We Never Went to the Moon

[Cosmored]

Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=714&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053&hl=apollo

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some articles.

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

The Chinese space walks were obviously faked in a water tank and NASA's official position is that the Chinese space walks were real.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606

[Cosmored]

The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/

These two are important
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
---------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)

[mattwastell]

I guess all this speculation will end soon - there is a lunar imager with the capabilities to obtain images down to 50cm - lots of stuff on the Moon will show up if we visited! landers, buggies, tracks etc etc.
I can not recall the orbiting imagers name but I am sure others will!!!!!

Oh, I guess if this stuff is really up there we can start more conspiracy theories that they were placed there after the fact - kind of like dinosaur skeletons LOL!!!!!

See ya

[DarkSkyMan]

I'm leaning toward them landing and not faking. it is good to see all this stuff though.

Brett

[Mick]

OMG Welcome to the forum Cosmored :itsme!:

[Vinnie]

Well really

I don't believe this tripe is here

Can you guys get a handle on the fact that weirdos like this spend half their lives posting strange theories to any forum that lets them.

OTOH "You Tube" is the worlds most reliable sources of information so I should not doubt the facts.

Here is an interesting take from "YouTube"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3dPXxPGbmM

[Vinnie]

Look I cant seem to direct link to YouTube. Sorry about that but here is a very important message from New Zealand. With apologies to my great friends in the shakey isles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzPYgA8GgHM

And someone wants to use You Tube as their reference. Don't be so stupid. Grow up. See Reality. This Forum is a Joke

[Vinnie]

And obviously The Mods/Admins think this rubbish is cool

Be aware that on the internet there is a whole world of these people out there. They hunt down forums and cite pages and pages and links and links to "prove" their nonsense. Next you'll have all the nuts with their big bang theories, gravity re invented, Newton sleeping under apple trees and all

So long and have a great time with your future.

[Dog Star]

Sorry, but all this seems a bit silly to me.
I've heard a lot of this stuff before but no one has yet given a sensible reason as to why the Yanks would have faked it.
It would have cost almost as much to fake as to actually go there.
The logistics of faking it would almost exceed the logistics of actually going.
Even if they faked it the first time, why would they fake it another 5 times?
If it was fake, it would have involved hundreds, if not thousands of people to be in on the sting. Yet not one credible person has come forward to spill the beans.
Occam's Razor strongly suggests that the moon landings happened, and I for one am quite content to go along with that.
I rather like the Flat Earth Society. I think they're funny buggers and we can always use a bit more humour, but that's the point. They're not meant to be taken seriously.
Cheers, Phil.

[Cosmored]

I've heard a lot of this stuff before but no one has yet given a sensible reason as to why the Yanks would have faked it.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It would have cost almost as much to fake as to actually go there.
The logistics of faking it would almost exceed the logistics of actually going.
There's the issue of space radiation. See post #2.


If it was fake, it would have involved hundreds, if not thousands of people to be in on the sting. Yet not one credible person has come forward to spill the beans.
The US press is under very tight control.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif

If someone were to make a deathbed statement, the press would never report it. If it's not in the news, it didn't happen.
It would also be downright dangerous for someone to try to come forward. Look what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE


I guess all this speculation will end soon - there is a lunar imager with the capabilities to obtain images down to 50cm - lots of stuff on the Moon will show up if we visited! landers, buggies, tracks etc etc.
I can not recall the orbiting imagers name but I am sure others will!!!!!

Oh, I guess if this stuff is really up there we can start more conspiracy theories that they were placed there after the fact - kind of like dinosaur skeletons LOL!!!!!
They have some really high-tech ways to fake pictures nowadays so pictures of the landing sites would not be conclusive proof. They also wouldn't make the hoax evidence go away.

Let's hear some analyses of the actual evidence such as the way the flag moves when the astronaut walks by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1

[Saj]

And obviously The Mods/Admins think this rubbish is cool

Be aware that on the internet there is a whole world of these people out there. They hunt down forums and cite pages and pages and links and links to "prove" their nonsense. Next you'll have all the nuts with their big bang theories, gravity re invented, Newton sleeping under apple trees and all

So long and have a great time with your future.

Im no Mod/Admin, but my assumption here is that as long as there are no hatred being promoted people are free to express any idea that entertains them and it is up to the rest us to make what we want out of this or anything else posted here or elsewhere online. It is a free world and open dialogue should be encouraged. I don't believe in censorship of any kind and appreciate the fact that the Mod/Admins allow such things no matter how many people think it's nonsense.

Thanks "My Astro Space"!

Cheers.

P.S. The forum is entitled "Scientific Theories, Concepts, CONSPIRACIES, Debates". Debate the consipiracy if you'd like, and if not, why not move on to the many other valuable forums found here.

[Dog Star]

G'day again Cosmored,
I've looked at some of your links (though admittedly not all as I simply don't have time) and I have to say that I still don't see anything there that offers conclusive proof that we never went to the Moon. Anything offered up as proof has alternative and quite reasonable explanations.
Surely, if there is any one body or group that has a vested interest in exposing this hoax, it would be the Russians, who have been oddly quiet on this issue.
As to budget fiddling, there is no need to make up Moon landings as double entry book-keeping when you're also running Defence and CIA budgeting which accounts for something like 10 times the Apollo budget. (My figures might be a bit out there and I stand open to correction, but you get my drift.)
There is also the matter of the couple of tons of Moon rocks and samples that were brought back and analysed by independent scientists from around the world, that allowed us to give a more likely theory of the Moon's origin, given the nature of the samples and their composition.
Think about the number of scientists, engineers, technicians, ground crew, etc. who were involved in this undertaking. Can you really suggest that they are all lying, or that they were all duped?
At the end of the day, it's still FAR more likely that we went to the Moon than it was faked.
One of my philosophies of life is that I usually try very hard not to attack other peoples belief systems and I'm not trying to do that here. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe as far as I'm concerned.
I do feel obliged however to point out that as you obviously have a great deal of time, energy and curiousity at your disposal, that such time etc. might possibly be better employed directed to more useful and positive goals.
Obsessing over this stuff is, in my humble opinion, murdering time.
Cheers, Phil.

[Dog Star]

Just to clarify things a little here, I'm not trying to have the last word or end the debate. I agree strongly with Saj -
Debate=good.
Censorship=bad.
Cosmored, if I've said anything to offend you, that was not my intention.
I hope to read more of your posts.:smile:

[timthelder]

Im no Mod/Admin, but my assumption here is that as long as there are no hatred being promoted people are free to express any idea that entertains them and it is up to the rest us to make what we want out of this or anything else posted here or elsewhere online. It is a free world and open dialogue should be encouraged. I don't believe in censorship of any kind and appreciate the fact that the Mod/Admins allow such things no matter how many people think it's nonsense.

Thanks "My Astro Space"!



Well said Saj...

There is as much misinformation on the net, as there is information.

A recipe on how to cook up a good pot of good stew, I will try and ,will confirm it's good, after the fact.

On wether or not we, (humans) landed in the moon, or the world is going to end in 2012, or wether the world is flat? I think I need a more reliable source...

The point being don't always believe what you read, or see on the net. Especially if it has the potential to do more harm than good.

Research is done by going and talking with those involved and by reviewing and assessing the facts. Not by looking at some links on the net and ariving at a conclusion based on questionable information.

I have seen many of the links you've posted years ago and the newer one's recently and they just seem quite aqueous...

Go talk to an astronaut...THEN tell me if they went to the moon.

Over'n out, Tim:smile:

[hpcoolahan]

And someone wants to use You Tube as their reference. Don't be so stupid. Grow up. See Reality. This Forum is a Joke

As a MOD here ,you'd be supprised how much crap we sometimes put up with, but this IS what this forum section is for.
But until someone starts getting nasty(
This Forum is a Joke) we usually let most things slide.
My favorite is Attiyah Zahdeh, you should check some of his out, then you'll see what i mean.


And obviously The Mods/Admins think this rubbish is cool

Be aware that on the internet there is a whole world of these people out there. They hunt down forums and cite pages and pages and links and links to "prove" their nonsense. Next you'll have all the nuts with their big bang theories, gravity re invented, Newton sleeping under apple trees and all

So long and have a great time with your future.

See above comments , everyone is entitled to an opinion, we just hope they dont cross the line to often, thats all.

Cheers
Patrick

[Cosmored]

Anything offered up as proof has alternative and quite reasonable explanations.
I still haven't seen any satisfactory explanation for the movement of the flag in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

The flag moves at the exact moment at which it would according to the atmosphere explanation. The static electricity theory has been put forth.

This video, which was made by a pro-Apollo person, inadvertantly proved the static electricity theory false as it shows the flag moving away from the astronaut slightly before it moves toward him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This is consistent with a person's passing in atmosphere as there will first be a frontal wave which pushes followed by the air moving toward the space behind the moving astronaut. There are other scenes in Apollo footage in which an astronaut is even nearer to a flag but not going by it fast and the flag shows no attraction or repulsion from the astronaut.

Here's a series that deals with this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1


Surely, if there is any one body or group that has a vested interest in exposing this hoax, it would be the Russians, who have been oddly quiet on this issue.

Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

Here are two links to the same article in case one of them goes off-line.
http://libcom.org/history/1940-1989-the-cold-war
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The official story we were being told during the cold war wasn't necessarily what was happening behind the scenes.

Here's a video series about the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this too. I haven't had time to listen to it.
http://www.salon.com/audio/2000/10/05/chomsky_propaganda/

There are plausible explanations for the Russians not snitching on us so I wouldn't call their not snitching conclusive proof that we went to the moon.

Interestingly, I spoke to a woman from Russia. She told me that the official Soviet position was that the moon missions were real. I was the first person she'd ever met that thought the moon missions were a hoax. She'd never even heard the hoax theory before.


As to budget fiddling, there is no need to make up Moon landings as double entry book-keeping when you're also running Defence and CIA budgeting which accounts for something like 10 times the Apollo budget. (My figures might be a bit out there and I stand open to correction, but you get my drift.)

There are other reasons why they would have wanted to fake it.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is also the matter of the couple of tons of Moon rocks and samples that were brought back and analysed by independent scientists from around the world, that allowed us to give a more likely theory of the Moon's origin, given the nature of the samples and their composition.

There are plausible explanation for the rocks. Part 5 of this series has the most important part but watch parts 1 through 4 too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A


Think about the number of scientists, engineers, technicians, ground crew, etc. who were involved in this undertaking. Can you really suggest that they are all lying, or that they were all duped?

I suppose some of them were duped and some of them were in on the hoax. It's plausible that most of them worked in their own compartments of the program and they weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work. Also, the press would never report it if someone were to come forward (see post 3).

[Cosmored]

There's also evidence of deliberate deception at pro-Apollo sites such as these.

http://www.bautforum.com/

http://www.clavius.org/
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi
(Clavius forum)

These sites seem to be part of a government damage-control program.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

This is from an article about the Clavius forum.
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of people who make false and idiotic claims about Apollo pictures. They thus provide debunkers with much needed food.
Without this debunker food, they would have to address the real issues, something which they would rather avoid. These issues include:
Lack of star pictures,
Missing technical data,
Reliability issues.
But these are "soft" issues, that is, issues involving expected human behavior. In a topic as controversial as the Apollo program, only hard technical arguments have sufficient convincing power. Here are such issues:
Radiation,
Missing landing blast crater,
Missing sound,
Instantaneous craft kinematics.
Contrary to what a quick glance might lead you to believe, debunker sites such as Clavius do not properly address those issues. When they face debunker food or legitimate errors on the part of hoax theorists, they make well-reasoned arguments and show all their technical knowledge in a pedagogical manner.
Yet, strangely, on those above issues, their responses are not in line with what their competence as displayed in other answers might lead us to expect. They lack technical details and are instead full of handwaving, appeals to authority and fallacious reasoning, such as relying on NASA-provided measured radiation doses to prove that the passage thru the belts was not dangerous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is about Mythbusters.
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/10/project-apollo-art-of-deception.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, some people came up to me and said that I was full of BS, because to them, the Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" blew the entire Apollo Hoax theory to pieces.

I have viewed the show, and my take on the "Mythbusters" is this: They are well paid by US government agencies to push through propaganda when necessary! It must be stated clearly that the Discovery Channel is well funded by US agencies, especially NASA! If you stop and think about it, the episodes about "busting the Apollo Hoax theory" were all conducted in NASA's own facilities! Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that they had to "debunk" the Apollo Hoax, or have their show's funding from NASA cut off, and therefore be out of a job!

I therefore dismiss the Mythbusters for what they are... Propaganda experts, and shills for the government. They were even exposed for being used by the government when experts confronted them on their episode about RFID chips! If you dont believe me, go ahead and google "Mythbusters RFID episode exposed" for yourselves. You will see clearly how they had to tow the line, or else!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Try to put some solid evidence of a hoax on the Bad Astronomy forum. If anyone tries to post something that the regular pro-Apollo posters at Bad Astronomy can't handle, the post won't appear. A note will appear that says "This post must be approved by moderators before it can appear" and then the post will never appear.

Anyway, before they started using that tactic to keep control over the direction debates take, I got banned there.

I was posting there under the name "David C". Look at the last post of this page on which the moderator closed the thread.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the post with the questions asked of me.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891474

Here's where I answered them.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-38.html#post892498

The moderator closed the thread giving the reason that I hadn't answered the questions when I had in fact answered them so I started another thread on the subject.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52326-9-11-inside-job.html

They closed that thread before a healthy discussion could even get started. I started another thread to complain about it.
http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/52393-some-pretty-low-tactics.html

That's what got me banned there. Shortly after that they decided to limit discussion in the conspiracy theory section to space and astronomy.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52887-new-change-conspiracy-theory-section-only-space-astronomy.html

Evidently they couldn't try to discrediting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without looking silly so they decided to just discontinue talking about it.

Here's another case where the moderator closed a thread because his people couldn't discredit the theory without looking silly.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth.

I got banned for 30 days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that Apollo was a hoax.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1
(see reply 33)

I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575

As you can see by reading the thread, they closed it because they couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly.

I think everybody knows who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

Jay Windley got caught in a big lie which is explained in these two links.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

Look at the way Jay Windley ducked this question asked of him.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584

Jay Windley seems to have to agree with every government position even when he knows it to be untrue. It suspiciously looks like he works for the government.

There are forums on which the moderators use their power to control the direction debates take and Clavius and Bad Astronomy are prime examples. This kind of control is only necessary when a lie is being defended as, when there is free debate, a false argument will fall by its own lack of merit and no control over what the other side is allowed to say is necessary. Just the fact that those two sites exist is circumstantial evidence of a hoax.

[Radar]

Be aware that on the internet there is a whole world of these people out there. They hunt down forums and cite pages and pages and links and links to "prove" their nonsense. Next you'll have all the nuts with their big bang theories, gravity re invented, Newton sleeping under apple trees and all

For the record, I am a firm beleiver we landed on the moon.

If someone wants to debate that in a section which invites scientific theories then that's fine. Intelligent debate is healthy for those that want to participate.

Having a hobby based around science has taught me to always keep an open mind. Galileo was laughed at, ridiculed, sentenced to death which was later downgraded to lifetime home detention because he said the Earth orbited the sun. He was right.

Even though I don't think Cosmo is right on the moon thing, people should always be allowed to debate the conventional beleif systems that are out there. And in some way, when people with little knowledge of physics and astronomy come to us with this type of stuff, we have an opportunity to share real science with them.

It is this type of rigorous testing that helps scientific theories stand up.

From experience some new theories and conspiracies can annoy poeple, I can understand that, but at the same time we can't pick and choose what people decide to talk about. As long as its in the relavant section and not all over the forum then that's fine.

I bet for everything that Cosmo puts up here we can offer him a scientific explanation. Even convert him into a beleiver?:biggrin:

Dogstars words -


Think about the number of scientists, engineers, technicians, ground crew, etc. who were involved in this undertaking. Can you really suggest that they are all lying, or that they were all duped?

I agree, I think it would be harder to get all these people to stay silent for half a century than it would be to send a man to the moon. Faking the moon landing is far more difficult and harder to pull off than actually landing there.

Ray

[trevorw]

Unfortunately you don't have a hope in hell of convincing this guy that he's wrong and we are right, like you I'm a firm believer that the Yanks did land on the moon.

It's like religion you are either a believer or not and like religion, politics and race, conspiracy theories should be banned from scientifically based forums.

Shall I start a thread on Creationism vs Darwinism although not conspiracy you know what I mean

I think not

Scientific discussion yes, siting numerous dubious reference sources I think not. Remember the old saying

Close the thread IMO

Cheers :woot::woot::crazy::crazy:

[Radar]

I hope this doesn't offend anyone but I'm locking this thread. Everyone's point of view has been appreciated.

Cheers

Ray

[hpcoolahan]

agreed
Patrick