Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

I'll be the judge of that, thanks.
If you want to end any of your threads you can do so by posting the following exactly:
"I have failed to make my case and I am unable to defend the claim(s) that I made in the original post of this thread. I withdraw this claim."

"Judge" - you are running this the same as the Salem Witch Trials.   There is only one conclusion permitted...  From the get-go - one conclusion.  Period.  End of Story.

If I don't agree with you, I am no longer allowed to raise topics.

I have defended my points to-the-end for each thread.  But I'm held hostage to existing threads until I come to YOUR conclusions, even if I firmly believe the evidence doesn't support your side of the case.

Example: 
For the 8-flag movements - you are forcing me to say "I have FAILED to make my case that the 8-flag movements, and currently have no known viable physics explanation."

But if this were true - which viable physics explanation can ANYONE present to prove my point false??  So far, there have been NONE.

(People had said some GENERIC statements -- but when questioned, back off entirely, because their explanation falls completely apart under scrutiny.)

You are forcing me to make a FALSE conclusion, in order to move on.

[Mag40]

I have defended my points to-the-end for each thread.  But I'm held hostage to existing threads until I come to YOUR conclusions, even if I firmly believe the evidence doesn't support your side of the case.

What a liar.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59120#msg59120

You have done everything possible to evade this with obfuscation and daft claims. The ones listed have just been evaded!

[najak]

2 seconds into this one it's pretty clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5GDFKDYBA&t=2s

Thanks for the link!  This is one of the few times we EVER see this jet begin to fire.  But watch it in stop frame, and you'll see that ONLY ONE FIRES, no others.

And then we also have ALL THE REST of the videos - mostly without any signs of these jets begin started or used.

Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant?   I'd like to know if this theory has any science (that we know of) behind it.

If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift -- then I'd say "LLTV was not functioning as they claimed/designed/intended".

[najak]

What a liar.

You would have fit in well as a Puritan at the witch trials - front row.

For the dust, I DID AGREE that this was "too ambiguous to clearly prove either way"... .because we're dealing with millions of tiny particles that cannot be tracked.

I still firmly believe the videos show thick dust clouds doing up-to-the-bottom of the boot (and you agreed to this part) - and then falls way faster than the astronaut.  But because of the "dusty context" and microparticles involved - I'm willing to drop my views.  I get it, if you don't see it as I do.

So I've dropped this point, mostly because I was FORCED to, but also because I can at least see that "other points of view are not easy to disprove" -- too much ambiguity.

You, with Puritan mindset, can't seem to grasp this concept.

[Jason Thompson]

Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant?

Do you have any science to say it shouldn't? It's quite possible that's actually an anomaly and that generally those things don't produce visible exhaust (the exhaust products are water and oxygen). I don't know, but that video definitely shows that rocket nozzle firing.

If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift

IF. And your only basis for supposing they're not is 'I can't see them doing it', which is just naive, frankly. I can't see that big jet engine doing anything, because its exhaust is, get this, invisible! But clearly something is making that vehicle go up and come down in a controlled fashion, and if you think just looking at a video enables you to see every facet of how something is functioning you are staggeringly naive.

What else, exactly, would downward pointing rocket nozzles like those be used for other than generating lift?

[Zakalwe]

Magically, NASA didn't need ANY system testing for anything close to real-world conditions.

LLTV would have been an OPTIMUM vehicle for a Proof-of-Concept (POC).   NASA didn't even complete a Proof-of-Concept for this LM being navigated/balanced by an AGC.

If NASA could have successfully pulled off this POC, they would have proudly touted it -- MAGIC - a computer flying a precarious aircraft!...   No such POC was even shown or even documented.

This is how bleeding edge complex product development ALWAYS works, for ALL fields of development.   You don't skip "System Testing in approximated real-world environments", unless you aren't really going to do it.

Utter nonsense. It's no wonder that Jay is having to take it slowly, as you really are a slow learner.
What do you think A7, 8, 9 and 10 were for?
Have you heard of the Gemini program? If not, then you'll be amazed that it was a test program for Apollo, to test all of the core needs for a Lunar program: orbital mechanics and navigation, rendezvous and docking, EVA, extended stay missions and global Comms.

[Zakalwe]

Do you have any science evidence to indicate that the exhaust from this fuel (hyd peroxide) should be white just for 0.5 second and then go completely invisible, in an instant?

Do you have any science to say it shouldn't? It's quite possible that's actually an anomaly and that generally those things don't produce visible exhaust (the exhaust products are water and oxygen). I don't know, but that video definitely shows that rocket nozzle firing.

If these jets are not being used to provide upward lift

IF. And you're only basis for supposing they're not is 'I can't see them doing it', which is just naive, frankly. I can't see that big jet engine doing anything, because its exhaust is, get this, invisible! But clearly something is making that vehicle go up and come down in a controlled fashion, and if you think just looking at a video enables you to see every facet of how something is functioning you are staggeringly naive.

What else, exactly, would downward pointing rocket nozzles like those be used for other than generating lift?

No doubt it'll be another case of those magical, invisible suspension wires.....


/s

[Jason Thompson]

What do you think A7, 8, 9 and 10 were for?
Have you heard of the Gemini program? If not, then you'll be amazed that it was a test program for Apollo, to test all of the core needs for a Lunar program: orbital mechanics and navigation, rendezvous and docking, EVA, extended stay missions and global Comms.

I'd be amazed if he knows anything about Mercury or Gemini, or how they supported the Apollo programme. Or about the development process for the Saturn V, or the Saturn IB. Little Joe II and boilerplate spacecraft are probably new terms to him. Basically I think he is unfamiliar with anything that provides context to the Apollo programme as part of an overall development of spaceflight capability and not the standalone 'get a bloke on the Moon' plan he seems to think it is.

[LunarOrbit]

I'll be the judge of that, thanks.
If you want to end any of your threads you can do so by posting the following exactly:
"I have failed to make my case and I am unable to defend the claim(s) that I made in the original post of this thread. I withdraw this claim."

"Judge" - you are running this the same as the Salem Witch Trials.   There is only one conclusion permitted...  From the get-go - one conclusion.  Period.  End of Story.

If I don't agree with you, I am no longer allowed to raise topics.

If you make a claim then you defend it. Declaring all of the explanations you have been given wrong just because you say so IS NOT DEFENDING YOUR CLAIM.

I am banning you until the new year. I am not wasting my holiday watching over you.

[Mag40]

For the dust, I DID AGREE that this was "too ambiguous to clearly prove either way"... .because we're dealing with millions of tiny particles that cannot be tracked.

I don't give a monkey's what you "agreed" on.

I still firmly believe the videos show thick dust clouds doing up-to-the-bottom of the boot (and you agreed to this part) - and then falls way faster than the astronaut.  But because of the "dusty context" and microparticles involved - I'm willing to drop my views.  I get it, if you don't see it as I do.

I don't care what the hell you "firmly believe" either. The video (for Cernan) shows it rising and hitting the deck in a progressive wave. Everyone else sees it - you are afraid to admit it because that tiny segment is a show-stopper.

So I've dropped this point, mostly because I was FORCED to, but also because I can at least see that "other points of view are not easy to disprove" -- too much ambiguity.

Quit being a coward and go and answer direct questions you have so far completely evaded:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59120#msg59120

You, with Puritan mindset, can't seem to grasp this concept.

Oh do shut up. My mindset is honest debate, not your rookie observations and wilful evasion.

Happy Christmas everyone - back in the New Year it seems.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Just a note of the Lunar Modules that had issues, which he basically hand waved away, effectively moving the goal post. When he is allowed back of course. His initial premise was it was all too perfect, there were no issues, when pointing out there were actually issues, he changed to, well of course they’ll say there was issues, to make it look more realistic. Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose outlook.(edit): -
Apollo 10: I already mentioned.
Issue: Test flight in lunar orbit, the Lunar Module (LM-4, "Snoopy") entered an unexpected roll.
Cause: A crew error occurred when the astronauts inadvertently switched the Abort Guidance System (AGS) to the wrong mode.
Resolution: The crew quickly regained control of the spacecraft, and the incident had no long-term impact.

Apollo 11: Alarm Codes
Issue: During the historic first lunar landing, the Lunar Module (LM-5, "Eagle") generated several 1202 and 1201 program alarms on its guidance computer.
Cause: The LM's computer was overloaded with tasks due to a radar switch being left in an incorrect position, causing excessive data input.
Resolution: Mission Control confirmed the alarms could be safely ignored, allowing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to proceed with the landing.

Apollo 14: Docking Probe and Abort Switch
Docking Issue:
Issue: The Lunar Module (LM-8, "Antares") docking probe encountered difficulties, delaying its separation from the Command Module.
Cause: A minor mechanical issue required the crew to cycle the docking mechanism multiple times.
Resolution: The problem was resolved manually.
Abort Switch Malfunction:
Issue: An abort signal was intermittently triggered by a faulty switch.
Cause: A short circuit in the switch threatened to initiate an unwanted abort sequence.
Resolution: Engineers devised a workaround by reprogramming the computer to ignore false abort signals.

Apollo 15:Engine Covering Damage
Issue: During the descent of the Lunar Module (LM-10, "Falcon"), a piece of debris or insulation briefly obscured the view of the landing radar.
Cause: Minor damage to the LM's insulation during flight.
Resolution: The problem was transient and did not significantly impact the landing.

Apollo 16: Landing Radar
Issue: The LM (LM-11, "Orion") experienced a failure in its landing radar, threatening the descent phase.
Cause: A malfunction in the radar system delayed critical data needed for a safe landing.
Resolution: Engineers on the ground guided the astronauts to reset the system, restoring functionality just in time for landing.

If anyone knows any others to give to our intrepid goal post mover feel free..

[bknight]

A12 had unintended starboard lateral movements that were code corrected for A13 forward nulling out these movements.

[Peter B]

Apollos 11 and 12 had problems with fuel slosh. In the case of Apollo 11, this caused the activation of the low-fuel alarm something like 30 seconds early. In the case of Apollo 12, it made Pete Conrad's reading of the LPD inaccurate, as well as activating the low-fuel alarm early.

[Peter B]

#1: Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.
#2: Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.
#3: Who is "they"?

#1: Awesome, I can't wait to hear your response.  Maybe you can ask LunarOrbit to re-open this thread, and remove his damning/inaccurate final statements about me not being willing to address the counter claims.

Yeah, I'm still looking.

#2: I'll put this on my list.. Please send me the link, and maybe give me a couple highlights, so that I can maximize the value I get from this time spent.

Link? How about you just put "early hypotheses for the formation of the moon" into your search engine of choice. Like others, I'm a bit tired of spoon-feeding you information you then go on to ignore or misrepresent. You can claim you want value for time all you like, but JayUtah's point about making you earn and own your knowledge applies here too.

#3: "They" is NASA.

Here is the NASA summation of Baron:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

And here is the congressional testimony transcript, look for "500":
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm

Near the end.

I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!...   It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

As others have pointed out, no one knows for sure what was in the report, so it's impossible to draw any firm conclusions about how "damaging" it was.

In any case, Baron himself describes the 500 page report in these terms: "I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials."

To me, Baron is saying the 500 page report simply reports the same incidents from the 55 page report in more detail.

1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
1. Two Kennedy's assassinated - the most honest of candidates.

LOL! Some of JFK's numerous extramarital liaisons caused national security concerns, and the guy was on a shopping list of drugs. Yes, he was charismatic, and yes, his presidency was probably above average in terms of achievements, but he wasn't some sort of Presidential Paladin and "Camelot" was a musical not a documentary.

2. Bay of Pigs

What about it? An incident in which the US government helped with trying to overthrow a...[drumroll] Communist government.

3. Gulk of Tonkin -> fake evidence, known to be fake - justifying 2 million drafted, and 250K dead, others screwed up for life -- for Military Machine profits?

Yeah, those people who were drafted, and the people who were killed...they were involved in a war against a...[drumroll] Communist insurgency supported by a Communist government, which was in turn supported by two other Communist governments.

Did you know that the USA wasn't the only country which sent troops to support South Vietnam. Other countries included South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand - all of them non-Communist.

4. Vietnam - reporting total sham -- Daniel Ellsberg leaks it, else we may have never known.

And what do the Pentagon Papers tell us: a consistent history of the USA's attempts to support anti-communist forces and suppress Communist forces, both overtly and covertly.

See a trend here? Still want to stick to the line that the Cold War was fake?

5. Apollo...  yeah, this one was 100% real.

So, you don't accept the idea that a person can do both good and bad things? President Johnson was the guy who both drove the Civil Rights Act and sent troops to Vietnam.

Or are you like so many USAnians who have a purely dualist view of the world - everything is either good or bad, black or white, moral or corrupt?

[Peter B]

Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.

When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful.  Your theory rests on this guy's claim.   My doesn't.  I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.

In Reply #375 you said of Mike Dinn: "He's definitely paid to speak for NASA." Then, when you're asked for evidence, you claim "uncertainty". You don't get to claim "definitely" and "uncertainty" about the same issue, as the words have colossally different implications. So which is it? Are you definite he's paid to speak for NASA? Or are you uncertain about it?

And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.

Dinn's statements are testable. Your hoax hypotheses are anything but. Or, more precisely, your hypotheses are a mish-mash of mutually contradictory explanations, and you seem to be the only person who can't/won't see them.

To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth.

"Chang'e-5, China's first lunar sample return mission, is targeted to land in northern Oceanus Procellarum, within a region selected on the basis of 1) its location away from the Apollo-Luna sampling region..."

That is literally the first sentence in the scientific paper "Young lunar mare basalts in the Chang'e-5 sample return region, northern Oceanus Procellarum", published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

So, would you like to explain why samples from a location geologically distinct from the Apollo and Luna sampling sites shouldn't be different in composition? Or are you going to claim the paper's authors are lying because they have a "vested interest"?

So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS...

Yeah, the problem here is that you cling to your belief in these instances of "breaking physics" to the extent that you'll calmly accuse the world's politicians, aerospace engineers, scientists and historians of perpetrating a humongous conspiracy rather than admit the possibility that your amateur knowledge isn't up to the standard of experts in those fields. Is there any field of knowledge where you don't feel confident to take on the experts in that field when you detect what you think is an example of something "broken" in that field?