Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[uberhund]

Actually, cosmored, I wasn't interested in debating anything with you. I was looking for answers to the four questions from a hoax believer. That's all. Perhaps Apollo17 would be interested in continuing the debate by PM.

Meanwhile, did I extract your material correctly for two of the questions?

 

[MeteorWayne]

But if you want see a hoax believer's eyes glaze over, start mentioning numbers. Youtube videos are easier to follow than actual science.

Yes indeed. I rest our case....

And far easier to repeat over and over and over and over again, than really answering legitimate rebuttal.

Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube,
ad nauseum...

 

[frodo1008]

Simple really, anyone that believes that the moon landings were faked is simply, now and forevermore WRONG!!

Can I make it anymore clear than that??

 

[cosmored]

Actually, cosmored, I wasn't interested in debating anything with you. I was looking for answers to the four questions from a hoax believer. That's all. Perhaps Apollo17 would be interested in continuing the debate by PM.

The flag moving at the 2 minute 35 second mark of this video proves the footage was taken in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

I rest my case. The moon missions were obviously faked. Objective truth-seekers would address this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9 ... playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... orses&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

1. I believe your position on the LRO photographs that have imaged the Apollo landing sites is that they are Photoshop fakes, is that correct?

That's a plausible scenario so those photos can't be used as proof. Do you think it's impossible to fake photos such as those?

2. Why did the space faring nations cooperate with the hoax in the first place?
Believers respond: The US is paying China and Russia to participate in the hoax with hush funds from NASA.

There are plausible scenarios and this doesn't make the hoax evidence go away. You're assuming we were being told the truth about what was happening back then. Go to the summary of hoax evidence in the 13th post from the top on page 16 of this thread and read Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.

3. What would motivate the space faring nations, especially China and Russia, to continue to promote the Apollo hoax?
Believers respond: When the hush money runs out, the Chinese and Russians will expose the hoax.

There are plausible scenarios. This is really moot as the video and still pictures are full of anomalies that prove the hoax. Who knows what kind of secret deals are made behind the scenese? I suggest you start reading the works of Noam Chomsky.
http://www.chomsky.info/

You seem to be basing all of your opinions on the official version of everything.

4. Is there a standard of evidence strong enough that would change your minds that Apollo was not hoaxed?

It's impossible for there to be irrefutable proof that it was faked and also irrefutable proof that it wasn't faked. It can only go in one direction. Post something you consider to be proof that the missions were real and we can discuss whether it's really proof. So far I haven't seen anything I'd call proof that the missions were real but I've seen loads of what I'd call proof that they were faked.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube, Youtube,
ad nauseum...

 

[uberhund]

Thanks, cosmored. We're making progress here. Sorry to lean on you to speak for the whole Apollo hoax group, but you're the only one responding at the moment. So here's what I've extracted from your responses:

1. LRO photographs have imaged the Apollo landing sites, with footprints and flags placed exactly as advertised.
Believers respond: The photographs are fakes. All subsequent photographs or personal visits will continue to promote the hoax. For example, if humans ever do land on the moon, artifacts they retrieve will all be, essentially, stage props.

2. Why did the space faring nations cooperate with the hoax in the first place?
Believers respond: The US is paying China and Russia to participate in the hoax with hush funds from NASA.

3. What would motivate the space faring nations, especially China and Russia, to continue to promote the Apollo hoax now that Viet Nam and the Cold War are over?
Believers respond: When the hush money runs out, the Chinese and Russians will expose the hoax.

4. Is there a standard of evidence strong enough that would change your minds that Apollo was not hoaxed?
Believers respond: No.

Let me know if I paraphrased you correctly. Thanks for taking the time to help me out.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Let me get this straight. The same space programs involved in "backroom deals" are going to be setting up moon bases in as soon as 10 years? Why would they be planning moon missions if they wanted to keep the hoax going?

It's only a matter of time before NASA or someone else returns to the moon and these hoax theories will be completely dead. Though I guess they could say that whoever returns will "plant" evidence of Apollo by dropping LEMs on the surface :lol:

 

[uberhund]

Evidently, Yuri, that's what they believe.

Specifically, they'll have to go through the old TV studio warehouses - like the one in the first Indiana Jones movie, I suppose - go through crate after crate until they find the old props so they can "return" them to earth.

I guess.

Alternatively, the hoax believers merely wait for China and Russia to tire of the original funding arrangement and wait for them to blow the lid off the whole thing, which it seems either would be willing to do now for no cash and a spot on Jon Stewart, but whatever.

Man, this hoax business is hard. And expensive.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

On page 45 Archer17 said the flag moved because of static electricity. I gave a rebuttal. Now you pro-Apollo people are supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. Do you agree with Archer17? Do you think he's wrong?

You are correct, the "ball is in our court" on this point. I've been looking at various vids of the situation and am unconvinced that the flag moved prior to the astronauts arrival. On the other hand I'm not sure it didn't. So I'm giving it some thought. In the meanwhile how do you explain the relatively undamped motion the flag exhibits ? Was this scene filmed in a big vacuum chamber ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

The flag moving at the 2 minute 35 second mark of this video proves the footage was taken in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

And yet the way dust moves around the astronauts feet during that clip proves the footage was taken in a vacuum. I pointed this out much earlier in the thread.

I rest my case.

No, you don't.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

cosmored, if it was filmed in an atmosphere, why does the flag not move? I thought it was commonly held among hoax believers that the scenes were filmed in a vacuum. I think it's time for you to give us a full explanation of how they could have pulled this off. I am not asking for endless youtube videos and links trying to throw up as much smoke as possible. I am asking you to give us a full, detailed analysis of how this whole thing could have been faked. Some anomalies may raise eyebrows but these have been explained already.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Do eyebrows raise in a vacuum?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Do eyebrows raise in a vacuum?

No. But Hell does!

 

[Smersh]

Do eyebrows raise in a vacuum?

Of course they do. Here's a Youtube video that proves it ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyDMBrMWjOk[/youtube]

Btw, if anyone wants to argue that wasn't filmed in a vacuum, I don't have to answer cuz it's on a Youtube video. :ugeek:

 

[MeteorWayne]

That wasn't in a vacuum, his head didn't explode! And you can clearly hear in the background he was being microwaved at the time. :shock: :ugeek: :mrgreen:

 

[cosmored]

In the meanwhile how do you explain the relatively undamped motion the flag exhibits ? Was this scene filmed in a big vacuum chamber ?

The motion is at a very narrow angle so atmospheric dampening is negligible. Anyone can try hanging fabrics of various types from a ceiling light and test how long they move. Super-light fabrics come to a stop almost immediately. Heavy fabrics will move for a long time.
Slow-motion explains the lenth of time the flag continues to move and the speed at which it moves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW31fOWzY-E

And yet the way dust moves around the astronauts feet during that clip proves the footage was taken in a vacuum. I pointed this out much earlier in the thread.

If the "Dust" you see is really large-grained sand, the way the dust moves is consistent with atmosphere at earth gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

cosmored, if it was filmed in an atmosphere, why does the flag not move?

See above.

I think it's time for you to give us a full explanation of how they could have pulled this off. I am not asking for endless youtube videos and links trying to throw up as much smoke as possible. I am asking you to give us a full, detailed analysis of how this whole thing could have been faked. Some anomalies may raise eyebrows but these have been explained already.

On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of hoax evidence. If you look through the whole thing, you'll start to see the big picture.

I don't know if they spent the time they were supposed to be on the moon in low-earth orbit, or on earth but some of the footage was shot in a studio and some of it was possibly shot on an outdoor set.

Let me know if I paraphrased you correctly. Thanks for taking the time to help me out.

You are grossly misquoting me. My last post on page 46 shows my position if you're confused.

Why would they be planning moon missions if they wanted to keep the hoax going?

Their saying they're planning missions doesn't make the hoax evidence go away. I heard that the planned missions were cancelled. If they weren't, they'll probably be cancelled at the last minute. It sounds like they're playing for time.

 

[MeteorWayne]

In the meanwhile how do you explain the relatively undamped motion the flag exhibits ? Was this scene filmed in a big vacuum chamber ?

The motion is at a very narrow angle so atmospheric dampening is negligible. Anyone can try hanging fabrics of various types from a ceiling light and test how long they move. Super-light fabrics come to a stop almost immediately. Heavy fabrics will move for a long time.
Slow-motion explains the lenth of time the flag continues to move and the speed at which it moves.

That's valid as long as your living room is a vacuum... :roll: :roll:

 

[SpeedFreek]

And yet the way dust moves around the astronauts feet during that clip proves the footage was taken in a vacuum. I pointed this out much earlier in the thread.

If the "Dust" you see is really large-grained sand, the way the dust moves is consistent with atmosphere at earth gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

It isn't large-grained sand, as evidenced by the highly detailed footprints left by the astronauts - only a dense layer of fine dust would leave such sharp edged footprints.

In your youtube video, Jarrah White suggests the "detailed footprints due to fine dust" argument is a "straw man", as the moving video footage is never sharp enough to make out the detail in the footprints (this is not even a "straw man", and he should know this more than anyone else as he uses the straw man so often). He suggests that we only have photographic evidence of the detailed footprints, whereas the evidence for the movement of dust only comes from video evidence. Well... duh!! How could we possibly have evidence for the dynamical movement of dust from still footage, and how could we possibly have evidence for the detail in the footprints from low resolution video footage?

In using this argument, Jarrah addresses neither the detail in the footprints nor the movement of the dust. He takes the evidence for them both and claims that, due to the evidence coming from different sources, it cannot be trusted. That is all his argument is! He is vainly attempting to introduce doubt (this is known as obfuscation), but he is proving nothing!

It is up to the person making the extraordinary claim (in this case, Jarrah White) to come up with the proof, not the other way round.

 

[cosmored]

And yet the way dust moves around the astronauts feet during that clip proves the footage was taken in a vacuum. I pointed this out much earlier in the thread.

----------------------------------------
If the "Dust" you see is really large-grained sand, the way the dust moves is consistent with atmosphere at earth gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
----------------------------------------
It isn't large-grained sand, as evidenced by the highly detailed footprints left by the astronauts - only a dense layer of fine dust would leave such sharp edged footprints.

In your youtube video, Jarrah White suggests the "detailed footprints due to fine dust" argument is a "straw man", as the moving video footage is never sharp enough to make out the detail in the footprints (this is not even a "straw man", and he should know this more than anyone else as he uses the straw man so often). He suggests that we only have photographic evidence of the detailed footprints, whereas the evidence for the movement of dust only comes from video evidence. Well... duh!! How could we possibly have evidence for the dynamical movement of dust from still footage, and how could we possibly have evidence for the detail in the footprints from low resolution video footage?

In using this argument, Jarrah addresses neither the detail in the footprints nor the movement of the dust. He takes the evidence for them both and claims that, due to the evidence coming from different sources, it cannot be trusted. That is all his argument is! He is vainly attempting to introduce doubt (this is known as obfuscation), but he is proving nothing!

It is up to the person making the extraordinary claim (in this case, Jarrah White) to come up with the proof, not the other way round.

Jarrah's right. Both fine dust and large-grained sand could have been used where appropriate. If we didn't see the bootprints in the fine dust being made, we don't know if there were dust clouds which were consistent with atmosphere or not. Therefore, the footprints can't be used as proof of anything.

cosmored wrote:

In the meanwhile how do you explain the relatively undamped motion the flag exhibits ? Was this scene filmed in a big vacuum chamber ?


The motion is at a very narrow angle so atmospheric dampening is negligible. Anyone can try hanging fabrics of various types from a ceiling light and test how long they move. Super-light fabrics come to a stop almost immediately. Heavy fabrics will move for a long time.
Slow-motion explains the lenth of time the flag continues to move and the speed at which it moves.



That's valid as long as your living room is a vacuum...

Anyone can try it. If the fabric is heavy, it will move at the same narrow angle that the Apollo flag did for a long time. At that narrow angle atmospheric dampening is negligible.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Their saying they're planning missions doesn't make the hoax evidence go away. I heard that the planned missions were cancelled. If they weren't, they'll probably be cancelled at the last minute. It sounds like they're playing for time.

I think it's time for you to get your story straight. A few anomalies that have been explained do not count as hoax evidence. Constellation may be cancelled but ESA, JAXA, RoscoCosmos, and China all have their moon plans in as soon as 10 years. Not to mention the rovers and orbiters already at the moon studying its surface and taking pictures of the Apollo landing sites.

Your post on page 16 does nothing but point out a few anomalies that have been explained away for decades. I want to know more about this international conspiracy hooey you made up.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Jarrah's right. Both fine dust and large-grained sand could have been used where appropriate. If we didn't see the bootprints in the fine dust being made, we don't know if there were dust clouds which were consistent with atmosphere or not. Therefore, the footprints can't be used as proof of anything.

Could have been used? Sorry, but it is up to Jarrah to prove they were used. Saying that NASA "might" have done something is not evidence for a hoax, he has to prove they did it.

Oh, and I wouldn't bother citing any of his "Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct!" youtube videos, as he obviously has no idea about how the regolith gets bonded together in a vacuum. He should have done the test in a vacuum.

 

[Archer17]

On page 45 Archer17 said the flag moved because of static electricity. I gave a rebuttal. Now you pro-Apollo people are supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. Do you agree with Archer17? Do you think he's wrong?

Your "rebuttal" was just a reaffirmation of your previous linked-to hokum. There's no "case closed" here. Air current causation is not consistent with what is shown in the youtube links. In other words the notion you, by proxy, hang your hat on has major problems. I'm not a HB-debunker by trade but I'm sure the overall behavior and appearance of the flag has been brought up before by others much more savvy than myself on this particular topic.

I need more than flag-nits posted on youtube to relegate the history of our space program to the BS bin. While this particular 'nit' is worthy of discussion IMO and has more than one possible explanation - in addition to yours by proxy we have some who claim the flag was touched or vibrations by the astronauts as they hopped around could have moved it - I still believe the most likely explanation is electrostatic. You responded to me cosmored, but haven't successfully refuted what I posted...not by a long shot. I'd like to see you drop your lame linkathon crutch and, in your own words, explain the transient nature of your air currents when applied to the various videos in total. It doesn't fit.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'd like to see you drop your lame linkathon crutch and, in your own words,

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Without youtube, he's speechless!!

 

[SteveCNC]

One thing I question after watching the moving flag video , how does his weight distribution on the lunar regolith affect the regolith around him . Kind of like how a jumping cactus works stepping on the ground nearby at it's root system can cause the main plant to move toward you but in this case , could the regolith be interlinked such and the surface spongy enough to have an effect on something like the flag ? If I remember right the flag wasn't planted very deep .

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

This video shows that it started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
You people have the attitude that you've debunked this but that's all it is–an attitude. You haven't come close to debunking this. This piece of evidence proves the hoax by itself.

So I've watched the vid (above) several times now. I'm not sure what it is but it looks odd to me. The lower 3 stripes (red and white) show some apparent lateral shift but the 4th (from the bottom) red stripe doesn't. It seems (at first glance) as the white stripe immediately below it "moves" and the red stripe, attached to it, doesn't. So I need to do a little more careful examination to make a conclusion (and may need to get a first copy of the video to do so). In the meanwhile let me make sure I understand what your claim is :

1) It was filmed here on the Earth in a 1 G environment
2) There was an atmosphere (standard pressure ?)
3) The video we see (released) is a slowed down version of the video as it was shot
4) The flag is not made of nylon as NASA says, it's some heavier material
5) The flag moves before the astronaut gets to touch it
6) The "dirt" being kicked up is something like sand and so falls (now slowed down) like moon "dust" would in 1/6 G even though it was really in the above environment (atmosphere and 1G)

So what's your claim for the initial movement above ? Was this supposedly some gust of wind from some stage equipment or is this supposed to be due to the astronauts movement pushing air in front of him ? Also how slowed down is the video ? Lastly do you concede that the later motion may have been from the astronaut actually brushing against the flag as Killians vid illustrates ?