any worth (you know, actual people who work in relevant fields) has had any problem with the data. Where are all the scientists and researchers, using data from Apollo, showing that the Apollo data doesn't line up with their research. Oh, that's right, they must be involved in the secret as well, otherwise they would have told someone.

So, just quickly, how many of these people are liars, and how many just don't know how to do their jobs? It's far more interesting to put names and faces to all those nameless 'them' that are keeping the secret.

Apollo 8
   Frank Borman, William Anders, James Lovell
Apollo 10
   Tom Stafford, Gene Cernan, John young
Apollo 11
   Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins
Apollo 12
   Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Dick Gordon
Apollo 13
   James Lovell, Fred Haise, John Swigert
Apollo 14
   Alan Shepherd, Edgar Mitchell, Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15
   David Scott, James Irwin, Alfred Worden
Apollo 16
   John Young, Charles Duke, Kenneth Mattingly
Apollo 17
   Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt, Ron Evans

NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
   George M Low, D H Anderson, P R Bell, D D Bogard, Robin Brett, W D Carrier, D A Flory, W R Greenwood, G H Heiken, W N Hess, Elbert A King, D A Morrison, A H Schmitt, Ernest Schonfeld, Jeff Warner, Roy Christoffersen, Joseph J Kosmo,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
   H H Plotkin, Walter Carrion, Tom Johnson, Paul Spadin, James MacFarlane, Bill Schaefer, Richard Chabot, James Hitt, Robert Anderson, W Williams, Jim Poland, Peter Minott, Cal Rossey, Jim Fitzgerald, Mike Fitzmaurice, Herb Richard
NASA Glenn Research Centre
   Thomas B Miller, Mary Ann Meador, Terry McCue
NASA Langley Research Center
   M Munk
Marshall Space Flight Center
   Wernher von Braun
NASA (Generic)
   Bevan M French, Sarah K Noble, Edward I Fendell
Lyndon B Johnson Space Centre
   Mark H Holly, Amir A Bahadori, Edward J Semones, Gary Lofgren
Manned Space Flight Network
   Bill Wood
US Geological Survey
   W R Muehlberger, D Stuart-Alexander, H G Wilshire, E D Jackson, E C T Chao, D H Dahlem, G B Dalrymple, R Doell, Maurice Grolier, C S Gromme, G G Schaber, D Schleicher, R L Smith, R L Sutton, Ray E Wilcox
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
   Judith Haley Allton
Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Solutions
   Ramona Gaza, Martin Kroupa, Ryan R Rios, Nicholas N Stoffle
Rocketdyne (now Aerojet Rocketdyne)
   George P Sutton
Naval Postgraduate School
   Oscar Biblarz
University of Cambridge
   S Agrell
Washington State University
   R Fryxell, R M Walker
Arizona State University
   C F Lewis
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
   J S Eldridge, K L Northcutt, G D O'Kelley
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
   W D Felix, R W Perkins, L A Rancitelli, N A Wogman
Washington University in St Louis
   Randy L. Korotev, B L Jolliff
Photographic Technology Laboratory at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center
    John Holland, Andrew M. Sea Ill
Precision Photographic Laboratory at the Manned Space Center in Houston
   Richard Underwood, Terry Slezak
Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Centre
   Mike Dinn, John Saxon
Brown and Root-Northrop
   E E Anderson, P H Johnson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   Klaus Bieman, N Mancuso, R Murphy, M G Simmons
University of California at Berkeley
   A L Burlingame, J K Mitchell, B R Simoneit, D H Smith, F C Walls
University of California at Los Angeles
   J W Schopf, W M Kaula
University of California at San Diego
   J R Arnold, Tom Murphy
University of California at Santa Barbara
   G J F MacDonald
California Institute of Technology, California
   Gerald J Wasserburg
Marshall Space Flight Centre
   N C Costes
Marshall University, West Virginia
   J Anneliese Lawrence
Ames Research Centre
   C C Davis, Richard D Johnson, L P Zill
United States Department of Agriculture
   M S Favaro, J D Menzies
Harvard University
   Clifford Frondel, Christopher Stubbs
State University of New York, Stony Brook
   John Funkhouser, O A Schaeffer
Columbia University
   P W Gast
California Institute of Technology
   R F Scott, E M Shoemaker, G J Wasserburg
Australian National University
   S R Taylor
Max-Plack Institute, Heidelberg, Germany
   J Zähringer
University of Bristol, England
   G Eglinton
University of Maryland
   C O Alley, R F Chang, D G Currie, S K Poultney, E Silverberg, C Steggerda, J Mullendore, J Rayner, Faust Meraldi, Norris Baldwin, Charles Whitetd, Harry Kriemelmeyer, D P Moriarty
National Bureau of Standards
   P L Bender
Princeton University
   R H Dicke, D T Wilkinson, Robert Stengel
Wesleyan University
   James E Faller, Irwin Winer, Barry Turnrose, Steve Moody, Tom Giuffrida, Dick Plumb, Tuck Stebbins
Lick Observatory, University of California
   Lloyd Robinson, E Joseph Wampler, Donald Wieber, Harold Adams, Raymond Greeby, Neal Jern, Terrance Ricketts, William Stine
Berkeley Space Science Laboratory
   Norman Anderson
McDonald Observatory
   Brian Warner, Harvey Richardson, B Bopp, Harlan Smith, Charles Jenkins, Johnny Floyd, Dave Dittmar, Mike McCants, Don Wells
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
   J D Mulholland
Westinghouse Defence and Space Centre
   Stanley Lebar
Grumman
   Philip Jacknis, Mike Lisa, Edward Lee, Alan Contessa, Ross Bracco, Anthony Cacioppo, Sam Koeppel, Joe Gavin
University of North Dakota
   Lindsay Kathleen Anderson
Los Alamos National Laboratory
   Grant H Heiken, David T Vaniman
James Madison University
   Jamey Robert Szalay
The Lunar and Planetary Institute, Texas
   John F Lindsay
Library of Congress
   Lynn Brostoff
Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
   Amanda Young
Indian Space Research Organization
   Prakash Chauhan, A.S. Kirankumar
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
   Arun K Chinnappan, Rakesh Kumar, Vaibhav K Arghode
Planetary Science Institute, Arizona
   R N Watkins
University of Central Florida
   Philip T Metzger, A Dove
San Antonio Mountain Consulting, Texas
   D Eppler
Airborne Systems North America, California
   Matthew L Zwicker, Robert J Sinclair
USAF Arnold Engineering Development Complex
   N S Dougherty
University of Western Ontario, Canada
   P J Stooke
University of Iowa
   James Van Allen
University of Houston
   Thomas Campbell-Ricketts, Lawrence S Pinsky, Daniel Turecek
University of Wisconsin
   Larry A Haskin, Ralph O Allen, Philip A Helmke, Theodore P Paster, Michael R Anderson, Kathleen A Zweifel
University of Pretoria, South Africa
   Cilence Munghemezulu, Ludwig Combrinck
South African Weather Service
   Joel O Botai
Unaffiliated at time of publishing
   Richard W Orloff, Jacob Smith, John E Lane, Paolo Attivissimo, Yaqiong Wang, Huan Xie, Chao Wang, Xiaohua Tong, Sicong Liu, Xiong Xu, Bernard J Crowe

[najak]

#1: You don't get to present a flag as pointing in the direction you want, when the bloody stripes say it is pointing in the same direction it was before the camera fell over. Lenses on their far edges distort. It's not much on some and more on others.
#2: Why is your screenshot so useless? The flag is moving more at the bottom, twisting. Oxygen exiting the LM will mingle in atmosphere. In a vacuum, the molecules have mass and will head towards the ground. That would make it more likely to swing the lower half of the flag.

#1: You've misunderstood (or I stated it poorly).  NONE of MY CLAIM has anything to do with the "horizontal pole relative angle to the LM" -- other than it was "towards it - -could be any angle of the 180 degrees available".   My "30 degree estimate" is the VERTICAL ANGLE of the top of this flag edge.  It's going vertically along a straight path, then makes a 30 degree turn towards off screen.  It could be 20 degrees -- but it's enough to demonstrate "stress/push"...

To be clear -- I AM NOT claiming a "30 degree relative angle of the flag's horizontal orientation compared to the LM".  If I communicated this, it was full unintended.  Perhaps my writing was ambiguous.

#2:  I can agree that in the context of the moon, the air pressure exerted on the flag might be a bit more towards the bottom... But does this make any meaningful difference here?  What we see is the bottom of the flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM -- the TOP is attached to the pole -- so this "SLANT" indicates this... pressure TOWARDS the LM... for 59 seconds total.

My point has nothing to do with vertical distribution of the air force -- but MAINLY that the force is exerted TOWARDS THE LM, for 59 seconds total.  How does this happen on the Moon?

[Miss Vocalcord]

What we see is the bottom of the flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM

That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.

[najak]

... GISH GALLOP of sources....

To make this manageable, start a new thread on this topic, and state your "top 3" from this list.  And we can examine them in more detail.

Many of the names you listed are ex-military... Patriots -- who simply understand how to Patriotically NOT reveal National Secrets to the world, that might weaken America.  They've lied for OUR BENEFIT... not malicious.

Other names/institutions - You might want to look at funding and "hiring of graduates" -- when it comes to Moon Studies and outer-space - nearly all funding originates with governments.  You don't bite the hands that feed you, and there is no money in Atheism.

When it comes to "using data from Apollo" - if 90% of Apollo was real - then this makes perfect sense.  Lots of it is usable.   The stuff I think was faked, evidence has been discarded to the point of making it all obscured -- such as the LM itself.  How it managed these maneuvers for Landing and Ascent, without tragedy.

LOTS of rocket, orbit, and computer science was progressed here.

When it comes to Apollo's account of the Moon's Surface and Dust --- THIS deserves it's own thread.  Let's examine the differences...

[onebigmonkey]

My point has nothing to do with vertical distribution of the air force -- but MAINLY that the force is exerted TOWARDS THE LM, for 59 seconds total.  How does this happen on the Moon?

It doesn't. What you're claiming is happening isn't happening.

[najak]

That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.

I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts"..  The wrinkles we see in the flag for most photos, indicate a level of starchiness here.... why doesn't it just hang fully flat like a sheet hung out to dry?  Instead it holds wrinkles...

But even a slightly-starched material still bends and contorts when pushed on.  It just adds a bit more resistance.

[najak]

It doesn't. What you're claiming is happening isn't happening.

I hear you. 

So can anyone offer a comprehensive viable hypothesis to explain all of these movements?

Otherwise it remains "unexplained" by the Apollogy.

[Miss Vocalcord]

I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts"..

And again that also doesn't make sense, they would expect the flag not to react to any draft at all, so your "slightly starched" doesn't make sense.

Then the draft you're talking about wasn't expected and must have been quite a tough one, being able to blow a starched flag this way in earth atmosphere. They simply could have cut it out by doing a zoom in. Oh wait, it just had to be 'good enough' and it would cost to much money?
Come on you logic is failing....

[najak]

#1: No, you are completely incorrect on this point. Belief in conspiracy has many motivators, often driven by a psychological need to feel superior...
#2: Your own self-declared history aligns with this.....it wasn't enough to just believe in Christianity, you were compelled to fundamentalism*.

#1: Sorry, not for me.  I have enough on my resume already, that I struggle with pride enough.  I'm not here for narcissism, nor to put anyone down.  I just like "truth" and hate the idea of govt' controlling "mainstream truth" so easily.   I'd much prefer a world with people more scientifically smart.

#2: These were very hard times, with a ton of stress.  My wife was drawn in, not me.  But she got baptized, and things in our marriage got better... so I "saw the light" and joined the party.  It worked well for us for about 4 years... then started to falter.   Since I was raised atheist, I didn't have any idea about the Biblical origins...    I did learn a LOT about Love and Community as a Christian, that I'd never have learned otherwise (so well).   Thus, even "Lies bring benefits".... just as did Apollo.

My wife and I left Fundamentalism and returned the general Agnosticism/Atheism again -- TOGETHER.   As part of my falling-away, the process I conducted was that I became a student of "Biblical History" and within about 3 months, I had disassembled it's foundation to demonstrate that "we're WRONG to declare with certainty that THIS is the Inerrant Word of God", and that "Hell was added to the New Testament; wasn't mentioned in the Old".  Since these were the CORE tenants of Fundamentalism - we left the church, and took a few others with us.

So I CHANGE SIDES happily.  I'm not one who "digs their heels in"..   Nor do I need validation from others.   

My last project was to take down, DECA, a $20 million dollar unethical Debt Collection agency, that was abusing our Judicial system to support an unethical racket.  I got support from no one... no gratitude... but I was doing the right thing, so my validation came from within.

Here's my video from 10 yrs ago.   This CEO ended up with a 4 year jail sentence, and this racket was stopped.  It took me about 300 hrs of work, and ended up facing down ALL 3 of their lawyers in court, by myself with no representation but me.   The part that did it best, was when I contacted all 6 hospital Emergency Rooms who were being represented by the same business office that was employing these unethical/racketeering tactics:

Hospitals were unaware of these deceptive tactics, and helped put a stop to it.

Apollo is simply my next (and hopefully last) unpaid Mission of Truth/Justice.

The Justice part for Apollo, is in how I'm seeing Google/YT/FB "soft-suppress" the true/good MLH arguments - and guides everyone ONLY to links that are JUNK, and strawman the MLH argument.  Also, I'm doing it for Thomas Baron and his family, RIP.

[najak]

Then the draft you're talking about wasn't expected and must have been quite a tough one, being able to blow a starched flag this way in earth atmosphere. They simply could have cut it out by doing a zoom in. Oh wait, it just had to be 'good enough' and it would cost to much money?

Clearly it was "good enough".  As Trump has indicated, the key to lying is to repeat a message your audience wants to hear, and to do it confidently.  Doesn't matter if your statements are false or have obvious holes -- it will be digested by his audience as truth.

Apollo was pushed onto the world at a time pre-internet.  To be seen once, by some, then never again.   The men involved weren't worried about "forever"...  same as politics works today.  "Kick the can" is the default normal mode of operation.

So yes, it was clearly "good enough" and they were right. 100%.

[Zakalwe]

That is not possible if the flag is starched as you came up with a few pages ago. It can't be both.

I am suggesting that it could be just "slightly starched" to resist motion for their "most expected drafts"..  The wrinkles we see in the flag for most photos, indicate a level of starchiness here.... why doesn't it just hang fully flat like a sheet hung out to dry?  Instead it holds wrinkles...

But even a slightly-starched material still bends and contorts when pushed on.  It just adds a bit more resistance.

PMSL.

So which is it Goldilocks? Papa Bears' flag is too starched. Mama Bears' flag is totally unstarched  and far too floppy. Lo and behold, Baby Bears flag is starched just enough.

Take a step back and realise the absurdity of the words that you have just thought of and typed.

I wonder if hidden in the deepest, darkest bowels of NASA there is an army of Little Old Ladies not weaving core rope memory, but instead are wrangling with the complexities of starching flags to just to right level of stiffness to almost, but not entirely, wave in the hanger air conditioning.....

[Zakalwe]

Tedious bollocks snipped

Good for you. Pick any cuddly toy from the middle shelf. You've been a great contestant, thanks for playing.