Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 14803 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2018, 10:21:36 PM »
You're off to a good start, cambo. Let me know if I'm missing any.



Whoever assembled that did a great job, hitting the high spots :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2018, 10:24:56 PM »
Whoever assembled that did a great job, hitting the high spots :)


http://apollohoax.net/bingo

I kind of cheated and told it to remove some of the less common HB claims when it generated that card.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1220
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2018, 12:20:25 AM »

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable.

Absolute garbage. There is no 'NASA brand of science', just science. Science that can be replicated.

If you don't want to be called an idiot, try less hard to sound like one. From your tedious, well-worn pronouncements so far, 'idiot' is just being polite.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2018, 03:37:11 AM »
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch?

Why do you think that it's someone else's job to educate you? Stop being so lazy (or is it wilful ignorance?) and Do Your Own Research.

As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware.
Argument from Incredulity.

It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time.
It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body.
It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth.

You do understand that there has to be a first time for everything, don't you? The first powered flight, the first parachute jump, the first time you kissed a girl/boy?
Also, the Soviets put a craft into a Lunar free return trajectory 9 years before Apollo 8. They also put a craft into Lunar orbit over two years before Apollo 8. The US also achieved a Lunar orbit four months after the Soviets in 1966.

humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation.
Oh please! The old deadly sea of radiation garbage. If you want to be taken seriously, then make an effort to learn something before trotting out well-worn garbage like that.

It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

Wrong.
Argument from Ignorance. These techniques had been tested.

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal

I'll hazard a guess here. You're time in school was, shall we say, limited and not very fruitful? it's never to late to educate yourself though...maybe some evening classes in the basic sciences?

Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t.
Wrong.
Argument from Ignorance. Humans go through portions of the belts on a regular basis on the ISS.

Pathetic!
Yep, pretty much everything that you've posted so far is just that. There's a lot that you can learn here though, but first you need to drop the attitude, open your mind and be willing to learn. The alternative is for you to shuffle back to YouTube and CluesForum where you can join the other like-minded trolls going "Hur, hur, hur, astroNauts". You'll fit right in there.

As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?
Stupid? personally I think that it just shows further evidence of wilful ignorance. You're in your 70's and you're ranting on the Internet with ridiculous arguments that a 6 year old would be embarrassed to utter. What a waste of 60 years on this planet!

And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!
As far as I can see, you're the way doing the childish name-calling. As for growing up? You're nearing the end of your life and you haven't managed to learn even basic science knowledge. It's not too late though.....even old dogs can learn new tricks. All you need to do is make a small effort. Try it!

« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 03:45:35 AM by Zakalwe »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Online Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2018, 07:21:21 AM »
Although some of the video footage and photos, do indeed cast doubt on the Apollo missions, it’s the way the story unfolded that convinces me it was all an enormous hoax. There were just too many giant leaps for this fairy tale to be taken seriously, Apollo 8 being the prime example. Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.

That's right. Only six years and fourteen manned missions after John Glenn's orbital mission, Apollo 8 went to the Moon. If that's your definition of "short" I'd hate to see your definition of "long".

Quote
It really annoys me, the way some people can sit there and defend this BS and twist things in order to make the likes of me look like insane idiots. I don’t have a higher education as some of you NASA enthusiasts may have, but I do possess common sense, and I don’t need to understand NASA’s take on radiation or orbital dynamics to understand, if it’s not tested, don’t put human life at risk.

*puts hand up*

I did physics and biology to Year 10, and chemistry to Year 12, and I have no particular problems understanding the science and engineering of Apollo.

And anyway, when you say "not tested", what do you mean? If you mean "not tested by unmanned missions", well that's incorrect as pretty much every concept of Apollo had been tested unmanned, whether hardware or procedure. And if you mean "not tested by humans", well, then we run into a pretty serious problem - surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?

Quote
I was seventeen when Apollo 8 was launched and I remember an article in a newspaper stating that several countries expressed grave concerns about the mission, saying that the astronauts would not survive. I also read an article shortly after the alleged mission, concerning an interview with a NASA spokesman, where he was asked if they had any concerns regarding radiation. His answer was, well we knew it was dangerous, but we decided to go anyway. Today, NASA tell us it was no big deal, but back then, according to Van Allen, space was a sea of deadly radiation.

And I was one when Apollo 8 was launched. I don't remember anything of Apollo. But I've read plenty of newspapers from the time (on microfilm). I've read plenty of letters to newspaper editors complaining about the cost of Apollo, even before the first Moon landing. I've read articles in which people tried to come up with all sorts of gruesome ways the astronauts might die. But I've also read how the Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes; and if anyone was going to prove that NASA had faked Apollo, it would've been the masters of propaganda and fakery - the Soviets.

Quote
As far as I’m aware, they didn’t have a time machine, so they could only go on information they had at the time, which was zilch. Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.

Yeah, no. NASA didn't have "zilch" information. You only need to read science books from the time to show that scientists had a few pretty good ideas about the Moon even before the Space Age started. And the Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter missions gave them a lot more. Plus scientists continued to study the Moon from the Earth all through this time. Even Soviet missions to the Moon gave NASA information - Soviet soft-landing missions proved perfectly well that the Moon's surface was solid enough to support a spacecraft.

Online Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2018, 08:00:17 AM »
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch? As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware. Everything beyond LEO, if we are to believe they got that far, was only theory. It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time.

First, S-IVB engines on previous missions had been reignited while in orbit. So that was nothing new. Second, unmanned spacecraft had been sent to the Moon. So that was nothing new either. There was nothing particularly special (except in the emotional sense) about firing an S-IVB engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

You seem to be arguing that if you've only ever used matches to light fires up to now, you need special training to use matches to light a candle.

Quote
It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

So that was closer than previous Apollo missions. What's so surprising about getting better with time?

Quote
Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal.

Um, seriously, what the heck are you talking about? I don't even know where to being responding to a statement like that.

Quote
Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t. Is it because it has already been done? Or maybe it’s the money? Pathetic!

What's pathetic about "it's been done by someone else" and "it's expensive"?

As you say you were 17 at the time of Apollo 8, you presumably remember the Cold War - that great propaganda-economic-diplomatic-military struggle between the world's two superpowers. And the Space Race was just one facet of the Cold War. When it came to trying to land people on the Moon, we know now that the Soviets were very much having a go. So why did they stop trying after Apollo 11? Because they knew that coming second in a two horse propaganda race is the same as coming last. They had kept their whole space program highly secret at the time, and that allowed them to claim afterwards that they'd never been trying to beat the USA - something a lot of people believed at the time, but which we obviously know now wasn't true.

As for money - yes, of course it's an issue. The USA paid $25 billion for Apollo in 1960s dollars. That's close to $200 billion now. Sure, it's small change compared to some of America's other expenses lately (*cough* Iraq *cough*) but that doesn't mean Apollo was cheap. The reason the money was spent at the time was mostly for propaganda value; and once it had achieved its intended propaganda outcome, President Nixon and Congress were perfectly happy to cut NASA's funding to help try to balance the budget.

Quote
As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?

What's the problem? Plenty of old newspapers are now available on the Internet. If you go to https://trove.nla.gov.au/ you can read a whole bunch of old Australian newspapers - and I'll give you a hint: they had plenty of stories about Apollo 11 in 1969.

Quote
And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!

Frankly I don't see how I might end up losing the argument - no one has ever come up with a plausible and internally consistent explanation for how Apollo was faked. The only internally consistent narrative is the historical one. But if you think you've got an explanation for all the evidence, then here is your opportunity.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 08:01:58 AM by Peter B »

Online Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 671
  • Another Clown
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2018, 11:11:58 AM »


Quote
It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.


Actually the Splash downs of Apollo had to be pretty much on the nose due to the narrow entry corridor. If they had been a hundred miles away they may well not have made it at all. The only thing that would have changed landing sites would be if they had to do a burn to change the approach speed for an some reason. Not that I could think of a reason for that, solar storm? Perhaps. Apollo 13 was accelerated home as fast as they dared with the limitations of the LM, for obvious reasons, but even then they knew pretty accurately where it would splash down.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #22 on: May 03, 2018, 11:20:26 AM »
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB? 

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #23 on: May 03, 2018, 11:53:35 AM »
Reversal of burden of proof noted.

"No stars" argument noted.

"The Russians were in on it" noted.

Handwaving away of presented evidence noted.

Folks, this is one of the lazier HBs.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:02:22 PM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1683
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2018, 12:07:50 PM »
Actually, I'm quite open about what would convince me I was wrong.  What would convince you?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2018, 12:13:55 PM »
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

By no means is it an impossible task, just re-read all the responses.  Time consuming attempting to educate you, yes.
Quote


This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

As I stated earlier, I have no blind faith, but am positive that all the missions occurred as reported nearly 50 years ago.  There has been no vast indoctrination by NASA or anyone else, with the exception of YT land, where stupidity reins supreme.  Try spending less time watching stupid videos, that are linked at the beginning of the thread.  The first one is so full of errors, I had to laugh, and with "10000" hours of research.  We all have free minds and if you want to present to posterity your willful ignorance then do so, but those observations will not go unchallenged.
Quote


In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

As someone indicated to you there has to be a first in anything tried.  Get it?  Apollo 8 was not untested, Apollo 4 and 6 tested the capsule along with the Saturn V.  NASA engineers and scientists knew the small dangers that radiation poised, and went with the odds, although transit through the less dens regions of The VARB, was not a risk, period.  So what was untested?
Quote


They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Why spend ~400 million when 6 crews had landed on the moon previously.  This is rather a stupid observation.  The CIA had images of the Russian N-1 rocket, that could only have the use of a Moon landing.  In fact there were two in 1968  so when A 9's lunar module experienced testing delays they leap frogged an orbital mission to indeed beat the Russians.
Quote


Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

How was it faked?  How were hours of video in a near absolute vacuum win a low gravity shot?  How was this done, where was it done.  And if your comment is a sound stage, where was it how did they have no atmosphere aznd low gravity?  How was this accomplished?

Here is a video that tells the story that it could not be accomplished in the 60's.

&t=2s

Quote

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Money was the prime factor with funds no more hardware was built and no more missions planned after 17, although up to 20 were initially planed and hardware purchased.  And there has been only one planned manned mission to the Moon shelved during the Obama term.
Quote

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

You seem to be hung up on this procedure much like Ralph Rene.  That is one way of doing it, but there are other methods.
Quote

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

There are plans by several countries to land humans back on the Moon, all in the next decade.  Sadly I may not be around to observe it again.
Quote

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

It is you who is deluded.  Why is saying that the plans are stored on micro film?  Why is this insane?  For a scientist/engineer to go look them up would require a REASON TO DO SO.  What would that reason be?  If it was for another landing attempt, you first need money for a program, then hardware to fly it.  NASA has resisted the notion of placing humans back on the Moon and setting goals for Mars.
Quote

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

We have shown you proof.  How about 800 pounds of Lunar rock/regolith, that cannot be manufactured on Earth contrary to what you "learn" on YT.
Quote

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

You say you will admit if the evidence is convincing to you, I suggest this is a lie, you may never accept any evidence, as few individuals who believe that a hoax was perpetrated, will ever admit that they are wrong.  Just browse the history around here.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:21:49 PM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2018, 12:19:15 PM »
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here,

You've inspired some laughs.  Not quite the same thing.

Quote
but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA,

I'm an atheist - I don't believe in gods.

Quote
who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

Somebody needs to dial the Hyperbolator down a notch.  Maybe two.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here,

"We" are discussing no such thing.  You're claiming it's a hoax, we're pointing out why your arguments for that position are less than convincing. 

"I don't believe it happened that way" means dick.

Quote
in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Physical samples from the moon, analyzed by labs all over the world. Thousands of photographs, hours of film and video, miles of data and telemetry.  Records from tracking stations all over the world.  Statements from our on again/off again geopolitical adversary that they were able to track the spacecraft's journey and communications to and from the moon.  Imagery from later missions showing the landing sites, with hardware.

That's more than enough evidence to convince most reasonable people.

You want to support your claim that it's a hoax, find evidence for the hoax.  You don't get to sit back and say "it's all fake, prove me wrong."  If your claim is that the physical samples are fake, then you need to demonstrate how and why they are fake.  How were they produced in such a way to fool labs across the world?  What would a genuine lunar sample look like?  Why would the samples returned from Apollo not look like that? 

If you claim that all the footage was shot on a soundstage, show us evidence for that soundstage.  Where was it built?  Who built it?  Who worked on it?  There will be a paper trail somewhere.  Find that paper trail. 

Find the line items in the federal budget that look like payoffs to the tens of thousands of people all over the world who were even tangentially involved with the Apollo missions - machinists, engineers, lab technicians, radio operators, etc.

But you're not going to do that.  You're just going to sit back, stick your fingers in your ears and scream FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE because you can't bear not being someone special, someone who Knows The Truth. 

"The X Files" was not a documentary. 

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2018, 12:23:56 PM »
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

Well, I guess it is fair for the hoaxies to get meta-textual. We debate all the time why they believe such stupid crap (actually, to be more accurate, why people with so little understanding of the world think they can lecture others about how it really works.)

We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Those are not the same thing; in the gap between those two sentences you switched the burden of proof. "I think there might be..." and "Prove to me there aren't..." are two separate things.

Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?


This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it,

Common sense is common, not sense. The universe isn't constrained by what seems reasonable to a two-meter meatbag trapped in a gravity well under a dense cloud of gas. I run into stuff in my daily work where common sense is test-ably wrong. Our perceptions lie to us, constantly.

because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

No, the difference is between someone who is too lazy to do the work and thinks they can push through the barriers of perception and expectation just by sheer willpower.

Simply declaring you aren't going to get fooled is how a fool approaches it. The scientific method and the work of science is a set of tools and approaches to help you figure out the difference between what you think is happening and what is actually happening.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

And you claim to have grown up during the space age? What were you doing, ignoring all the popular press? Because this stuff is OLD and it damn well was gone into at length.

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

You are good at these! If they used Apollo hardware, then "OMG, they didn't test it first!" if they didn't use Apollo hardware, "OMG, they didn't test the real hardware first!" You've had your cake, eaten it, cut it into slices and served it to four close friends.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Why test after the missions are completed? Is this your new requirement now, that you have to test if something works after it has already worked? (Of course that's not counting all the animal tests that did take place, in their proper order. Guess in all your growing up during the Space Age you never heard of Ham, or Laika, or the Zond missions...)

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

Gish Gallop. Focus on one at a time. Or are you subconsciously aware that all your points are so weak sauce you need to throw them up a dozen at a time?

Seriously, pick one and discuss it like a gentleman. These walls of text are impossible.

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Yes, we do.

Your claim, your proof.

I claim Element 164 is proven to be a actinide metal, forming a quasi-crystaline solid of lustrous grey appearance at room temperate, stable and ferromagnetic and unreactive to standard reagents. I demand 164 be named after me, nomusium, and added to the official periodic table.

No, I have no lab work, no paper, no proof. That's your job to provide.

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

In short, you don't have an explanation.

You also know shit-all about aerospace. We have people ON THIS BOARD who have as part of their jobs in that industry examined actual Apollo hardware and learned from it.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

No, you don't. You don't know enough to able to categorize and measure our knowledge.

Sorry, but that's how things work.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

We're bored.

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why.

I don't.

You've explicitly explained you will throw away any and all evidence, merely on the grounds that if it appears to support the reality of space flight then it must automatically be part of the hoax.

And your understanding of the physical world is so poor you can not see and are possibly unattainably far from understanding that your so-called "NASA Science" is the same science practiced by industry and gets results -- results that many of us use professionally daily. Results that can be seen on a lab table or even a kitchen table by any amateur that wants to put in the effort.

There is no bright line. There is no barrier separating how things work "in space" and how they work, period. You are spouting the same nonsense Creationists say when they look at ongoing geologic processes and flap their gums with "But you didn't live a million years ago so you can't prove rocks still fell down then."

The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

Pick one. Bloody pick one. You want to talk about Jodrell Bank? We've got a big fan of that here (or maybe he's at CosmoQuest these days).

By the way, your description is laughably wrong, but that's okay; let's pick that one, lets actually discuss the durn thing instead of flapping off in all directions at once. Then you might be worth paying real attention to.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2018, 12:34:48 PM »
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here...

Nope. No cage rattled here. Heard it all before.

Quote
but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA,

You need to look up the concept of God.

Quote
who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

There are few things I'd give up my life for. Family and friends, but not NASA.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

The burden of proof lies with you. Where's your smoking gun?

Quote
Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

You don't get to choose the evidence to suit your case. If the evidence holds true, then the case is answered.

Quote
This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

Most presumptuous. You're another blow hard that assumes they are able to think more critically than those that made Apollo possible. Delusions of grandeur are no replacement for erudition and expertise in relevant fields.

Quote
In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

Why should there be stars? Why is it not possible to shield against radiation in cislunar space? Describe the detail of the radiation environment.

Quote
So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

...but all the info comes from NASA. By your own argument... I won't bother.

Quote
They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Apollo budget cut? End of Apollo programme? Shift towards Skylab and the future shuttle programme? Your understanding of space history and your understanding of budgets leaves a little to be desired. The Apollo missions had ran their course with the administration, the objectives of a manned lunar landing has been achieved. The emphasis changed to LEO missions.

Quote
Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

[sarcasm] Yes, those gullible Americans. Poor gullible Americans. You have to feel for an entire nation that are guillible [/sarcasm]

Quote
Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Why was it 6 years from scratch? Why dismiss the Mercury and Gemini missions as the testing grounds for Apollo, Why can't a programme the size of Apollo and with the budget and resources of Apollo deliver?

Quote
Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

How many countries could afford such a programme?

Quote
You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true

I don't believe you.

Quote
Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Why would a company keep thousands of drawings at great expense to satisfy a future generation?

Quote
I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

You can't call us knowledgeable on one hand then remove that from us with our knowledge is false. Either we are knowldgebale or not. I agree that there are knowledgeable people her. You aren't.

Quote
Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

So charming.

Quote
Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

You are not willing to consider anything. You've made that clear.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:50:44 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2018, 12:46:36 PM »
Rational argument doesn't work on these sorts. Time for a new approach.

After all, I've always wanted to write an oratorio....