Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The images have value, but are not in themselves proof. Technology and talented special effects people can produce just about anything and actual photos can be staged.

That's fine. But I don't think anyone (at least not many -- and nobody I have come across) have ever said that the Apollo images are "proof" that the Apollo missions were real.

In fact, the only time I usually see the images discussed is in rebuttal to some hoax promoter pointing out alleged anomalies, such as no stars, or non-parallel shadows, or backgrounds that are identical in photos with different foregrounds.

About Alrin, I never met him (although there are ATS members who have previous mentioned meeting Apollo astronauts), but I will say that I've heard from other people that Aldrin is a decent guy and easy to talk to -- in fact I hear he enjoys telling anyone who wants to hear it about his ideas fro the future of space travel (and he is a bit of an offbeat character).

As for punching people, it sounds as if you are talking about Bart Sibrel. If you are, Sibrel wasn't just "talking" to Aldrin; instead, he stalked him, got up into his face, and called him a liar. Aldrin is a former military guy and one tough cookie (you need to be tough to be a test pilot, which was one on the most dangerous professions back in the 1950s and 1960s when Aldrin was one), and probably doesn't take that kind of crap...so it doesn't surprise me that a tough former military guys would take a swing at Sibrel, considering how Sibrel actuated that entire episode by talking crap on Aldrin without any provocation on Aldrins part.

Actually, it might be one of the best things to happen to Sibrel; he's made a career out of that punch.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Please don't take anything I said as an insult or derogatory to Buzz Aldrin in any way. My comments were out of respect and admiration. He is a pretty neat guy. Within a minute of meeting you he will undoubtedly say, "Get your ass to mars!" and he will be wearing a t-shirt with the same slogan on it. :-)

Buzz is a tough old bird and I was very fortunate to have met him. He has a great sense of humor too. I liked him very much.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why are they not saying what DOES work?

maybe because to date there is no material that can provide the level of protection at a feasible price that they want.

Being the issue is how to protect humans in deep space, Apollo is a bit relevant, to mention...

so the vicinity of the moon is deep space??

Short stays are NOT mentioned in the papers, only YOUR SIDE said it!

does it need to be said?? you clearly know nothing about exposure time.

chernobyl area is still off limits, yet we have tourists bypassing the area..

Although now we know that aluminum can't protect us in deep space, it is only 'pure' aluminum, while Apollo only used alloys of aluminum, which works great for short stays!

Nonsense.

well according to you it is a completely different material, and was not mentioned in your reports at all whereas they specifically mention aluminium only.. so in your mind Aluminium alloys could be 100% perfect at protecting against particle radiation.

either way, you being hung up on aluminium is irrelevant because Apollo used aluminium alloy, so you really do need to get over it.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

The qualifier for this has been the same all along - possible does not prove anything.

actually being possible does prove something.. it proves it is possible.

whereas proving that a second light source (as the claim is) has yet to be proven possible.

It is possible the light was reflected.

i would say its more than possible light was reflected.. the moon is a light source at night time and that is pure reflection of sunlight.. bit naive to think the moon can be a lightsource at night on earth but cant on the lunar surface.

It is possible there was a second light source.

ive said it before and ill say it again, reflected light is a light source. and IMO, is why we see the hotspot on the boot.

It is possible the images were staged. The whole point of this argument is that just because it was possible does not prove that is what happened. I refuse to blindly agree that because specific conditions could have existed that would explain the images that there is no alternative explanation. There are more than one potential explanation for these images. People who want to believe the images are real are perfectly fine with abandoning the most basic principles of science and settle on one possibility that suits there purposes but they refuse to let anyone else do the same thing if they are in opposition. That is not science, that is not unbiased examination of evidence. It is blind adherence to a chosen belief.

but are you ignoring everything else that the images support??

the image should never be taken as stand alone proof that something has occured, going image by image is the only way hoax believers are able to get any sort of traction.

My entire career was in R&D. I am a research scientist. One of my primary duties was failure analysis. The biggest mistake you can make in my field is to have a foregone conclusion. It leads your investigation exactly where you want it to go and you find exactly what you are looking for. And when you have found enough...you stop looking and declare a root cause. That is wrong on every level. The whole idea is to look systematically at all the evidence in greater and greater detail to discover all potential contributing factors, not just the ones you want to believe or the ones that make sense to you. That is science.

so why then ignore everything else and focus on these few images all the while assuming that a spotlight was needed?

If you steadfastly believe that the images are real, everything you look at, every piece of evidence, will support your belief or be dismissed as false information. I have to keep an open mind. I am not saying the images are fake and I am not saying they are real. I am simply saying there is enough reason to allow for the possibility that the images are manufactured.

im not saying it is 100% real i am suggesting that the likelyhood of it being faked is close to zero, but not exactly zero. the possibility of them faking the missions is very close to 0.

most hoax believers take that near zero percent of it being fake and inflate it to 100% because they see one image they dont understand and ignore everything else.

Oh, one last thing. Yes, I do understand perspective and I am not refusing to accept it. I just don't blindly believe it is responsible for everything in every image ever taken.

and it isnt, but in the select few that you chose it kind of is.

i dont think you have even considered whether or not apollo 14 landed on flat ground or not, and just assumed that the shadow was ~90 degrees to the other shadows in the image.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon


...What?

So it doesn't prove they hoaxed it, but yet it somehow confirms that they hoaxed it.

What the hell is wrong with you, you just said it cannot confirm then on the same line say it does confirm it.

Are you plastered or mentally handicapped/challenged?


1 and 2: And that proves what(even though I posted the proof and evidence you required and requested about the VARBs)? That they could not do it because they did not know something completely...? I posted the proof that knew knew quite a lot about the VARB environment, where is yours that they did not....?

And 3: You are lying.

It's another view, so why get worked up about it?


I said it was not proof of the hoax in itself, but confirms it, once again.

It's proven already, so this merely confirms it again, with their recent findings.


They don't support Apollo in any way, at all.


You still don't get it..

To claim that short missions need no protection in deep space, it requires an actual time period.

A 'short' mission is not excluded in any way.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

Who says they are "ignoring the Apollo missions"? There is plenty of information discussing the radiation exposure on the Apollo missions. The fact you haven't bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The papers discussing future shielding specifically state why a different approach is needed. How is that "ignoring it"????

Read the first two paragraphs of the introduction of this paper. ntrs.nasa.gov...

That is why different shielding approaches are needed. Radiation is a cumulative poison. One or two trips to the moon do not present a problem: all you need is shielding from the SCR and trapped particle radiation, which the Apollo craft did adequately.

For longer missions and/or regular trips of shorter duration, you need to take into account GCRs as well, and they require a different shielding approach. Not all radiation is the same.

So please stop lying and saying that the discussion does not differentiate between missions of different lengths. It is right there in black and white.

Or again here, in a paper discussing radiation protection for missions to Mars: ntrs.nasa.gov...

"For the longer missions, this dose [from GCRs] can become career limiting. Thus the amount of shielding required to protect the astronauts will depend on the time and duration of the mission."

Everyone working in the field knows this. It doesn't have to be repeated in every single discussion because it is patently obvious to everyone who works with space (and anyone else for that matter) that long missions require more shielding than short ones did!

They believed the VAB were a slow-moving environment, but we went through them!


They didn't know that aluminum intensified radiation in deep space, while using aluminum in their spacecraft!

They didn't say up to a week is fine, but any longer is very hazardous!


The reality is simply ripping your claim to shreds.

The claim of going around the VAB is not supported at all.

There are no Apollo documents that prove this claim.

It shows the desperation to keep on claiming it, despite the reality

originally posted by: turbonium1
The claim of going around the VAB is not supported at all.

There are no Apollo documents that prove this claim.

It shows the desperation to keep on claiming it, despite the reality

this statement of yours just shows your complete and utter ignorance, your complete inability to comprehend anything Apollo related..
each Apollo mission has its inclination published..

originally posted by: turbonium1
The claim of going around the VAB is not supported at all.

There are no Apollo documents that prove this claim.

It shows the desperation to keep on claiming it, despite the reality

You're lying. Full Stop.

Not only are those Documents fully open to the public, I also gave you that very information 1 or so pages back.

a reply to: turbonium1

The trajectory of each and every Apollo mission is publicly available. The average particle density maps of the Van Allen belts are publicly available. If you think those trajectories would have subjected the occupants to unsafe levels of radiation then do the maths and show us your results.

But be aware that when Jarrah White tried to do this he failed very badly indeed...

originally posted by: Rob48


But be aware that when Jarrah White tried to do this he failed very badly indeed...

Was that when he forgot to crop out the table that showed he was deliberately using the "unshielded dose" values to push his lie? White Noise's failures are far too numerous to keep track.

a reply to: captainpudding

He also took an unweighted mean of the particle energies rather than using the median, i.e. he said that if particle energies range from say 1 (majority) to 100,000 (very few) then the average energy of all particles is 50,000! He is clueless when it comes to maths.

Did he ever finish his astrophysics degree? I kind of lost touch with the moon hoaxers.

a reply to: Rob48

No idea, I try to avoid learning things about Jarrah. I have seen multiple videos of his where it's painfully obvious that his math skills are somewhere around an 8th grade level so I don't see any way he could get himself a BSc.

Why so may pages? Of course you wont or just pretend you do believe until you yourself land on moon.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Rob48

No idea, I try to avoid learning things about Jarrah. I have seen multiple videos of his where it's painfully obvious that his math skills are somewhere around an 8th grade level so I don't see any way he could get himself a BSc.

He's had over four years to do it, so, no, he has not got his BSc, just his BS.

a reply to: DJW001

I think I'm being overly hard on Jarrah, all he really does is repeat everything Ralph Rene ever said. And since Ralph Rene was on the dumb side even by moon hoax standards, Jarrah says a lot of idiotic things and then deletes all the comments that point out he's wrong when he says 2+2 = a shopping cart full of milk jugs.

originally posted by: xbeta
Why so may pages? Of course you wont or just pretend you do believe until you yourself land on moon.

Nope. Not good enough.

We all know that the gub'mint has the ability to put false memories into our brains, so even if I think I went to the Moon myself, it could be an implanted memory.

Not only that, I saw enough Mission Impossible TV episodes in my day to know that they can fool me into thinking I went to the moon by having a fake rocket simulator (complete with fake noise and shaking) and a studio with the fake set that looks real enough to fool me into thinking I'm there.

No...before I believe, I need even BETTER evidence that if I went there myself.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

The trajectory of each and every Apollo mission is publicly available. The average particle density maps of the Van Allen belts are publicly available. If you think those trajectories would have subjected the occupants to unsafe levels of radiation then do the maths and show us your results.

Why can't you show me any sources, to support the claim?

If they went around the VAB, or most of it, where is it mentioned, and documented - before the missions, or during the missions?

And to say they knew the "average particle density" is total nonsense...

They thought the VAB were slow, unchanging, at the time.

But, measuring the average density is not a problem, of course!!

Fantasy-Land.

a reply to: turbonium1

Have fun pretending this doesn't exist like you do with all other evidence that contradicts your faith.

www.braeunig.us...

a reply to: captainpudding

Yup, that is exactly what I provided to this..."person"?

www.abovetopsecret.com..., Page 125

So because they did not know about the dynamic structure of the VARB in the 60s, that they could not of gone and done it because we found out that the VARB were more dynamic many years after Apollo...?

Um, something is wrong with your logic.

And I can support my claim - These are 3 that measured the belts radiation levels, there are more.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

And this Site may be a little handy to you -

www.braeunig.us...

It literally shows you the course that they were taking, including through the VARBs.

He still hasn't had a reboot yet, looping cycle continues.