moon hoax information index.

I have become tired of all the worn out mental gymnastics and strawman arguments.

This thread shall highlight why the usual memes are meaningless,
how you will need to look the other way,
and ignore the obvious.

So no need for crying histrionics and  manic mouth foaming,
simply produce what YOU believe to be cast iron evidence men were shuffling around on the moon in the late sixties.

I will allow this thread to mature nicely and let your evidence pile up for a bit.

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

What do you need a list for? The evidence is well known and can easily be found. It's not like any of us was part of the program and could potentially offer any new insights.

What do you need a list for? The evidence is well known and can easily be found. It's not like any of us was part of the program and could potentially offer any new insights.

That's funny. In other words,

"Everyone knows we went to the moon, so I know it too. I don't need no steeeenkin evidence!"

That's funny. In other words,

"Everyone knows we went to the moon, so I know it too. I don't need no steeeenkin evidence!"

No, that's not what I mean.

What I want to say is that this whole notion of "provide evidence that X happened" is weird. It's not actually possible to provide any "waterproof" or "ironclad" evidence for any event. How would that work? How much evidence is enough evidence? How many people need to say something has happened for that to be proof that it did happen?

That an event happened is an empirical statement, and as such is technically just a theory - it's the claim that "the event happened" is the best way to explain all our observations. That means there is no standard of proof to be satisfied - just that there is explanation that is either more inclusive or just as inclusive but simpler. So the person who claims that the event didn't happen will have to show why that is a better explanation for all observations.

So what are we supposed to post here, an explanation of how "the moon landings actually happened" explain why we observe all the video footage, testimony, and technical documentation about how moon landings happened? I'd like to think that that is pretty self-evident. Is there anything else we could do in the absence of a specific other theory?

To be fair to ecthelion I has had emphasized a little more.

We have all seen the cut and pasteathons of debunked ideas that have being repeated for decades,

eg. You can see debris on the moon with binoculars so case closed (I'm not joking I have seen this on forums and YouTube comments)

or the classic "multiple light sources" strawman argument only ever trotted out by believers for a tap in ( obviously they never mention how one strong light source could do the job.)

So yeah,
YOUR most compelling evidence that has YOU convinced.

YOUR most compelling evidence that has YOU convinced.

But that assumes that somehow I am convinced by any number of individual pieces of evidence, when the truth is much simpler: I simply haven't ever heard a convincing alternative theory (and I have looked into the question).

It's like asking "what is the most compelling piece of evidence that has you convinced everyone else around you isn't a robot?" There isn't a whole lot of positive pieces of evidence I could cite for that - it would all basically boild down to "I haven't seen anything that suggests that robots that complex and lifelike exist". It's the same for the moon landings: I haven't seen anything that suggests that any hoax that complex and wide-ranging is plausible.

Quote from: feuk on January 29, 2016, 09:01:11 AM

YOUR most compelling evidence that has YOU convinced.

But that assumes that somehow I am convinced by any number of individual pieces of evidence, when the truth is much simpler: I simply haven't ever heard a convincing alternative theory (and I have looked into the question).

It's like asking "what is the most compelling piece of evidence that has you convinced everyone else around you isn't a robot?" There isn't a whole lot of positive pieces of evidence I could cite for that - it would all basically boild down to "I haven't seen anything that suggests that robots that complex and lifelike exist". It's the same for the moon landings: I haven't seen anything that suggests that any hoax that complex and wide-ranging is plausible.

That's called the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

--wikipedia

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 06:06:13 AM

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

That's interesting,  what part of that video convinced you that the moon landings were faked.

Quote from: Yendor on January 29, 2016, 06:28:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 06:06:13 AM

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

That's interesting,  what part of that video convinced you that the moon landings were faked.

The part where he didn't realize that "Dark Side of the Moon" was a MOCKumentary.

That's called the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove any empirical truth by using formal logic. Logic is deductive, so it cannot generate information.

If I want to generate information, i.e. I want to find out if something happened, then I will need at least one inductive element, and inductive elements always violate the rules of formal logic. This is easy to demonstrate: Prove to me you are a human using formal logic. Since you cannot do that without simply using the conclusion as a premise, I must assume you are not human.

An argument from ignorance is perfectly permissible, but it's strength depends on the completeness of the knowledge base. I can rephrase my argument as: Given all the pieces of evidence I have seen, the most likely proposition is that the moon landings actually happened. If my knowledge base is significantly incomplete, the argument would be weak. But in order to assess that, I would have to be presented with new observations which I haven't accounted for. Consequently, it makes no sense for me to list any individual piece of evidence that has me "convinced" since what makes the argument strong isn't the individual pieces of evidence but the assumption that my knowledge base is relatively complete.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 03:13:48 PM

Quote from: Yendor on January 29, 2016, 06:28:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 06:06:13 AM

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

That's interesting,  what part of that video convinced you that the moon landings were faked.

The part where he didn't realize that "Dark Side of the Moon" was a MOCKumentary.
   
     

why are you bringing up this BS in a thread that is asking for compelling evidence.

A Disney mockumentary ?
I have not seen it and don't care to see it.

I specifically asked for no histrionics, ridiculous strawman arguments and general numbskullery.
 
You can either troll with off topic cobblers or post your most compelling moon landing evidence that has you convinced.

why are you bringing up this BS in a thread that is asking for compelling evidence.

You asked for compelling evidence,  what's more compelling than proving conspiracy nuts don't know truth from fiction.   Case closed.

Quote from: feuk on January 30, 2016, 01:02:15 AM

why are you bringing up this BS in a thread that is asking for compelling evidence.

You asked for compelling evidence,  what's more compelling than proving conspiracy nuts don't know truth from fiction.   Case closed.

*groan*

My most compelling evidence is the low likelihood of such a conspiracy:
 - A lot of people worked with this. The likelihood of there being a whistleblower is, like, really high by now.
 - There is a lot of footage. There is yet to be found any discrepancy in it which cannot be explained. The chance that any discrepancy will be found, or even exists, only gets smaller. And the chance that there will be no discrepancies in such a large amount of fabricated footage is really low.
 - People could watch the launches. The chance that people would be allowed to directly spectate something which is being faked is really low, as there is a chance that the fakery could be exposed. There are many explanation I could come up with that they could tell the public as a reason that they cannot let the public watch the launches. They would also have to spend a lot of resources on building full-scale replicas, and the replicas had to be able to land safely or have enough flammables on it to be able to burn up. The landing spot would have to be far away, with no population around for many miles.
 - A lot for resources where spent by NASA and used up by various companies. The more resources they embezzle, they higher chance that they would be detected. If they used all the resources, I can't see how they'd gain anything on this if NASA was deceiving the US government. And if all resources was used up, they'd be put into something, meaning that either full scale constructions of these rockets exist, or that they somehow managed to hide large amounts of material. Also, since some material was left in space and on the moon, they'd have to either hide that material successfully so that no one could ever find it. Overall, the chance of succeeding and keeping it up after all these years is low.
 - The soviets were monitoring the moon, as they and the US were in a race. If the US never landed on the moon, there is no chance that the soviets wouldn't tell the world that the US lied to them. The probability that because of some reason they choose not to discredit the US is the lowest of all of these.

If you take all of these factors into account, you see that the likelihood of the moon landing being a hoax is really small. And there are probably more factors. There is a small chance, but there is also a small chance that you are just a robot which is impossible to convince. I'd rather accept the explanation which by far has the largest likelihood.

So yeah,
YOUR most compelling evidence that has YOU convinced.

The fact that it wasn't possible to fake it at the time: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">.

And we have retro-reflectors on the moon that have literally been used.

And we already know we've been to space, so why is the moon out of the question.

Etc.

Response to master_evar.

compartmentalisation.
- the amount of total employees is irrelevant.
Do you honestly believe everyone from wharehouse cleaners, canteen workers to quality control and technical drawers were "in on it" ?

obviously the very few with oversight would know the bigger picture.

- there are issues with the footage/photos. Maybe you could share the most compelling images.

- watching a launch in no way corroborates journey or final destination.

- lots of resources were spent, this of course does not guarantee success,
You mentioned material left on the moon, is there any third party corroborative images of Apollo material on the lunar surface ?

The Soviet / US space bromance deserves it's own post.

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html

Even the official history and players make interesting reading.
       Roald Z Sagdeev former Soviet space scientist along with wife Susan Eisenhower ( president Eisenhowers grangdaughter) explain.

 Despite the continued space competition between the United States and U.S.S.R., Khrushchev sent Kennedy a letter raising the possibility of space cooperation on a modest level after John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth on Feb. 20, 1962. That led to two rounds of discussions between NASA’s Deputy Administrator Hugh Dryden and Soviet academician Blagonravov. An agreement led to the opening of cooperation in three areas: 1) the exchange of weather data from satellites and the eventual coordinated launching of meteorological satellites; 2) a joint effort to map the geomagnetic field of Earth; and 3) cooperation in the experimental relay of communications. This link became a primary forum for subsequent U.S.-U.S.S.R. interaction on space.

 In the early 1970s, the Nixon administration sought to reduce U.S.-Soviet tensions, and launched a major effort to reach a strategic arms limitation breakthrough, as well as new cooperation in space. In 1970, during a meeting with Keldysh, U.S. Academy of Sciences President Philip Handler mentioned an American movie starring Gregory Peck and Gene Hackman called Marooned, in which Soviet cosmonauts helped rescue three U.S. astronauts stranded in Earth orbit. Handler suggested the United States and U.S.S.R. develop a mutually com-patible docking system that would make possible such rescues, as well as non-emergency space dock-ings. This imaginary movie scenario touched a chord within space communities on both sides, which already had experienced emergency situations in real life. Talks led to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project docking mission of 1975, which developed compatible rendezvous and docking systems still in use today, and the establishment of a few topical working groups in different space science and applications disciplines.
 
          " You know,” I responded, “we have a silent gentleman’s agreement to share responsibilities in space". 

the article and it's authors whilst obviously maintaining the cold war narrative give the impression space was the basis for a continental bromance,                           

Silent gentlemens agreements sound strange, don't they ?


   

Retroreflectors

Project "Luna see" was bouncing lasers off the moon and receiving it in 1962 (according to official history).

No retroreflectors needed, and besides the soviets claim to have retroreflectors on the moon so that in my opinion does not support the manned mission at all.

Regarding the YouTube gurus claim that slow mo "was impossible in 1969" it obviously was not,
the avalanche of strawman smugness was not impressive,

and infact only shows the viewer that in the end it boils down to his plea that  "it was easier to go to the moon" than slightly improve on the widely available video tech,

bit of a stretch.

Quote from: Yendor on January 29, 2016, 06:28:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 06:06:13 AM

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

That's interesting,  what part of that video convinced you that the moon landings were faked.

The title for one thing, “Opération Lune”: How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo 11 moon landing". Basically the entire video says it was a Hollywood production. What does Disney do? They make dreams come true. We knew we didn't have the technology to go to the moon. So we basically made a fake film set and and a movie to convince the public we did. You can't be taken in by this hoax, you have to know better.

Ok,   I'll throw this out there,   if  Yendor  or feuk  has ANY evidence that the moon landings were faked,  now is the time to back up your assertions.

Show me something...   I've yet to see anything that convinces me the Apollo program was faked. 

I lived through that era,   I remember the 30 odd hour continuous telecasts,   the Apollo missions prior to Apollo 11,   17 Apollo missions in total,  all the Russian unmanned probes that sent back pictures,  all the Surveyor Missions,  all the Ranger Missions.    The LRO missions. 

I remember the public getting bored with moon missions,  it was becoming so passe, that it was ho-hum,  the anti-vietnam war movement, and general protest movement was in full swing, and the public mood shifted away from space exploration,  the Kennedy Assassination earlier,  No-one could ever forget Watergate, the Nixon tapes, and later impeachment,  there were no longer any votes in  funding NASA,  and the real impetus was the cold war imperative to beat the Russians had gone.  The race was over.  The USA had won the space race, it cost the efforts of an entire nation and billions of dollars. 

Where is the evidence that any of the hundreds of moon missions were faked?   



....  crickets ....

Response to master_evar.

compartmentalisation.
- the amount of total employees is irrelevant.
Do you honestly believe everyone from wharehouse cleaners, canteen workers to quality control and technical drawers were "in on it" ?

How compartmentalized are you proposing?  Were those who built the equipment and tested it in on it?  If not then they would have built equipment capable of the job.  Why not use it?

Retroreflectors

Project "Luna see" was bouncing lasers off the moon and receiving it in 1962 (according to official history).

Yes, they bounced lasers off the moon before Apollo.  And they had to use a more power laser and they got a weaker more diffuse return.  With the retroreflector the laser can have lower power and the accuracy increases.

No retroreflectors needed, and besides the soviets claim to have retroreflectors on the moon so that in my opinion does not support the manned mission at all.

Could the US have put retroreflectors up there with unmanned missions?  Sure they could have.  But there is no evidence of a program to do so.  Who built the probes?  When and where were the rockets launched?

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 03:13:48 PM

Quote from: Yendor on January 29, 2016, 06:28:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 29, 2016, 06:06:13 AM

Here's some proof you might understand,  or not... 

http://nightflight.com/operation-lune-how-stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/

rozyar,
I'm perplexed, Do you believe we went to the moon or not? I get out of your video it was a Disney production.

That's interesting,  what part of that video convinced you that the moon landings were faked.

The title for one thing, “Opération Lune”: How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo 11 moon landing". Basically the entire video says it was a Hollywood production. What does Disney do? They make dreams come true. We knew we didn't have the technology to go to the moon. So we basically made a fake film set and and a movie to convince the public we did. You can't be taken in by this hoax, you have to know better.

In this case, “Opération Lune” was made as a MOCKumentary.  It was made as a joke.  Did you read the link provided?

I feel like I have to quote your own OP back at you, feuk:

I have become tired of all the worn out mental gymnastics and strawman arguments.

You said no strawmen, and then you write this:

Regarding the YouTube gurus claim that slow mo "was impossible in 1969" it obviously was not,

Which means you either have not actually watched the video, or violated your own rules.

and infact only shows the viewer that in the end it boils down to his plea that  "it was easier to go to the moon" than slightly improve on the widely available video tech,

And by "slightly advance" you mean catapult practical effects technology more than 30 years into the future?

It seems to me that your claim is not based on observation. We boatloads of observations that suggest that manned space travel happened in the 60/70s in various forms, videos, design documents, actualy prototypes and equipment and not least lots of testimony. We have not a single observation that suggests the kind practical effects to convincingly fake even the first moon landing existed prior to about 2000.

To disregard all observations as "fake" in favor of a theory that has not a single observation to it's credit is clearly against all rationality.

We knew we didn't have the technology to go to the moon.

What observations do you have that support this claim? The technology can be viewed and examined down to design documents, where do you think the unsolved problem lies?

Response to master_evar.

compartmentalisation.
- the amount of total employees is irrelevant.
Do you honestly believe everyone from wharehouse cleaners, canteen workers to quality control and technical drawers were "in on it" ?

Can you quote me where I said that warehouse cleaners and canteen workers have to be in on it? You're assuming right now, which is not very honest. And no, the total amount of employees is NOT irrelevant. If there is an x% chance that an employee will reveal the fraud, then it's pure logic that every new employee will increase the overall chance that an employee will do it.

obviously the very few with oversight would know the bigger picture.

And the ones with enough knowledge to analyze wether something will actually work or not (so engineers, quality-control etc.)

- there are issues with the footage/photos. Maybe you could share the most compelling images.

Google.

- watching a launch in no way corroborates journey or final destination.

Didn't say that. Read what I said, not what you want me to say. How'd they manage to land the rocket without anyone noticing? Or did they pack them full of enough fuel to burn them up in flight? Also, people could SEE that the rockets turned east, that narrows down the amount of possible landing sites.

- lots of resources were spent, this of course does not guarantee success,

*Sigh* Stop putting words in my mouth, it's getting tiring and you're just discrediting yourself.

You mentioned material left on the moon, is there any third party corroborative images of Apollo material on the lunar surface ?

You obviously didn't understand what I said. Since NASA claims that the bottom part of the lunar lander was left on the moon, it would be very embarrassing if someone where to find that bottom part in a scrapyard somewhere. And now comes another thing with employees: Either the people who built it were in on the fraud, so they never actually built it (increasing the chance that the fraud be revealed by employees) OR they were not in on it, and it was actually built. Then NASA would have to successfully make it "disappear".

The Soviet / US space bromance deserves it's own post.

Still highly unlikely that they'd work together behind the scenes.

Here are just three examples. To some, probably no big deal. To me, If we went to the moon, I have to scratch my head and wonder.

Exhibit A.
How did they get the rover in this position without tire prints?


Exhibit B.
Missing camera,


Exhibit C.
Why would there be a sneaker print on the moon?

In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.

Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.

In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.

My evidence that the Apollo missions were real is that millions of people worked on the project including tens of thousands of contractors including Boeing which has it's own contractors.  Either all these people are in on the conspiracy, they built a real functional rocket and didn't go to the Moon, or they built a real functional rocket and went to the Moon.

2001: A Space Odyssy was made about the same time as the Apollo missions and yet the footage from Apollo looks better then video faking technology today.  If anyone has seen 2001: A Space Odyssy, you would know that it's graphics are pretty bad by today's standards and it looks nothing like the Apollo images and videos.

If I believed that the Moon landings were fake then this would certainly get me to scratch my head and wonder.