An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Sorry, no debate. I would be like beating the dead donkey. There has been more than enough talk. Whoever reads the whole topic will be able to figure it out - or not.

How can there be debate, when there are no arguments to debate about?


No debate, Pentagon was hit by an invisible plane, Neil Armstrong has walked on the moon, and I am Peter Pan.

Good Day.



[edit on 18-10-2006 by swimmer]

That's a "GOOD" strategy there, swimmer as I think IA would have beat you.

Like you was a stepchild !










[edit on 10/19/2006 by bodebliss]

are like trials... they have precious little to do in accomplishing what their supposed stated goals are about.

A debate is simply a rhetorical exercise.

A trial has little to do with justice or finding the guilty parties.

Both are more about the mechanics of the process rather than determining some type of valid result.

The Truth simply is.

In dealing with experiments, experimental data and their interpretations... A lot of good basics need to be followed.

There also needs to be a correlation between what is being assayed and what is being observed.

For instance, if an analyst was looking at the range finding results, he would point out the apparent lack of correlation between multiple triggering events, and the lack of matching appropriately spaced 'returns'.

There are a huge number of factors that would also need to be accounted for... (due to the specifics of the setup and 'apparatus' .

You wind up getting into determinations of whether the raw data crosses thresholds of significance... (read= there are significant flaws in the entire 'experiment' )

Due to the degree of difficulty of what is being attempted... The original Apollo boys are coming up just a little short in the 'equipment' that was put out in the field. ).

If you look at this entire thread, there are folks who are both ends of the arguments (read=extremes ) and then some of us in the middle, talking about ridiculous things like due diligence and actual evidence crossing thresholds of significance...

But that's just me...



(and maybe a few friends )

I suggest everyone writes the makers of NetNanny and recommend that abovetopsecret.com be a default blocked domain.

Perhaps that would help cut down on the trolls who refuse to even attempt to prove the validity of their position.

Sigh... people say they are our future. We are doomed.

Whats the matter boys?



Chicken?



More like chicken bleep.

Why won't you debate?

Does the thought of that make your head hurt?

I really respect everyone's opinion. Experience tells me that there are a lot of (under)paid little spies who try to drag every decent discussion into endless meaningless boring tirade. I still also think that there are a lot of decent people who simply cannot change their mind easily - if you accept that Moon landing is a hoax, than your whole life gets different perspective...and you do not do that without really solid proof.

Maybe the times have changed, and there is no more time to be too considerate when talking to people, for their own sake.

I have heard (on the radio) of this study: They say that in countries (like US) where math is taught in a funny, entertaining way, kids show LOWER scores in all tests. In other countries, where teachers are focused on MATH not FUN, children learn more and have better scores.

Enough of illusion.

After miles of text on this topic, your ONLY proof of men walking on Moon is this laser theory without any data? If that were really true, every kid would have learnt that at school...it would be a part of everyone's general education.

If a man ever walked on the Moon, it would be absolutely the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT OF THE HUMAN KIND EVER. ISS is cruising a couple of hundred of miles above us (you can see it with naked eye in the daylight if you are lucky) and still so many people died, and every flight is a drama...40 years after Armstrong walked on the Moon, like it was a piece of cake. What was the distance to the Moon again?

I enjoy eloquence and irony that golemina is entertaining us with, along with his thorough knowledge (much, much better than mine), but, frankly, I did not need him to tell me the truth. It is notoriously OBVIOUS that the official story is fake.
I am really not even interested in any "argument" from the members of the Moon landing cult (something like "Flat Earth Society").

There is no debate. I really enjoyed this topic, and I am grateful for the opportunity to read it (both sides helped make it fun). But, the discussion has no more juice in it (golemina's topic had been unanswered for a long time until I responded with a provocation...about the TKO) But, this is no longer a discussion, but more like chatting...

Take care.



spelling...

[edit on 19-10-2006 by swimmer]

Penn & Teller Bullsh*t!: Conspiracy Theories - Moon Landing

This is a really funny video from Penn and teller explaining the moon landing and the conspiracy that followed.

Enjoy!

AlBeMeT

Originally posted by swimmer
After miles of text on this topic, your ONLY proof of men walking on Moon is this laser theory without any data?

There's more proof than just the laser stuff.

What about the 800lbs of lunar samples? You can't fake those. Unmanned probes can't collect that much (unless you send a lot of them, which they did not), nor could they get 2 meter deep core samples etc.

Amature radio astronomers around the world, who listened in durring the missions. If the signals wern't coming from the Moon, they would have noticed.

Those are just a few examples.

If a man ever walked on the Moon, it would be absolutely the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT OF THE HUMAN KIND EVER.

And it is.

ISS is cruising a couple of hundred of miles above us (you can see it with naked eye in the daylight if you are lucky) and still so many people died, and every flight is a drama...40 years after Armstrong walked on the Moon, like it was a piece of cake. What was the distance to the Moon again?

Umm the Moon landings wern't a piece of cake. There were lots of risks, but I guess you'd know that if you actually sat down and read more about the missions and what all was involved.

And since when was every shuttle launch a big drama event? This is only a recent thing and the news tends to overplay it because bad news sells. Out of 116 Shuttle launches, there are only two Failures and the unfortunate loss of 14 people. I still consider those odds very good. Accidents happen. Trains, cars and airplanes have been around for over 100 years and they still have accidents, why would you expect spacecraft to be excluded from this? And what does distance have to do with it?

I understand you don't want to debate this subject and you probably have me on ignore anyway, but I thought I'd reply regardless.

Has anyone seen these movies?
Part 1: video.google.com...

Part 2: video.google.com...


I mean...really watch it? Or is attention span not letting you go past first five minutes?

I just said: not FUN, not ENTERTAINMENT!

Use your brain for a change.

Come on guys, you cant really fly to the Moon. It may be tough on your egos to admit to yourself that you are such a fool, but that is the only cure, otherwise you make yourself an even bigger fool. If you really cared about flying to the Moon or space travel in general you would have noticed your real capabilities in space even 40 years later is far short of anything approaching landing on the Moon. The real question isnt whether you can fly to the Moon, its whether you can stand the truth. Well you better get used to it because the truth is getting increasingly obvious, and it isnt the facile truth of the impossibility of the Moon landings that matters, its the truth of your determined ignorance that needs to prove something as absurd as that Moon Landings must have happened 30 years ago. By grasping the truth you are doing yourselves a favour, and if it wasnt for true believers like you all, none of this would even matter. The real issue is what is wrong with you, we will have plenty of time to discuss that after you are finally clued in, I dont imagine that when the official story changes any of you will pay much attention to all the evidence that you insist is so important, because if you had any capacity for independant thought, you would have figured it out by now. Wouldnt you rather actually be able to go to the Moon and not have to care what people think, rather than having to insist everyone must adopt your beliefs because they have no basis in reality. Well now we have that luxury, we are right because of reality and doesnt matter what you think, you are still stuck here on Earth dreaming, and you cant change that.

swimmer: Your video links don't work...

Looter: If your post isn't the definition of a straw man argument, then I don't know what is. It's cosidered to be a cowardly, unethical and not to mention, lazy debating tactic. It's also a sign that one has little confidence in there position and that they cannot even address the real position presented by ones opponent. You are deciving yourself and others with distorted facts and false information.

An example...

If you really cared about flying to the Moon or space travel in general you would have noticed your real capabilities in space even 40 years later is far short of anything approaching landing on the Moon.

Here you use the fact that we haven't been to the Moon in 40 years (it's actually 34 years [Apollo 17, 1972], just to be exact). Then you state that our current capabilities do not match what we did before. Thus you imply that we did not go to the Moon.

What you neglected to mention was that public and political interestests changed. Funding for NASA decreased very significantly and the lunar program had to be stoped. Were you aware that NASA wanted to 3 more missions? The original plan was to go up to Apollo 20, but budgets forced them to cut back and they ended it with Apollo 17. It's really not much more complicated then that.

I dont imagine that when the official story changes any of you will pay much attention to all the evidence that you insist is so important, because if you had any capacity for independant thought, you would have figured it out by now.

How lovely, it's another logical fallacy. This time it's an Ad hominem. Because I don't believe what you believe that must mean I cannot think independantly? So insted of discussing the subject, you avoid it by trying to discredit your opponents ability to figure things out on there own. Another cowardly debating tactic. If you're going to use an Ad hominem, it's better to attack the idea rather then the person just for future reference.

Perhaps you should stop with the logical fallacies and stick to the subject at hand.

Living together in harmony...



No seriously... (and thank you Swimmer )

Some might say JRA, you should be the LAST person to be admonishing Swimmer for 'ad hominem' and 'logical fallacies'...

Might I remind you of your 'answer' when I pointed out to you that the MAJORITY of so-called 'moon shots' suffered from Petit Prince syndrome...



What was even better JRA was your response to why oh why didn't the astronauts follow the INESCAPBILE HUMAN TENDENCY to scamper to the nearest rise to get a view of the land.

Those type of answers is exactly why honest observers (like me ), say proof positive that the 'pros' NASAs are TRUE BELIEVERS.

That type of 'reasoning' only serves to hurt folks like myself...

with laughter.

'Hey! I know we went to the Moon... We have rocks!'

(another priceless gem )

It just seems if the 'pros' NASA are going to attempt to claim the intellectual high ground...

maybe they should start by engaging in real discussion, real dialogue...

instead of clinging to this phony and totally transparent 'debunkers' mindset...

Or at least serve up someone with the horsepower to engage me in a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof ) of the lunar range finding results.

I am an honest broker of the truth and what better way to regain a tiny bit of credibility than to validate the presence of a human lunar artifact?

What a good idea!

Originally posted by golemina
Some might say JRA, you should be the LAST person to be admonishing Swimmer for 'ad hominem' and 'logical fallacies'...

I'm sure i've directed a few arguments against certain people here, but it's rare and I try not to. And I didn't admonish swimmer for ad hominems and logical fallacies. Although both you and swimmer are extremely guilty of such things as well. You should take your own advice and start, "engaging in real discussion, real dialogue"

Might I remind you of your 'answer' when I pointed out to you that the MAJORITY of so-called 'moon shots' suffered from Petit Prince syndrome...

Indeed, remind me.

What was even better JRA was your response to why oh why didn't the astronauts follow the INESCAPBILE HUMAN TENDENCY to scamper to the nearest rise to get a view of the land.

I vaugly recall that discussion. I don't remember my exact reply, but why didn't the astronauts scamper to the nearest rise to get a view of the land? Maybe because they had a job to perform with limited time and oxygen. They also landed in relatively flat areas, so there wern't many hills near by to go running up. Although on Apollo 15 they did drive part way up a hill and they did indeed get 'a view of the land' and you could see the LM far off in the distance.

'Hey! I know we went to the Moon... We have rocks!'

(another priceless gem

)

Since you can't fake them, can't find anything like them on Earth. Those rocks are indeed priceless.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by jra]

Is that short for Just Rhetoric Again?

Real dialogue... Real discussion...

Consists of an exchange of information and GENIUNE efforts at that exchange...

NONE of which is found in your post.



Rocks?

>Since you can't fake them, can't find anything like them on Earth. Those rocks are indeed priceless.

Of course you can fake them...

A friend of mine worked for a very famous company (they might have killed a few thousand people in India via a chemical spill... Oops! ). He was a lab analyst in a foundry that smelted additives used for making avionics grade materials...

Due to federal aerospace/aviation requirements...

VERY strictly regulated... AND documented.

Guess what? The samples from the pours ALWAYS came within the allowable range of specs.

So if an FAA inspector goes back to the source materials for say a landing gear strut that might have failed... It could NOT be because of a bad batch of steel.



When you add some facts to your accounts of events JRA...

It exposes the fairy tale nature of your 'responses' big guy...

Or as my friend so aptly put it...

The 'Flat Earth Society' view of the world needed to believe a bunch of guys flew to another celestial body but couldn't take the 3 minutes to walk to a rise and snap off a panaromic view... you seemingly so desperately cling to.

ok the hoax believers have chickened out of a formal debate on the issue , for the most ironic of hand waving excuses .

so be it - it was wrth a try

golemina has unilaterally elected himself " self appointed spokesman for truth "

which is dammed funny given his track record of lies in this forum .

i have just reviewed the last 5 pages - and am sick of being trolled by idiots with no

golemina never adresses the issues raised - he just shoots randomly in the dark and moves on to his next attack

they have unfurled the white flag of victory - so be it

if they have neither the integrity or honesty to actually address the issues -

i was once accused of imparting drift to my " story " - looking back that was priceless irony - given goleminas refusal to engage at any meaningfull level .

golemina - where is your " team " we are still awaiting thier analysis ?

unless the technical issues from the last few pages are adressed - i will be bowing out - i have better things to do than waste time attempting to educate trolls .

it was fun - and it gave me some belly laughs .

APE - OUT

amidst the peronal attacks on JRA i could not let this " gem " go unanswered

Originally posted by golemina
A friend of mine worked for a very famous company (they might have killed a few thousand people in India via a chemical spill... Oops!

). He was a lab analyst in a foundry that smelted additives used for making avionics grade materials...

Due to federal aerospace/aviation requirements...

VERY strictly regulated... AND documented.

Guess what? The samples from the pours ALWAYS came within the allowable range of specs.

So if an FAA inspector goes back to the source materials for say a landing gear strut that might have failed... It could NOT be because of a bad batch of steel.

what utter tripe -

in a real crash analysis - not the golemina fantasy version - if mechanical failure of a metal casting is suspected , the investigation will focus first on the analysis of the actual object that failed - if that does not conform to published spec

further - the metal from the foundry will be independanly stested by the customer that recieves it - BEFORE they use it in thier production

and lastly a sample from the finished product is tested - and firther random tests are conducted by third party labs

so cheating on samples as you aledge gets you nowhere - you clearly have zero idea how aerospace quality control and documentation actually works

if as you allude - the samples were not real pour samples - they would not match the later third party aalysis , further down the line . and the culprit who falsifed th data would be almost instantly revealed

lastly - you seem to have overlooked the obvious solution - that in a precision foundry catering for aerospace production - all the raw materials delivered are pre screened for purity / assay by the suppliers - so all the pours are uncontaminated - and thus the samples do fall within specification range - because they are in range .

ps - why can you not refer to the UNION CARBIDE corp by name ??

more spurios allusion of guilt - where none actually exists

but - you have sucessfully derailed the topic - why not get it back on track by addressing the apache point results properly instead of your customary jeering ?

please amaze us all and present one technically sound rebuttal to the apache point data

because to date , your best shot was :

" its bs "

APE OUT

Originally posted by golemina
>Since you can't fake them, can't find anything like them on Earth. Those rocks are indeed priceless.

Of course you can fake them...

A friend of mine worked for a very famous company (they might have killed a few thousand people in India via a chemical spill... Oops!

). He was a lab analyst in a foundry that smelted additives used for making avionics grade materials...

How the hell does smelting materials have to do with lunar rocks and creating them? Can you smelt something and make it look like a rock? Can you give it convection patterns that look as if they have been formed with in an environment that has 1/6th the gravity of Earth? Can you make it appear as though it has had a long-term bombardment of solar particles, the solar wind, and cosmic radiation? Can you create the effects of high speed micro meteorite impacts on the rock itself as well?

And all this has to convince geologists worldwide... Good luck with that...

reread what I said there JRA...

No one was talking about anything like fabricating fake moon rocks!



Nah, it was more along the lines of fake validations of pretty much anything.

It's NOT like the government (as well as corporations! ) aren't afraid to fake ANYTHING given the right stimulus.

As to convincing geologists... NO DIFFERENT than convincing anyone else... scientists, only surpassed by engineers , are quite gullible!

Especially front-loaded the way the premise is...

Besides, just because a guy wears a lab coat, doesn't mean he doesn't like a regular paycheck.

What do you call a guy who goes against the grain?

Unemployed.

Originally posted by golemina
No one was talking about anything like fabricating fake moon rocks!

hmmm did you not say this?

Originally posted by golemina
Rocks? (snip)
Of course you can fake them...

The fact is you can't fake them. not without being found out.

NASA is not the only one with lunar rocks. The soviets sent the luna mission to collect samples, and there are may lunar rocks that have been found on earth that were blown off the moon and landed here as meteorites. These samples will have been compared and by independent researchers, and a ‘fake’ rock would have been reveled.

Golemina, you have refused to address the real issue. Just because the government (as well as corporations) are not afraid to fake things, doesn’t mean the rocks and the moon landing were.

The moon landing hoax IS the hoax. The conspiracy IS the conspiracy. Ever heard of a red herring? The moon landing is perpetuated in mainstream society buy FOX news! While you are arguing over photographic anomalies that can be explained buy anyone that knows anything about photographs. While idiots are harassing astronauts, and deservedly getting punched out, your country and indeed our world is being taken over buy criminals. Real false events like 911 get tossed into the moon hoax and or alien conspiracies and thus loose validity in the media.They harm the movement, and fog the truth.



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Halfofone]

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Halfofone]

for you apparently somewhat sloooowwww people.



I was stating that the evalutation/findings ABOUT the rocks are what could easily be faked.

NOT the rocks themselves.

Sure, you could fake rocks. (read = like falsifying photos... MUCH, MUCH TOO COMPLICATED ) Anyone that has ever worked in a foundry would have an idea of the basic mechanics of how you could do that...

>While idiots are harassing astronauts, and deservedly getting punched out, your country and indeed our world is being taken over buy criminals.

So... Are you saying that if you're not a NASA true believer that you're not patriotic... Or even worse, (gulp) a terrorist?

>Real false events like 911...

Real false? And HOW confusing is that!

A little clarification would be nice there Half...

> and there are may lunar rocks that have been found on earth that were blown off the moon and landed here as meteorites.

Blown off the moon? Anything you say.



[edit on 26-10-2006 by golemina]