NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

a reply to: centarix

Here is how astronauts are rigged to simulate reduced gravity. Note that they are suspended by the hips and have only have one degree of freedom:



jap.physiology.org...



www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: misterz

I don't know for certain that I was conceived and I am open to alternate theories on how I came to exist.

What would it require for you to determine which theory is true? Remember, you cannot take anyone else's word for anything. Is there a point where you would have to say: "All the other theories are too complicated, so I will have to assume I was conceived like everyone else?"

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: centarix

I don't thing the footprint issue is a big deal as the conspiracy theory clip states because the suit probably had fitted soles not evident in the clip because they are removable.

I can't say I've heard this one before but since you're trying to debunk it, can you show proof of your theory? I mean it should be fairly easy to prove the suits were equipped with removable soles. Personally I've seem lots of conspiracy theories about the moon landings debunked, there aren't many left without explanation, just wondering if we can mark this up as debunked...

a reply to: djz3ro

The boots were a separate item donned after they put on the suit - here are Gene Cernan's:

airandspace.si.edu...,%20Left,%20Lunar%20Overshoe,%20Cern an,%20Apollo%2017,%20Flown

This document describes putting them on:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: misterz

You do, however, have evidence from orbiting lunar satellites not just from the US but from China, India and Japan that have photographed evidence of human activity, and also of the details in Apollo images that were not known about before human being took the photographs.

You have photographs of Earth taken during the missions that contain time and date specific weather patterns verified by satellite images.

You have photographs of the moon's lunar far side.

You have the eye witness testimony of the people involved in tracking the mission who pointed their antennae at the moon, as well as others involved in the program.

You have the returned data received from the moon of laser signals and electronic data from the scientific equipment.

You have the returned rock samples.

You have photographs of stars and planets taken from the lunar surface and in orbit that are astronomically correct for the times they were taken.

You have the testimony of the astronauts themselves, and most of those still living are available for comment.

All of the evidence, and I mean all of it, supports the historical fact of Apollo. Every single element of the missions provides a consistent and coherent narrative of historical events. None of the claims that dispute it hold water.

Very few murders are witnessed, but this does not mean that they can not be solved if there is overwhelming evidence pointing towards the murderer. No-one saw your conception, not even the people directly responsible for it, but your presence on this board supports the fact that it happened.

That I exist proves that I exist.

However, everything you said about the moon only supports that we went there, and only if you're willing to start taking people's word for things as a substitute for actual research.

The hypothesis that we never went to the moon can only be tested by going to the moon, or by building an immensely powerful telescope, because our past presence or absence will be evident by materials left on site.

People's satisfaction with the 'evidence' for the moon landing scares me, quite frankly.

It isn't all that different than the 'evidence' for the death and resurrection of Christ, and both events are believed in by the same people.

This is supposed to be science.

Show, don't tell.

a reply to: misterz

In order to exist you need to be conceived. The existence of one is proof of the other.

As with other posters on this subject you are trying to prove something using a scientific method inappropriately. Apollo was not a scientific project, it was an engineering project that did science. The results of that science have been analysed, and still are being analysed, by scientists the world over for decades. Trying to apply some sort of philosophical tautology to the discussion rather than actually looking at the evidence presented, or presenting any of your own, is also not a scientific approach. Show, don't tell.

You also seem to be assuming that I am just taking people's word for it rather than doing any independent research of my own. I have a very large website that says different.

The evidence that Apollo happened is available and has always been available - it has been shown and told in the form of live TV, 16mm video and still images that all contain information that verify that they are correct.

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post that you quoted, Japanese, Indian and Chinese probes have all taken images that verify human activity on the moon and/or details shown in Apollo images that were unknown prior to the Apollo images.

The Soviet Lunokhod probe on the lunar surface did the same thing - took photographs that confirm details taken by high resolution cameras aboard the Apollo CSM in orbit.

What scares me is people's unwillingness to accept evidence that supports historical fact for no good reason.

a reply to: misterz

That I exist proves that I exist.

How am I supposed to know that? Inevitably, Moon Hoax arguments devolve into epistemological debates. How do we know something is true? In order to dismiss all the evidence in favor of the historical record being more or less true, hoax proponents assume a stance of radical solipsism: nothing is true unless unless they actually experience it for themselves.

I did not ask you if you exist, did I? I asked you if you witnessed your own conception. I posed a koan for you and you fell for it. You cannot possibly have witnessed your own conception, so you have to rely on other means to confirm that it happens. You might "take your parents' word for it." But why take their word for it and not Neil Armstrong's? You might do some research into biology and conclude that your origin was similar to others... but that involves a series of assumptions about your nature and the veracity of the sources you did your biological research in.

The only way you can escape from the total ignorance that solipsism leads to is by using reason, observation, outside sources, and critical thinking. This is the basis of historical research.

However, everything you said about the moon only supports that we went there, and only if you're willing to start taking people's word for things as a substitute for actual research.

What is your definition of research? Watching videos on YouTube? Mine involves studying physics and space science so I can understand what I see when looking at the historical record objectively.

The hypothesis that we never went to the moon can only be tested by going to the moon, or by building an immensely powerful telescope, because our past presence or absence will be evident by materials left on site.

Exactly wrong. In order to prove the hypothesis that we never went to the Moon is very easy. Since it is an historical question, all you need to do is assemble the documentation and physical evidence: testimony from the people who worked on the project, behind the scenes photographs, blueprints for the reduced gravity rigging, photostats of memos authorizing the project, locating the gigantic vacuum chamber needed for certain "scenes," etc., etc. Faking the Moon landings would have been an enormous undertaking involving hundreds if not thousands of people. (Just try sitting through the end credits of Star Wars.) If you can't produce any of the historical evidence I listed, you have no reason to believe the landings were faked. Do you understand what I'm saying? If you have no evidence the landings were faked, you have no reason to believe they didn't happen.

People's satisfaction with the 'evidence' for the moon landing scares me, quite frankly.

And the lack of logic and critical thinking, not to mention ignorance of basic physical laws, displayed by the Moon Hoax community positively terrifies me.

It isn't all that different than the 'evidence' for the death and resurrection of Christ, and both events are believed in by the same people.

Actually, most of the people who believe most fervently that Apollo was faked are religious fanatics who believe the Earth was created in seven days. As for the death and resurrection of Christ, that is something entirely different. There is ongoing historical research to determine whether or not there was a teacher named Jesus who laid the foundations of the religion. This research uses the same historical methodology I have outlined numerous times on these threads. Analysis of documents from the period. Cross checking the documentation against other sources. Examination of historical artifacts (archaeology, in this case). Cross checking documents against the artifacts, and so forth.

The Resurrection is a profession of faith, and is accepted without evidence. In this respect, it is like the belief that the Moon landings were fake, even though there is no historical evidence for it.

This is supposed to be science.

What is supposed to be science? The Moon landings are history. All the scientific analysis of the documentation and physical remains affirm that it is more or less accurate. (Certainly the chronology, hardware, and records are accurate; in history there is always room to question things like motivation and priorities.)

Show, don't tell.

Please follow your own advice and show us more documentation and physical evidence that it was faked than there is that it was real, or accept that the default position is that it must have happened.

a reply to: misterz

If your website gets big enough, does that prove the moon landing?

What do you consider "proof?" You could not "prove" to yourself that you were conceived, and you have utterly failed to prove to me that you exist. For all I know you are an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of computer keyboards.

Let's do some epistemology!

Proof is something that proves something.

All moon landing supporters do is this:

1) Reaffirm plausibility of the event.
2) Restate that lots of good/smart people believe it and you should too, or else that makes you stupid and therefore not credible and your arguments invalid.
3) Place full burden of proof on deniers, since the issue is "settled" and there is "no reason" to question it further.
4) Repeat with incredible verbosity.

Literally, the exact way the church handles discussions about the resurrection of Christ.

Lest you forget, you are human and therefore, fallible.

a reply to: misterz

Proof is something that proves something.

A tautology is something tautological.

All moon landing supporters do is this:

1) Reaffirm plausibility of the event.

Whereas Moon Hoaxies fail to affirm the plausibility of their own theory.

2) Restate that lots of good/smart people believe it and you should too, or else that makes you stupid and therefore not credible and your arguments invalid.

No, they point to the testimony of actual witnesses, and the testimony of authorities who understand the technical aspects of the science and engineering background. If reading the testimony of intelligent people makes you feel stupid, that's your problem.

3) Place full burden of proof on deniers, since the issue is "settled" and there is "no reason" to question it further.

Correct: the evidence in favor of the historicity and materiality of the events is overwhelming; any attempt to deny or reinterpret that evidence requires an equal or greater amount of evidence to support the claim.

4) Repeat with incredible verbosity.

Like you are trying to do.

Literally, the exact way the church handles discussions about the resurrection of Christ.

So... the Church will show you thousands of photographs, film, and videos? Show you museums filled with Resurrection hardware? What Church do you belong to?

Lest you forget, you are human and therefore, fallible.

Lest you forget, you have yet to prove that you are not an infinite number of monkeys. Now stop monkeying around and explain what you would consider to be "proof." If you can't do that you are not really interested in learning the truth, are you?

originally posted by: DJW001
For all I know you are an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of computer keyboards.

"Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the fortune of us that are the Moon's men doth ebb and flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is, by the Moon"
-- King Henry IV, by Infinite Monkeys


"Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun; But sun it is not, when you say it is not; And the Moon changes even as your mind"
-- The Taming of the Shrew, by Infinite Monkeys

a reply to: DJW001

It is hard to talk to someone with a straight face, when that person has twice attempted to say "no one can truly know anything, therefore all things are unknowable". First with the questioning of my conception, now with the questioning of my existence.

Such a person may arrive at any conclusion given any set of facts.

It is no surprise that you feel that your belief is not belief, but rather knowledge. Most people feel the same way. It no longer requires a volitional act of faith to believe something in which you have become convinced.

However, it is my intent to call into question the manner in which you first became convinced. Perhaps you should become un-convinced and then try to see things from a neutral perspective?

As a millenial who did not grow up with that mindset, the moon landing looks to me to be fake as hell. I do not have a motive. I am simply fascinated with the people who are 100% convinced of its veracity, to the point of maliciousness.

I am not saying it did not happen.

I am saying that it is plausible that it was an elaborate illusion carried out by brilliant minds. The men and women who sold the world.

Nothing you can say will change that.

Until we revisit the moon or build a telescope more powerful than our most powerful space telescope, I will not be convinced.

But I can be convinced... and that is why my position is superior to yours.

originally posted by: misterz

I am saying that it is plausible that it was an elaborate illusion carried out by brilliant minds. The men and women who sold the world.

Nothing you can say will change that.

you say its plausible that it was an elaborate illusion but when you get into the details of how that illusion was carried out the plausibility of the hoax drops fast.

i get the feeling you havent actually really thought about how they were capable of faking dust falling on the moon according to lunar gravity.. or plastic bags following a parabolic arc while rotating about its axis all the while falling at lunar gravity.

a reply to: misterz

Once again I will point out to you that you are making a false assumption about people. You are assuming that people are accepting Apollo as historical fact purely on blind faith, yet you with your superior lofty position up there in the moral high ground are much better acquainted with the subject.

Your position is false: my knowledge (yes, knowledge) of Apollo comes from years and years of reading about and enquiring into the subject and compiling thousands of words and pictorial evidence in support of the historically recorded facts. It is not just accepting someone's word.

You are basing your position on a lack of knowledge. Oh sure, you can be persuaded, but you have set a very high benchmark for that convincing instead of the much more reasonable one of looking at the evidence already available - something you seem very unwilling to do. You don't need the world's most powerful telescope or to re-visit the landing sites, you just need to look at what is already out there.

I am also not going to accept someone's word on blind faith, especially when all they are doing is sitting back and applauding their own cleverness.

a reply to: misterz

It is hard to talk to someone with a straight face, when that person has twice attempted to say "no one can truly know anything, therefore all things are unknowable". First with the questioning of my conception, now with the questioning of my existence.

Hopefully you can understand my frustration: you are the one saying all things are unknowable. You reject all documentation as hearsay, and all physical evidence as possible forgeries.

Such a person may arrive at any conclusion given any set of facts.

Exactly.

It is no surprise that you feel that your belief is not belief, but rather knowledge. Most people feel the same way. It no longer requires a volitional act of faith to believe something in which you have become convinced.

It is not a belief if the process of acquiring the knowledge is sound. If the correct methodology is used, one can make statements of fact, something your solipsistic beliefs does not allow. (I hope you've taken the effort to look up the word "solipsism.")

However, it is my intent to call into question the manner in which you first became convinced. Perhaps you should become un-convinced and then try to see things from a neutral perspective?

Why do you assume that I do not hold a neutral perspective. I am perfectly willing to accept that the Moon landings were faked if enough good evidence can be provided. "These pictures don't look right"is not evidence. As I have said before, valid documentation and physical remains are the only valid evidence. NASA (and others) can provide that sort of evidence in spades. The contras cannot provide that sort of evidence at all.

As a millenial who did not grow up with that mindset, the moon landing looks to me to be fake as hell. I do not have a motive. I am simply fascinated with the people who are 100% convinced of its veracity, to the point of maliciousness.

Don't excuse your position by claiming to be the product of a poor education. If you had a genuine interest in the world around you, you could have schooled yourself in critical thought, science, psychology, the arts, and other things that would help you think clearly about history.

I am not saying it did not happen.

You are only strongly implying it.

I am saying that it is plausible that it was an elaborate illusion carried out by brilliant minds. The men and women who sold the world.

You have yet to explain why it is even plausible, never mind provide any evidence for it. I am open to that. Please explain why it is plausible that the government would build a fleet of rockets 100 meters tall, fire them off in public, but not use them for the purpose they were designed for? How is that plausible?

Nothing you can say will change that.

It is hard to talk to someone with a straight face, when that person has twice attempted to say "no one can truly know anything, therefore all things are unknowable". First with the questioning of my conception, now with the questioning of my existence.

Such a person may arrive at any conclusion given any set of facts.

It is no surprise that you feel that your belief is not belief, but rather knowledge. Most people feel the same way. It no longer requires a volitional act of faith to believe something in which you have become convinced.

Until we revisit the moon or build a telescope more powerful than our most powerful space telescope, I will not be convinced.

Except, of course, that the next visit could also be faked. Ditto the telescope images.

But I can be convinced... and that is why my position is superior to yours.

No, you obviously cannot since you have arbitrarily rejected all of the evidence and embraced a solipsistic attitude. I, on the other hand, have made my conclusion based on a critical analysis of the evidence, and am genuinely willing to change my mind if sufficient valid contradictory evidence can be provided.

Edit to add: For further reading.

originally posted by: DJW001
Why do you assume that I do not hold a neutral perspective. I am perfectly willing to accept that the Moon landings were faked if enough good evidence can be provided. "These pictures don't look right"is not evidence. As I have said before, valid documentation and physical remains are the only valid evidence. NASA (and others) can provide that sort of evidence in spades. The contras cannot provide that sort of evidence at all.

I never accepted the Moon landings on blind faith, either. It's a strawman argument for someone to claim "the people who believe we went to the Moon only do so blindly because they were told we went to the "Moon".

I remember years ago when the FOX TV show about the moon hoax came out, I saw some of the their claims of evidence about a hoax, but I didn't dismiss those claims out-of-hand right away, just because I had the pre-existing beleif that we went. Some of their claims raised questions in my mind (such as the lit-up objects that were in shadow, and the shadows that were not parallel with each other) -- so I took the time to investigate those claims, and educate myself on the the effects of sunlight on the moon, and educate myself on how photography works.

As with all claims of "evidence of a hoax" I have heard since then, I learned that the claims being made by that TV program do not hold up to scrutiny. Again and again, when the evidence that we DID go to the Moon is scrutinized, it is consistent with the idea that we really did go.

"Faith" for me isn't required to know the Moon landings happened. Instead, it takes investigating the claims and understanding the technology and natural world associated with those claims.

misterz --

Considering that you claim people who believe in the Moon landings do so on blind faith, there must be some evidence of a hoax that those moon landing believers are completely blind to.

If so, what is that key evidence of a Moon hoax that the people who think we went to tho Moon are choosing to blissfully ignore? Please provide the top two or three key pieces of evidence that makes you believe that we didn't really go.


Conversely, what is wrong with the evidence purporting that we DID go? You can't simply ignore the evidence that we DID go just because you choose to do so. You must have specific issues with the evidence. If so, what are those issues?

If you don't have specific reasons that counter the evidence that we did go, then that means you must be taking your belief that we didn't go on blind faith -- i.e., it seems you would be choosing to ignore the veracity of the evidence that we did go to the moon.

a reply to: misterz

Until we revisit the moon or build a telescope more powerful than our most powerful space telescope, I will not be convinced.

ok - i accept that you believe that the appollo missions were a hoax

i do not agree with the assertion they were hoaxed however

but - if believing as you do that one manned moon landing program was a hoax - why would you accept the veracity of some future manned moon landings missions - and further renounce your rejection of the validity of apollo missions based on the assumed veracity of this hypothetical future mission ??????????????????????