The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF.

originally posted by: DJW001

Not if you are moving around the cabin, or going back and forth from the Command Module to the Lunar Module. End of off topic aside.

So anything that questions the absolutist claim of the OP is considered off topic ...

originally posted by: DJW001
What is your objection to the historical methodology I laid out in the OP? Be sure to click on the link to wikipedia so you know that I am not just "making this up." I am simply explaining the process that real historians go through. It is not my personal opinion, and has been developed over centuries to minimize subjectivity.

As I said earlier :
The problem arise when you consider that historian / scientist / psychologist your refer to, happens to be on the same payroll as those who made obviously questionable claims about other historical related events that took place roughly around the same time.

originally posted by: DJW001
What methods do you use to determine whether or not statements are factual? How do they differ from the process I outlined in the OP?

Factual statements are not supposed to raise more question marks that the original questions they aimed to answer. The fact that the moon landings are so often debated has to do with the legitimate question raised by some assertions.

originally posted by: DJW001
What are your criteria for "choosing certain sources over others?"

It starts, first, by daring to consider all of them and not discard anything because this comes from someone that you may dislike for any specific reason. And as long as the first step isn't met, there is no need for you to consider the next ones.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So anything that questions the absolutist claim of the OP is considered off topic ...

No. This thread is about clarifying the methodology necessary to prove something, anything, one way or the other. It is not about specific details of the historical record, but how to evaluate the historical record. If you genuinely can't figure out why space suits and fatigues have a pocket for sunglasses you can start a dedicated thread.

As I said earlier :
The problem arise when you consider that historian / scientist / psychologist your refer to, happens to be on the same payroll as those who made obviously questionable claims about other historical related events that took place roughly around the same time.

And as I said earlier: Was the Warren Commission running NASA? You have used the widest possible brush to render any documentation from anyone living or dead unacceptable. Not everyone writing about or witnessing the space program was on the "payroll." What about the independent journalists? What about the Soviet scientists? You are not stating a criterion, you are making an accusation.

Factual statements are not supposed to raise more question marks that the original questions they aimed to answer. The fact that the moon landings are so often debated has to do with the legitimate question raised by some assertions.

Any statement can raise an infinite number of questions, especially when argument from ignorance is the preferred method of argumentation. Raising exactly the same previously answered questions over and over again is not a debate.

It starts, first, by daring to consider all of them and not discard anything because this comes from someone that you may dislike for any specific reason. And as long as the first step isn't met, there is no need for you to consider the next ones.

You mean like this?

The problem arise when you consider that historian / scientist / psychologist your refer to, happens to be on the same payroll as those who made obviously questionable claims about other historical related events that took place roughly around the same time.

You reject everything that everyone who is in any way connected with the United States government says or does because you believe the Warren Report lied, and then you talk about "not discarding anything because this comes from someone that you may dislike for any specific reason."

Incidentally, I am always willing to examine information from multiple sources, and consider alternative explanations. The thing is, they have to be internally consistent and not contradict previously established facts, whether I like those facts or not.

originally posted by: DJW001

No. This thread is about clarifying the methodology necessary to prove something, anything, one way or the other. It is not about specific details of the historical record, but how to evaluate the historical record. If you genuinely can't figure out why space suits and fatigues have a pocket for sunglasses you can start a dedicated thread.

No need to, there is already one titled The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF
Just don't be mislead by click-baiting title attempt of its author.

originally posted by: DJW001
And as I said earlier: Was the Warren Commission running NASA? You have used the widest possible brush to render any documentation from anyone living or dead unacceptable. Not everyone writing about or witnessing the space program was on the "payroll." What about the independent journalists? What about the Soviet scientists? You are not stating a criterion, you are making an accusation.

Why do you consider that being an employee of a state agency in an accusation ?
Isn't that the case of NASA staff and members of the Warren commission ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Any statement can raise an infinite number of questions, especially when argument from ignorance is the preferred method of argumentation. Raising exactly the same previously answered questions over and over again is not a debate.

As stated earlier ...
Being fed up arguing and feeling the need to have the last word at the same time ...

originally posted by: DJW001
You reject everything that everyone who is in any way connected with the United States government because you believe the Warren Report lied, and then you talk about "not discarding anything because this comes from someone that you may dislike for any specific reason."

Didn't you told us that you didn't believe the Warren commission report as well ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Incidentally, I am always willing to examine information from multiple sources, and consider alternative explanations. The thing is, they have to be internally consistent and not contradict previously established facts, whether I like those facts or not.

Facts are facts. There is no reason to like or dislike them. Just acknowledge them.
And by acknowledging the facts related to the moon landing as of the official version, I come across inconsistencies.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Why do you consider that being an employee of a state agency in an accusation ?
Isn't that the case of NASA staff and members of the Warren commission ?

You accuse any employee or representative of the government of automatically being a liar. (Otherwise you would not automatically reject what they say.)

Didn't you told us that you didn't believe the Warren commission report as well ?

Yes, because I have evaluated it objectively in the context of its time, not just because I automatically reject anything the government says.

Facts are facts. There is no reason to like or dislike them. Just acknowledge them.

This is hilarious coming from someone who refuses to accept that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is unnatural not to like or dislike certain facts. I dislike the fact that Nazis murdered millions of innocent people in cold blood. I like the fact that people are catching on to the fact that over-use of antibiotics is dangerous,while not liking the fact that they are overused.

And by acknowledging the facts related to the moon landing as of the official version, I come across inconsistencies.

There are dozens of active threads about it here on ATS. If you have genuine questions, you will find them answered there. In the mean time, your response to my questions has been rather thin. You have not submitted an alternative to the historical methodology I outlined in the OP.

originally posted by: DJW001

You accuse any employee or representative of the government of automatically being a liar. (Otherwise you would not automatically reject what they say.)

I never did, and by doing so, you are forging false accusations against someone to get away from your own incoherences. I rejected the content of the Warren commission report just like you.

originally posted by: DJW001
This is hilarious coming from someone who refuses to accept that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is unnatural not to like or dislike certain facts. I dislike the fact that Nazis murdered millions of innocent people in cold blood. I like the fact that people are catching on to the fact that over-use of antibiotics is dangerous,while not liking the fact that they are overused.

Russia liberated Crimea ... I never denied that. I just offered an opposing perspective to your personal totalitarian consideration of what must be served to the many as truth. No one gives a s... about what you or I may think on the topic, it's the Crimean people voice that matters.
And I don't care what you like or not.
Just a reminder of previous statement of mine (accurate this time) :
... any individual with the ambition to proclaim an universal truth is on the verge of totalitarianism.
And it is no surprise that, in this context, you took the opportunity to throw Religious/political/geostrategic insinuations in the mix.

originally posted by: DJW001
There are dozens of active threads about it here on ATS. If you have genuine questions, you will find them answered there. In the mean time, your response to my questions has been rather thin. You have not submitted an alternative to the historical methodology I outlined in the OP.

And I won't. I will just remind you that history is supposed to be consistent. While keeping the focus the footsteps of Armstrong, you surely avoid to have a look at everything surrounding the space program that is obviously flawed as of the official accounts.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I never did, [accuse by insinuation. --DJW001]and by doing so, you are forging false accusations against someone to get away from your own incoherences. I rejected the content of the Warren commission report just like you.

You don't even read your own posts, do you? You hammer away at a technique known as "poisoning the well." It is a logical fallacy.

May I remind you that the US president who decided to send these people up there (something I don't even want to deny myself), was killed by a 'magic-bullet' ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's just that the official version - the same very official sources all your 'proofs' are likely to be sourced from - acknowledges the lethality of magic bullets ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Considering the moon hoax conspiracy is not only a way to discredit the US as you seemed to suggest at first, it might also be defence mechanism against other governmental lies : if they told BS about JFK and the magic bullet for ex., why would I believe them about the moon landings ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And that's the main reason why some people will always cast doubts at the Apollo program : most evidences are provided by the same source as original claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I said earlier people rely on the same source as the claim for most evidence, hence their suspicion of forgery.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem arise when you consider that historian / scientist / psychologist your refer to, happens to be on the same payroll as those who made obviously questionable claims about other historical related events that took place roughly around the same time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is the historical methodology conclusion when it comes to JFK's magic bullet ... ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

... any individual with the ambition to proclaim an universal truth is on the verge of totalitarianism.

Once again, you really need to start reading the posts you are replying to. Nowhere do I propose a " universal truth." I simply explain the accepted methodology of history.

And I won't. I will just remind you that history is supposed to be consistent.

Are human beings consistent? As I have said several times, historians look for consistency, even though they know the record, being kept by human beings, will not always be consistent. That is why it is necessary to compare sources, evaluate their credibility, and try to put together what really happened.

While keeping the focus the footsteps of Armstrong, you surely avoid to have a look at everything surrounding the space program that is obviously flawed as of the official accounts.

Man, you really need to start reading the thread:

Setting aside the dramatic speeches and earnest testimony in Congress, there is a great deal about the motivations, true goals,and back room politics behind the space race yet to be covered. Were there kickbacks? Bribes? Sweetheart deals? What did it take to get a NASA facility built in your state? What sort of surveillance equipment were they secretly testing on supposedly civilian missions? These are the sort of questions genuine historians are asking. Only a fool would waste their time trying to prove that something so copiously documented never happened. It would, as I have said before,be like trying to prove that D-Day never happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now , do you have anything to say about the OP? Any suggestions for the best way to determine if an historical narrative is true, or at least plausible?

a reply to: DJW001

Cool ! You just demonstrated that when you are faced with something annoying ... you oblige people to repost it at least 3 times the same argument before you start to consider it ...

I did said a lot of OP related things ... but it's apparently off topic if it sounds any different than 'yes I agree'.
When someone is welcomed to do something ... you should be happy to oblige.

originally posted by: DJW001
You are welcome to the last word

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Hmm... I think perhaps your problem is that you are fixated on a specific case because it involves the United States. I want to get at a more general methodology. How would you evaluate Russia's claim to have sent Yuri Gagarin into orbit? No one actually saw him board the craft except government workers. There were no independent observers. The only evidence that there was a man in the spacecraft as it orbited Earth were radio transmissions that could have been prerecorded. How would you go about deciding whether they were telling the truth?

a reply to: DJW001

I never denied the moon landings, just pointed out the inconsistencies when it comes to consider the whole story as an historical truth as of the official version.
There is no way to be have more certainty about Gagarin's flight than for Apollo program.
Are there 22 millions Russians believing that the Russians faked the Gagarin flight ? Maybe the Russians just happen to have more trust in their authority than Americans.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

My question was not about how many Russians doubt Gagarin's flight, it was about how you would go about evaluating the claim. Are you implying that the truth about an historical event. Is a matter of public polling?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

My question was not about how many Russians doubt Gagarin's flight, it was about how you would go about evaluating the claim. Are you implying that the truth about an historical event. Is a matter of public polling?

No, I do not imply anything more than what I previously stated. :

There is no way to be have more certainty about Gagarin's flight than for Apollo program.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So are you saying that the historical record has no validity unless it is abso!utely certain? How scan you construct a reasonable narrative?

a reply to: DJW001

If one never end up agreeing with anything, he will probably end up in a situation similar to Sandy Hook truthers or creationists ... It is not just a question of taking something for granted, it's about letting open the possibility of an alternative consideration.

What is interesting imo with the moon landings is, not much the footsteps of Armstrong in itself, it is was is still - part of the same history - in the shadow area. I don't know what are your motives in order to spend so much energy in the defence of this particular point of view on this topic. I won't speculate. But I consider that there is much more embarrassment to expect in what may come out of the shadow area than, if the moon landings were ever proven faked.

What I like about History, is that it is consistent, or at least, it's supposed to be.
You can hardly consider serving a piece of history to someone and then silence him or consider that he is 'poisoning the well', if he brings up questions that are related to the said story and that you cannot answer in an historicaly acceptable way.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke avoiding answering the questions.

You can hardly consider serving a piece of history to someone and then silence him or consider that he is 'poisoning the well', if he brings up questions that are related to the said story and that you cannot answer in an historicaly acceptable way.

I'm not trying to silence you, I am trying to engage you in a Socratic dialogue, but instead you keep refusing to answer the questions.

The reason I have wasted so much time on this particular thread is because I want to use it as an illustration of what constitutes valid historical methodology. People rightly look down upon most conspiracy theorists because they do not apply critical thinking, nor understand what sort of evidence is necessary to support a case.

"Richard Nixon's brother worked in aerospace, the largest heavy industry in California. Nixon enjoyed the company of a particular astronaut. Nixon watch movies in the White House. The chief geologist on the Apoll Project was an Egyptian, therefore the Moon Landings were fake."

There has been so much serious research into the side of the space program Life Magazine was supposed to cover up recently that it is maddening to see some of the reasoning that passes for research among conspiracy theorists. More importantly, if more conspiracy theorists understood how to apply historical methodology, their obsessive tendencies might actually lead them to disvover some real conspiracies instead of trying to tie things together that are unrelated.

This has been my summing up.

originally posted by: DJW001

I'm not trying to silence you, I am trying to engage you in a Socratic dialogue, but instead you keep refusing to answer the questions.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Which one ?

originally posted by: DJW001
The reason I have wasted so much time on this particular thread is because I want to use it as an illustration of what constitutes valid historical methodology. People rightly look down upon most conspiracy theorists because they do not apply critical thinking, nor understand what sort of evidence is necessary to support a case.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Why did you try to play both the historical and hoax cards in a single week in an attempt to seal the debate ?

This has a feeling of déjà-vu ... Remember when you tried to 'educate' people to fascism by using ... guess who ? ... as an example.
My subjective point of view suggests 'ideological instrumentalization'.

originally posted by: DJW001
"Richard Nixon's brother worked in aerospace, the largest heavy industry in California. Nixon enjoyed the company of a particular astronaut. Nixon watch movies in the White House. The chief geologist on the Apoll Project was an Egyptian, therefore the Moon Landings were fake."

Is that the best shot you ever got from moon landing hoaxers or another attempt at discredit ?

originally posted by: DJW001
There has been so much serious research into the side of the space program Life Magazine was supposed to cover up recently that it is maddening to see some of the reasoning that passes for research among conspiracy theorists. More importantly, if more conspiracy theorists understood how to apply historical methodology, their obsessive tendencies might actually lead them to disvover some real conspiracies instead of trying to tie things together that are unrelated.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
What I like about History, is that it is consistent, or at least, it's supposed to be.
You can hardly consider serving a piece of history to someone and then silence him or consider that he is 'poisoning the well', if he brings up questions that are related to the said story and that you cannot answer in an historicaly acceptable way.

Endless loop ...
But ... so that you can have the last word :

originally posted by: DJW001
This has been my summing up.

a reply to: DJW001

So you'd like to control the historical narratives AND have a new Forum called "Moon Hoax" in order that you can more easily accomplish your goal?

See DJW's plea for a dedicated "Moon Hoax" forum here www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't think people come to ATS to hear the official version of the story written by NASA - they come here to potentially learn something new they didn't know before they came here. We all know that NASA narratives tend to be self serving. And that's why we don't trust LRO, bro!

"Richard Nixon's brother worked in aerospace, the largest heavy industry in California. Nixon enjoyed the company of a particular astronaut. Nixon watch movies in the White House. The chief geologist on the Apoll Project was an Egyptian, therefore the Moon Landings were fake."

Now this is the kind of ridicule I expect from some of the less worthy Apollo Defenders... DJW... is taking the opportunity to take the piss on my original concept Nixon's Apollo. Isn't this the real reason you proposed Moon Hoax forum so you can have a bully pulpit, to set down in concrete NASA's version of the narratives, brandishing your incorrect translation of critical history?

And for those of you interested in some of these overlooked, scandalous details of the Apollo program please visit ---

Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I don't think people come to ATS to hear the official version of the story written by NASA - they come here to potentially learn something new they didn't know before they came here. We all know that NASA narratives tend to be self serving. And that's why we don't trust LRO, bro!

And how do we know which narrative comes closest to the truth?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DJW001

A conspiracy can perfectly be build out of facts that stands the test of historical methodology validation.
Feel free to try to debunk this 100% hardcore conspiracy using historical counter-arguments :

The Belgian UFO wave

I warn you from scratch, as an eye-witness I'll be on the other side.
This should give a clue why I'm open to alternative considerations and try to avoid paradigms.

I came across this video and you Might find it interesting related to moon landings :

I tried to embed it did not work here is the Link :


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Christosterone

Never in my entire life will i stop enjoying that punch like a kid watching sat morning cartoons