Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

It first has to be proven, as it is the original claim...

But, nothing has ever been shown as yet...

a reply to: turbonium1

It has been proven. It's in the papers.

It's now your claim that those papers are wrong. Prove it. With evidence.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Flying pink elephants might exist, too!

Yes. But unlike the phenomenon you are talking about, they have not been observed.

Sure, and they also become invisible, when we are near to them, right?

flying pink elephants also does not have a supporting theory..

this lunar regolith phenomenon does have a supporting theory..

so what does that say about its existence of which you have claimed and still believe to be completely unknown about and thusly non-existent?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

It has been proven. It's in the papers.

It's now your claim that those papers are wrong. Prove it. With evidence.

Saying "it has been proven....in the papers", without citing anything from the papers, is nonsense...

What, specifically, in the papers, do you think is proof? Cite the papers, and stop saying 'it's all there, in the papers!'


But let's look into one of the papers, which supposedly 'prove' your argument...

In a general sense, the dust that was blown away from beneath the lander would have settled at some distance away from the lander and the surface would presumably be made more reflective owing to one or more of the previously stated mechanisms, either smoothing or redistribution of fine material.One possibility is that regolith fines were deposited from the exhaust plume onto the annular region (the HR-BZ) surrounding the lander, creating a thin layer of fine particles that caused an increase in reflectance. Redistribution of fine particles would increase reflectance because light can pass through fine particles more easily than through coarse particles, so fines tend to be more reflective. Kreslavsky and Shkuratov (2003), Metzger et al. (2011),and Shkuratov et al. (2011) suggested that the increased reflectance in the HR-BZs is due to finer particles having been transported from beneath the rocket nozzle (i.e., the LR-BZ) and then redistributed in a region close to the LM (e.g., 50–150 m, cited specifically for Apollo 15 by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov (2003)). Finer particles would effectively create a more reflective surface than coarser particles owing to their greater transparency.Another possibility is that the exhaust plume destroyed the‘‘fairy-castle structure’’ and made the surface more forward scattering (Shkuratov et al., 2011; Kaydash and Shkuratov, 2012).‘‘Fairy-castle structure’’ refers to the stacking of grains when particles are small enough that adhesive forces overcome gravitational forces, allowing a small particle to be supported by one contact rather than the three points required for a large particle. This stacking configuration creates a very cohesive and highly porous structure that when viewed with a stereoscopic microscope appears to consist of towers leaning at random angles and connected by bridges – hence the term ‘‘fairy castle’’ (Hapke and van Horn,1963). The Moon is highly backscattering because of the high porosity of the soil at the surface where light interacts with it, so a decrease in porosity owing to the destruction of the fairy-castle structure would increase reflectance of the surface and, in particular, would make it more forward scattering (Hapke, 2012).Destruction of the fairy-castle structure would be part of the process of surface smoothing at a microscopic scale; however,smoothing involves compaction and shearing mechanisms that may also occur on a larger (cm to m) scale. Astronauts reported that surfaces near the LM were swept clean of the top, loose layer of soil, and that this area was smoother than areas farther away from the lander.

www.researchgate.net...

Let's start with the quote "..the surface would presumably be made more reflective.."

They 'presume' the surface would be 'made more reflective'..

Why would they presume this? Because they first 'presumed' the surface was disturbed by an LM, which they 'presumed' had landed on the moon, at that exact location.

So, based on everything they have already presumed it to be, and must be, they have 'presumed' the surface would be "made more reflective", and so, they offer various hypotheses on how it became more reflective....


"..owing to one or more of the previously stated mechanisms, either smoothing or redistribution of fine material."

They don't know why it would be more reflective, they offer various theories. Any one of them, or any combination of them, is considered plausible.

To say it is 'proven..in the papers' is ridiculous. The paper above does not prove anything.

Indeed, the paper mentions that soil samples were studied, to find out if their theories are supported by the soil....but nothing was found to support it.

The paper notes that the lunar surface was 'smoother' in the disturbed area...

This is based on 'the astronaut accounts'.

So it must be 100% factual, then!!

Not.

Which brings up another oddity...

They presume astronaut accounts are factual, but they ignore all the surface images that don't support this 'smoothing' effect being claimed.

Why would they not cite any of the surface images?

The answer is quite obvious...

It would show that NONE of the surface is 'smoother', anywhere, at all.

The entire surface appears the same, outward from the LM. Only the footprints, etc. are shown....

Based on 'astronaut accounts', the surface was 'smoother' at the area of 'disturbed soil'. Which means it is not 'invisible' from the surface, right?

First, you had this disturbance which can only be seen from orbit, and cannot be seen from the lunar surface. Nor in surface images.

Now, we CAN see the disturbance from the lunar surface, it is 'smoothed'.

So, the disturbance is only invisible in all of the surface images!!


Which version is it to be, then??

a reply to: turbonium1

Again with your opinion. You don't understand that your opinion isn't worth anything. You need EVIDENCE to prove something is wrong, so show some evidence. I couldn't care less what you believe.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Again with your opinion. You don't understand that your opinion isn't worth anything. You need EVIDENCE to prove something is wrong, so show some evidence. I couldn't care less what you believe.

You should tell Buzz Aldrin your theory.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Flying pink elephants might exist, too!

Yes. But unlike the phenomenon you are talking about, they have not been observed.

Sure, and they also become invisible, when we are near to them, right?

flying pink elephants also does not have a supporting theory..

this lunar regolith phenomenon does have a supporting theory..

so what does that say about its existence of which you have claimed and still believe to be completely unknown about and thusly non-existent?

It does not exist, in fact.

They offer various hypotheses, or theories, in trying to explain it...

Nevertheless, you will insist it is, indeed, 'proven', with these papers....

To say it is 'proven', again, and again, doesn't change the reality.

I'm sure you'll keep trying, as usual...

a reply to: Steak

Buzz Aldrin got fed up with constantly being asked to swear on a bible. I think I'd probably do the same if I was constantly badgered.

IIRC him and other astronauts did swear on a bible, but the moron in the video just wouldn't let it go.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Again with your opinion. You don't understand that your opinion isn't worth anything. You need EVIDENCE to prove something is wrong, so show some evidence. I couldn't care less what you believe.

Tell me, specifically, what it is I need to prove wrong...

Also, what do you think is only my opinion, which is not worth anything?

I'd prefer you'd address it with some degree of logic,if possible...

a reply to: turbonium1

All you keeep doing is going "nope. That's not possible. That's wrong. They can't do that." THAT'S your opinion.

Offer evidence that whatever you think can't be done, can't be done. Otherwise, it's purely an opinion, nothing more.

a reply to: turbonium1

You don't understand my point..

You being here arguing about how good/bad the theory is is the issue!!!

Why are you arguing that it is a bad theory when you claim it doesn't exist at all? Why does a theory even exist for something that doesn't exist??

That's why flying pink elephants don't have a theory behind them, there has been no observation of flying pink elephants therefore no theories to support them..

Where as this phenomenon of which you claim doesn't exist, has a theory to explain its observation..

Basically what I'm saying is you arguing that it's a theory in essence is you accepting that it exists you just don't like the explaination of it. So you arguing about the theory of it is you proving yourself wrong.

ETA: just look up the definition of hypothesis, if you want to call this phenomenon a hypothesis.. But if you do good job on proving yourself wrong that it doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Again with your opinion. You don't understand that your opinion isn't worth anything. You need EVIDENCE to prove something is wrong, so show some evidence. I couldn't care less what you believe.

You should tell Buzz Aldrin your theory.

Well, it's very obvious that your astronaut-gods are afraid of anyone who dares to doubt their heroic deeds, no better example is some bizarre reactions to Sibrel.

Sure, we all know that no human, nor astronaut-god, can ever hope to stand up to those demon-tongued attacks, from brute-beasts.... like Mr. Sibrel.

Anger is a natural response to someone calling you names, and stuff!

Aldrin was called a liar, thief, etc. by Sibrel.

Who cares what Sibrel says, right?

Astronaut-gods should certainly not care what someone else thinks about them, or someone in their faces, who calls them liars, and so on....right?

Nothing should have caused such incredible anger, but it did.

You keep trying to paint Sibrel as a sinister fiend, deviously fooling these hero-gods to believe Sibrel is paying them thousands of dollars for an hour-long interview. These astronauts were led to believe they'd be spewing on, of their heroic achievements, for the umpteenth time...as usual. So pay them up front, in full, and it's good to go...

But Sibrel had 'evil intentions', and told the astronauts that it was all a hoax, because he had proof it was a hoax.

The astronauts said he was full of crap, and there can't be proof of a hoax, because it was all true.

But, Sibrel asked the astronauts to look at his proof, anyway, and the astronauts can prove him wrong, right there...

With nothing to fear, and a chance to prove him wrong, as well?.....

Did the astronauts have to look at his 'proof'? Of course not. They weren't at gunpoint. They did whatever they wanted to do, and they didn't want to see the film. Some saw it, or at least part of it. Others didn't.

It was a film they should want to see, and prove it false, since they knew what they did is true, of course.

They could have said the film is all trickery, to look like it was faked, as Aldrin did.

Throughout their interviews, at any point, for any reason, or for no reason at all, each and every one of those astronauts had a choice to stop the interview, instantly

Again, they were already paid in full, beforehand. And they were not legally bound to anything. The interview was accepted on false pretences, to boot..

Everything they did was their own choice, and you Apollo-ites know that.... it is an absolute fact...

All their range, and anger, is their own doing.

You say they had every reason to get angry. They were tormented by Sibrel, in their own homes. Anyone would be angry at this scumbag liar, right?

If you know you've invited a liar into your house, you tell them to get the hell out of your home, at once...right?

Why didn't any of the astronauts just kill the interview right away, say no more to him, except to tell him to leave their home at once?

You think they had no choice here? You know they did.

How is Sibrel in any way responsible for their actions?

They should have had no emotional response to this situation.

The astronauts were already quite aware that some people do not believe they went to the moon.

They would not worry about these people, they know what they did is all genuine. These people don't know what they're talking about, because it is not a hoax.

It doesn't matter what they think. And it is not their job to convince them of what they did.

And they don't realize they have invited one of these people into their homes.

So what do they do when they realize a hoax proponent is in their homes?

It makes them angry. Why?

They already know about some people saying it was a hoax. This is one of those people, then.

How is this different?

Only one difference - he is in their house.

Not in Aldrin's case, though. He is in his office.


Why would they be so angry? Because one of them is in their house?

They might have said, 'you're in my house, and I'd like you to leave, right now.'

So that's the end of it.

This is what they could have done, if they wanted to.

Why didn't they?

Sibrel could not stay in their homes, if they had not allowed him to stay.

In your world, they had been called liars, in their own homes, and that's what made them angry.

Or, if it's in their office?

And on the street?

Or anywhere?



Nonsense.

they wouldn't of cut up the saturn 5 if it wasn't faked. That makes zero sense.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't understand my point..

You being here arguing about how good/bad the theory is is the issue!!!

Why are you arguing that it is a bad theory when you claim it doesn't exist at all? Why does a theory even exist for something that doesn't exist??

That's why flying pink elephants don't have a theory behind them, there has been no observation of flying pink elephants therefore no theories to support them..

Where as this phenomenon of which you claim doesn't exist, has a theory to explain its observation..

Basically what I'm saying is you arguing that it's a theory in essence is you accepting that it exists you just don't like the explaination of it. So you arguing about the theory of it is you proving yourself wrong.

ETA: just look up the definition of hypothesis, if you want to call this phenomenon a hypothesis.. But if you do good job on proving yourself wrong that it doesn't exist.

What exists, then?

Only a theory, that has nothing to support it.

The explanation of their theory is not about 'liking it', or 'not liking it'.

It is about whether or not it works, how credible it is, based on scientific method.

Scientific method is a requirement for a theory, or hypothesis, to become credible, and realistic, in any part, or in whole.

We don't have any of that for any part of their theory, much less as a single, whole entity.

Their theory must show how the lunar soil, or part(s) of the lunar soil, are capable of something that is unknown, and unprecedented, that cannot be demonstrated, that cannot be repeated, that cannot be proven in any way.

The only reason it is a theory is because they need to offer something plausible, even though it is virtually impossible.
The lack of being proven false is the only reason it still holds as a passable theory, at all.

Inventing a theory cannot possibly hope to explain what is totally inexplicable. As this example clearly shows.

So where do you stand on this issue?

I always thought that your claim was that the disturbance could not be seen from the surface.

In the paper, this is not correct. They claim that the astronauts saw the disturbance on the lunar surface. They said it was 'smoother' than the undisturbed soil.

Of course, the paper does not mention that surface images show nothing of the 'smoother' area described by the astronauts.

It is a requirement of scientific method to account for all of the available evidence, whether it confirms a theory, or a hypothesis, or it completely opposes a theory, or hypothesis.

What they have done is choose the evidence that supports their theory, while they ignore the evidence which counters their theory.

The evidence they have ignored is significantly more valid than the evidence they have accepted. Images are far superior evidence than hearsay.

But it doesn't support their theory, so it's not allowed.


Such a great theory you have there, yes indeed!

How would one recreate this phenomenon, then?

First, we must find specialized particles, that would only reflect light in an upward direction, after they are scattered randomly all about the surface.

Since no such particles are known to even exist, we must find a way to create them, ourselves.

What would we require in creating our particle, then?

Well, it must reflect only in an upwards direction, when scattered randomly over a surface.

So no matter how the particle lands, it must always reflect the same way, which is upwards.


I'd love to see if it could actually be done... it would be a miraculous scientific discovery.

You'd certainly get a Nobel prize, for sure!

The blatantly obvious problem with their theory is that it makes all kinds of assumptions on what it is.

An Apollo lander must be there, at that exact spot, and it is absolutely impossible to even consider it might be something else but the Apollo lander.

It is all based on the evidence, which is NASA saying that the lander is right there, at that exact spot, on the moon.

Truly scientific evidence, is it not?

In reality, this is not even close to being 'evidence'. It is from an agency that claims to have landed men on the moon, which claims a spot is a lunar lander, and a disturbance of soil around it, caused by the lander engine.


The agency that claimed to land men on the moon confirmed the spot is where they landed, which supports what they claimed... what a surprise!

They assume it is disturbed soil, without a bit of proof.

And, finding evidence that clearly proves their assumption is false, they ignore it.

Gee, you'd almost think they might have an underlying agenda, or something!

Couldn't be that simple, I'm sure!

a reply to: turbonium1

And still no evidence. Just lots and lots of your opinion. I guess that's all you have though, otherwise you would have posted some sort of evidence.