Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked

  • 18 Replies
  • 5173 Views
?

Balfe

  • 40
  • +0/-0
Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« on: July 20, 2009, 06:12:12 AM »
Hi all. The moon landings contradict the FET, I assume? I just read this online and thought that it was interesting and perhaps that it might spark a debate!

******

The ultra-competitive space race culminated in a contest between the Soviet Union and the United States, to see which nation would be first to put a man on the moon. Leaving aside the obvious political leverage of the American success, it was a seminal moment in human history. Men had long dreamed of reaching the moon, and it represented the culmination of years of research, technological innovation and the spirit of adventure.

While at the time it captured the hearts and minds of the millions of people who watched the live footage, it was, in a way, inevitable that people would seek to diminish the glory of the achievement, perhaps to discredit a government they were disillusioned by. Is it a coincidence that the first book claiming the moon landings were faked was released in 1974, the same year that the Watergate scandal did untold damage to the integrity of the Presidential office?

It is far easier to present the facts as they were and to offer a few of the major arguments that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the moon landings were genuine, that Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin did, in fact, make the journey of a lifetime and set foot upon the moon.


No.5 - The Soviet Union Did Not Dispute It

At the height of the Cold War, winning the space race represented a massive feather in the ideological cap of the anti-Communists. As such, if there had been any way to discredit the United States, you can be sure the Soviet Union would have found it. The political damage they could have wrought would have been enormous had they been able to discredit the moon landings. Given that the Soviets were still suffering from the embarrassing climb-down of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, any opportunity that would have allowed them to embarrass the United States would surely have been grasped with both hands. The fact that in the 40 years since that momentous occasion in human history, not one person from the Soviet camp has produced evidence to dispute the veracity of the moon landings, is as telling as any other evidence you care to name. It has been suggested that the Soviets were in on the hoax; this is too ludicrous for words, especially in an era when tensions between the two countries were so high. It is suggesting complicity in something which would be immensely damaging to their own regime, and that's simply absurd. Forget the arguments; the deafening silence from the Soviet camp is as incontrovertible as any other evidence. 

No.4 - The Number of Photographs

It seems obvious to the point of absurdity, but the sheer number of photographs -- none of which show anything terrestrial -- is pretty compelling evidence. Much has been said about light sources, errant shadows and so forth, but this is all based on how light behaves in Earth?s atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of, and so refraction and reflection will be slightly different. The Lunar Module was covered in reflective paneling, and so would have had a major effect on the way light was reflected onto the surface. Undulations in the moon?s surface would also have an effect on shading. The lack of stars has also been cited as proof, but the cameras were set to daylight exposure and would not have picked up the stars anyway. We should also consider the fact that the astronauts -- who were extremely well trained photographers by the time of the mission -- were there to photograph the moon, not the view of the stars from the moon?s surface. The sheer number of photographs which were taken, and the absence of anything more than weak circumstantial evidence, is a strong argument.

No.3 - Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial

The Apollo Program, between missions 11 and 17, collected some 382 kilograms of moon rocks, which were brought back to Earth for analysis. Every scientist who has studied these rocks has accepted that they are of non-terrestrial origin and there is no peer-reviewed article that contradicts the claim they are from the moon. Moon rocks have a very specific geological composition which is distinct from both rocks on Earth and other celestial bodies, such as meteorites. Accusations that these samples could have come from lunar meteorites are specious; the first lunar meteorite was not discovered until the 1980s, and up until now, only 30 kilograms of lunar meteorite rock have been discovered -- less than ten percent of the mass that was brought back from the moon. Added to this is the fact that lunar rocks are not subjected to the same geological processes as those on Earth, and the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out.   

No.2 - No One on the Inside Disputed It

It is interesting to note that out of all the people who have claimed the moon landings were faked, not one of them had any direct involvement with the program. As Dr. James Longuski, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautic Engineering has pointed out, the sheer scale of the project would have made it impossible to keep everybody quiet. Over the course of the Apollo project, he estimates that over 400,000 people, or the equivalent of a small city, were involved in working on the project. The odds of every single one of them choosing to keep silent for over forty years, and not producing any evidence, or a memoir, or an overheard conversation suggesting the landings were faked, is another hugely compelling argument. There is so much money to be made by the person who definitively proves the Moon landings were faked, that someone would surely by now have tried to capitalize on that. The fact that no one has suggests that there is no hoax.

No.1 - It Happened Again?And Again?And Again

As Charlie Duke, an astronaut on the Apollo 16 mission said, ?We have been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" It is a pertinent question and it does seem that if you are going to tell a lie, it is far easier to do it once and then stop, than to keep exaggerating the lie over the course of the next few years. Sooner or later somebody would have made a mistake to give the game away. The fact that nobody did, again, illustrates the fact that indeed, these astronauts did make it to the moon. With six separate Apollo missions actually reaching the Moon, and each time making multiple moonwalks, it seems a ridiculously elaborate hoax, at a cost of millions, if not billions of dollars to perpetrate.

While the moon landings were incredibly difficult and dangerous, the evidence we have presented here offers a convincing argument of the truth behind the matter. While ridiculously elaborate and misguided conspiracy theories add a frisson of mystery, they should never be allowed to diminish what was an incredible achievement.


?

brathearon

  • 199
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2009, 07:00:38 AM »
why did you count backward?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2009, 07:28:55 AM »
No.5 - The Soviet Union Did Not Dispute It

You seem to be under the impression that the Russian government and the RSA are the same entity, or are run by the same people. They are not.

No.4 - The Number of Photographs

It seems obvious to the point of absurdity, but the sheer number of photographs -- none of which show anything terrestrial -- is pretty compelling evidence.

I guess all those movies are real!

And barren landscape is somehow non-terrestrial?

No.3 - Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial

the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out.

Important part bolded. And in the latter section, again, you equate government with a space association.

No.2 - No One on the Inside Disputed It

This is perhaps the only "convincing" aspect of your list. Under accepted and biased argumentation, a conspiracy theory of such a size and magnitude as some conspiracy skeptics believe it to be, surely would have had a slip-up by now, whether through any number or mistakes, errors or whistle-blowing.

Other than your regular conspiracy theorists, there has been no public evidence of someone credible within a space organization revealing information about it being a hoax. This leaves us with two possibilities:

They are either extremely good at what they do; whether through compartmentalization, tying up loose ends etc... They simply get it done; or, there is no conspiracy.

No.1 - It Happened Again?And Again?And Again

As Charlie Duke, an astronaut on the Apollo 16 mission said, ?We have been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" It is a pertinent question and it does seem that if you are going to tell a lie, it is far easier to do it once and then stop, than to keep exaggerating the lie over the course of the next few years. Sooner or later somebody would have made a mistake to give the game away. The fact that nobody did, again, illustrates the fact that indeed, these astronauts did make it to the moon. With six separate Apollo missions actually reaching the Moon, and each time making multiple moonwalks, it seems a ridiculously elaborate hoax, at a cost of millions, if not billions of dollars to perpetrate.

While the moon landings were incredibly difficult and dangerous, the evidence we have presented here offers a convincing argument of the truth behind the matter. While ridiculously elaborate and misguided conspiracy theories add a frisson of mystery, they should never be allowed to diminish what was an incredible achievement.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - Lenin

I'm not sure if you want more reasoning behind the problem with your final assumptions or if that quote was good enough.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2009, 07:31:29 AM »
Hi all. The moon landings contradict the FET, I assume? I just read this online and thought that it was interesting and perhaps that it might spark a debate!

******

The ultra-competitive space race culminated in a contest between the Soviet Union and the United States, to see which nation would be first to put a man on the moon. Leaving aside the obvious political leverage of the American success, it was a seminal moment in human history. Men had long dreamed of reaching the moon, and it represented the culmination of years of research, technological innovation and the spirit of adventure.

While at the time it captured the hearts and minds of the millions of people who watched the live footage, it was, in a way, inevitable that people would seek to diminish the glory of the achievement, perhaps to discredit a government they were disillusioned by. Is it a coincidence that the first book claiming the moon landings were faked was released in 1974, the same year that the Watergate scandal did untold damage to the integrity of the Presidential office?

It is far easier to present the facts as they were and to offer a few of the major arguments that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the moon landings were genuine, that Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin did, in fact, make the journey of a lifetime and set foot upon the moon.


No.5 - The Soviet Union Did Not Dispute It

At the height of the Cold War, winning the space race represented a massive feather in the ideological cap of the anti-Communists. As such, if there had been any way to discredit the United States, you can be sure the Soviet Union would have found it. The political damage they could have wrought would have been enormous had they been able to discredit the moon landings. Given that the Soviets were still suffering from the embarrassing climb-down of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, any opportunity that would have allowed them to embarrass the United States would surely have been grasped with both hands. The fact that in the 40 years since that momentous occasion in human history, not one person from the Soviet camp has produced evidence to dispute the veracity of the moon landings, is as telling as any other evidence you care to name. It has been suggested that the Soviets were in on the hoax; this is too ludicrous for words, especially in an era when tensions between the two countries were so high. It is suggesting complicity in something which would be immensely damaging to their own regime, and that's simply absurd. Forget the arguments; the deafening silence from the Soviet camp is as incontrovertible as any other evidence.  

No.4 - The Number of Photographs

It seems obvious to the point of absurdity, but the sheer number of photographs -- none of which show anything terrestrial -- is pretty compelling evidence. Much has been said about light sources, errant shadows and so forth, but this is all based on how light behaves in Earth?s atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of, and so refraction and reflection will be slightly different. The Lunar Module was covered in reflective paneling, and so would have had a major effect on the way light was reflected onto the surface. Undulations in the moon?s surface would also have an effect on shading. The lack of stars has also been cited as proof, but the cameras were set to daylight exposure and would not have picked up the stars anyway. We should also consider the fact that the astronauts -- who were extremely well trained photographers by the time of the mission -- were there to photograph the moon, not the view of the stars from the moon?s surface. The sheer number of photographs which were taken, and the absence of anything more than weak circumstantial evidence, is a strong argument.

No.3 - Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial

The Apollo Program, between missions 11 and 17, collected some 382 kilograms of moon rocks, which were brought back to Earth for analysis. Every scientist who has studied these rocks has accepted that they are of non-terrestrial origin and there is no peer-reviewed article that contradicts the claim they are from the moon. Moon rocks have a very specific geological composition which is distinct from both rocks on Earth and other celestial bodies, such as meteorites. Accusations that these samples could have come from lunar meteorites are specious; the first lunar meteorite was not discovered until the 1980s, and up until now, only 30 kilograms of lunar meteorite rock have been discovered -- less than ten percent of the mass that was brought back from the moon. Added to this is the fact that lunar rocks are not subjected to the same geological processes as those on Earth, and the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out.  

No.2 - No One on the Inside Disputed It

It is interesting to note that out of all the people who have claimed the moon landings were faked, not one of them had any direct involvement with the program. As Dr. James Longuski, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautic Engineering has pointed out, the sheer scale of the project would have made it impossible to keep everybody quiet. Over the course of the Apollo project, he estimates that over 400,000 people, or the equivalent of a small city, were involved in working on the project. The odds of every single one of them choosing to keep silent for over forty years, and not producing any evidence, or a memoir, or an overheard conversation suggesting the landings were faked, is another hugely compelling argument. There is so much money to be made by the person who definitively proves the Moon landings were faked, that someone would surely by now have tried to capitalize on that. The fact that no one has suggests that there is no hoax.

No.1 - It Happened Again?And Again?And Again

As Charlie Duke, an astronaut on the Apollo 16 mission said, ?We have been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" It is a pertinent question and it does seem that if you are going to tell a lie, it is far easier to do it once and then stop, than to keep exaggerating the lie over the course of the next few years. Sooner or later somebody would have made a mistake to give the game away. The fact that nobody did, again, illustrates the fact that indeed, these astronauts did make it to the moon. With six separate Apollo missions actually reaching the Moon, and each time making multiple moonwalks, it seems a ridiculously elaborate hoax, at a cost of millions, if not billions of dollars to perpetrate.

While the moon landings were incredibly difficult and dangerous, the evidence we have presented here offers a convincing argument of the truth behind the matter. While ridiculously elaborate and misguided conspiracy theories add a frisson of mystery, they should never be allowed to diminish what was an incredible achievement.


The conspiracy is involved in more than just one country. All space agencies have to be involved so if Russia did call the U.S. out on some error, people would catch onto the lies of space programs and faked acheivements.

The number of photographs doesn't really prove anything. With all of the people working on "shuttle" and "space missions", I'm surprised even more faked photos aren't out there.

NASA has millions in private contracts. "Every scientist who has studied these rocks has accepted that they are of non-terrestrial origin". How do we know these scientists aren't involved with NASA itself or are privately funded by them? Also, if you do a quick search online you can buy hundreds of "lunar meteorites". Either there is inconsistency with them or they aren't as rare as once claimed to be.

If someone is in a conspiracy, part of the deal is that they don't dispute the fake actions or events.

They need to make it look like our tax dollars are doing something. After the minimal cost of faking videos and photos, they have millions to spend as they choose. The repeat missions are to stuop us from questioning where all of teh continuwed funds are going
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

turtles

  • 774
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2009, 09:58:22 AM »
Not that I'm saying they were faked, but there's not much point posting that stuff here and hoping you'll convert anyone Balfe.

As far as the FE believers are concerned anything that disproves FET is faked, no matter how much proof you have.

You might think the new pictures of the landing sites taken by LRO would be proof, but they are also obviously "fake" as they also break FET.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

?

Anorthosite

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Riding the crest of the awesomeness of the Hoff
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2009, 10:32:12 AM »

No.3 - Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial

the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out.

Important part bolded. And in the latter section, again, you equate government with a space association.

Even by flat earth standards it would be easier to go to the moon than fake the moon rocks. Some are older than any earth rocks, yet are unaltered by water. How is that possible unless they don't come from the earth?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2009, 10:49:44 AM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Anorthosite

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Riding the crest of the awesomeness of the Hoff
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2009, 11:15:08 AM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

To avoid sidetracking, lets settle for every extrusive rock of any reasonable age has on earth has.

?

brathearon

  • 199
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2009, 03:12:29 PM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2009, 04:26:35 PM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.
You can't assume that
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

brathearon

  • 199
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2009, 06:52:50 PM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.
You can't assume that

im not, its a simple fact.  The recent paths that each continent has taken shows that they at LEAST had rain, if not ice on them.  That is, paths that werent so far into the past that a huge uncertainty arises.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 07:02:05 PM by brathearon »

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2009, 07:05:50 PM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.
You can't assume that

im not, its a simple fact.  The recent paths that each continent has taken shows that they at LEAST had rain, if not ice on them.  That is, paths that werent so far into the past that a huge uncertainty arises.
You still can't know if every spec of the world has been touched by water.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2009, 07:06:00 PM »
To avoid sidetracking, lets settle for every extrusive rock of any reasonable age has on earth has.

But older rocks not on the surface are off-limits I guess? Must be nice to just ignore things.

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.

How do you know this? How deep into the Earth have you gone to make such a conclusion?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tusk

  • Official Member
  • 3600
  • +0/-0
  • Guidance is internal
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2009, 07:21:59 PM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.
You can't assume that

im not, its a simple fact.  The recent paths that each continent has taken shows that they at LEAST had rain, if not ice on them.  That is, paths that werent so far into the past that a huge uncertainty arises.

In order to quantify this you need to consider Young Earth Theory, see DogPlatter and the Raptors that cruised the shallow seas, Yeah I know it's a pain but until you factor in the possibility that the continents acquired their present configuration due to a really, really wet summer then there is always the loophole open for the argument that our present understanding of geology is flawed.
 
Hang on, I'll just check my personal care factor for this week : nope still don't give a fuck

?

Anorthosite

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Riding the crest of the awesomeness of the Hoff
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2009, 11:13:17 PM »
To avoid sidetracking, lets settle for every extrusive rock of any reasonable age has on earth has.

But older rocks not on the surface are off-limits I guess? Must be nice to just ignore things.

I never mentioned age.

Other than the moon rocks, can you show me a rock more than a billion years old that hasn't been altered by water?

?

brathearon

  • 199
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2009, 06:39:13 AM »
So what you're implying is that every single portion of the Earth has been affected by water?

yes, there is no part of the world that has not been touched by water at least once in that time period, even if it isnt in the ocean.
You can't assume that

im not, its a simple fact.  The recent paths that each continent has taken shows that they at LEAST had rain, if not ice on them.  That is, paths that werent so far into the past that a huge uncertainty arises.
You still can't know if every spec of the world has been touched by water.

it's rained everywhere at LEAST once.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2009, 07:58:50 AM »
Other than the moon rocks, can you show me a rock more than a billion years old that hasn't been altered by water?

Well, until every inch of the Earth has been explored, excavated, and examined, there is no way to make such a determination to whether there are or aren't, such rocks.

it's rained everywhere at LEAST once.

On the surface of the Earth, yes.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

JohanasB.

  • 6
  • +0/-0
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2009, 03:28:23 PM »
why did you count backward?

Haven't you ever seen David Letterman?

*

shades

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • Occam's Razor is not BS. Let's move on.
Re: Top 5 Proofs That The Moon Landings Weren't Faked
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2009, 07:44:48 PM »
Other than the moon rocks, can you show me a rock more than a billion years old that hasn't been altered by water?

Well, until every inch of the Earth has been explored, excavated, and examined, there is no way to make such a determination to whether there are or aren't, such rocks.

it's rained everywhere at LEAST once.

On the surface of the Earth, yes.


Oh the irony. I think I nearly died laughing. A FE'er saying that there is no way to make sure of something like that unless they do some sort of immense investigation.
It's not spam, it's my catchphrase!