Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
American Moon by Massimo Mazzucco
benparry:
Another guy who hangs a lot off this is called Rasa Vahirri. Not sure if his name is known in Hoax Circles
onebigmonkey:
Same old same old. There's nothing here. Apparently debunkers don't understand the subject enough to understand things properly.
It also does the usual trick of taking fragments of data in isolation and trying to use that as proof.
For example, the moon rocks. No, a moon rock on its own is not evidence of the Apollo landings. Corroborating film, TV and photgraphic images of that sample where the details in them match every orbital image ever taken since the missions, where the transmissions showing their collection were received by dishes pointing at the moon, where the hardware used to travel there and collect those samples has been imaged from lunar orbit along with other evidence of human activity at the landing sites, where images of Earth broadcast during those sample collection missions match exactly the images takn by weather satellites, where things behave exactly as they should in lunar gravity, all those things combined act as proof.
Likewise the LRRR. Yes, you can get a signal return from the moon, but not with the same level of response. Yes, unmanned proves could be a reflector, but we have evidence of the LRRR being placed and so on and so on and so on.
It does nothing but collate the usual suspects into one place. JAQs off for 3 hours and proves nothing. Starting from a premise of "it could have been faked" does not prove that it was.
Jeff Raven:
Okay, I was able to slog through about 45 minutes. It's definitely better produced than a lot of the HB videos, but it really does hit the bingo card pretty consistently: things taken out of context, jumps to conclusions (especially of the "it can only mean" variety), ignoring evidence, inventing or assuming other evidence or motives ... As others have said, same old, same old.
I haven't gotten to the "photographic experts" part yet. I read somewhere (can't remember where right now) that at least one of the pictures the producers showed the photographers was a composite - it will be interesting to see if that's true, and if they disclosed that fact or not.
apollo16uvc:
--- Quote from: Jeff Raven on August 25, 2020, 12:21:42 PM ---Okay, I was able to slog through about 45 minutes. It's definitely better produced than a lot of the HB videos, but it really does hit the bingo card pretty consistently: things taken out of context, jumps to conclusions (especially of the "it can only mean" variety), ignoring evidence, inventing or assuming other evidence or motives ... As others have said, same old, same old.
I haven't gotten to the "photographic experts" part yet. I read somewhere (can't remember where right now) that at least one of the pictures the producers showed the photographers was a composite - it will be interesting to see if that's true, and if they disclosed that fact or not.
--- End quote ---
The composite is the one made by Ed Hengeveld, with the full LM composited from several missions and the "sun" -bright spot- pasted in.
Ed actually told me he regrets making that composite now, because it has been used by hoaxers endlessly. It is put together with similar photos in the same map without any disclosure to the viewer or photography expert.
Peter B:
--- Quote from: apollo16uvc on August 25, 2020, 02:14:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jeff Raven on August 25, 2020, 12:21:42 PM ---Okay, I was able to slog through about 45 minutes. It's definitely better produced than a lot of the HB videos, but it really does hit the bingo card pretty consistently: things taken out of context, jumps to conclusions (especially of the "it can only mean" variety), ignoring evidence, inventing or assuming other evidence or motives ... As others have said, same old, same old.
I haven't gotten to the "photographic experts" part yet. I read somewhere (can't remember where right now) that at least one of the pictures the producers showed the photographers was a composite - it will be interesting to see if that's true, and if they disclosed that fact or not.
--- End quote ---
The composite is the one made by Ed Hengeveld, with the full LM composited from several missions and the "sun" -bright spot- pasted in.
Ed actually told me he regrets making that composite now, because it has been used by hoaxers endlessly. It is put together with similar photos in the same map without any disclosure to the viewer or photography expert.
--- End quote ---
There's nothing he needs to regret.
There are plenty of resources showing (for example) the entire photographic record, and enough people like us who know the photos' numbering system. It's therefore reasonably straightforward to demand the ID of a claimed photo and cross check it against other records.
ETA: This thread is an example: https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1788.0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version