Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

...and if somebody knows how to add the scroll bars to a large size picture please let me know

If you use the [ img] tags instead of the [ atsimg] tags, large pictures will have a scroll:



Don't ask me why.

Originally posted by 000063

That's called Circular Logic. "The photos must be fake because they never landed on the moon, so they can't be evidence of a moon landing because they're faked."

Yet, you yourself can't say that the photos are not fake-able. Either prove the photos are faked, or accept them as evidence.

It's not completely circular logic ... there is actually a missing less obvious component. Observer such-and-such forms an opinion based on various other items of evidence that they have been exposed to, Based on that exposure, and on the practices of their verbal community ( i.e how other people have reacted to that evidence or their perception of it ) they form a position towards the issue. In the case of people not believing a moon landing happened there may be a perceived mis-match between the evidence and what they either logically expect to find there, or what their intuition tells them should be. In some cases observers will approach the material expecting to be believe it but then be jarred by a mis-match ( or may simply believe the evidence based on what they see ) in other cases they may approach the material expecting to dismiss it, and be convinced in spite off all that ( or indeed remain unimpressed ).

Then later when new evidence is presented this initially formed opinion, and the multitudes of additional information accreted to it over time that have supported it ( from their point of view ), prevent in this case, that evidence from being, in itself, taken as proof of anything other that than NASA can create ( through extended enterprise on one side, through fakery on the other ) images of the moon from orbit that include signs of prior human activity.

No, Z believes the landings are real because of all the evidence supporting the claim that the landings were real. Eyewitness testimony of the launches. A mission broadcasted to literally, millions of people, and watched by millions more since. A mountain of documentation, and media, much of which NASA allows pretty much everyone to look at for free. The moon rocks, which were literally given away to over a hundred countries and scientific institutions. Und so weiter.

Assuming an agency ( NASA, the government, someone in a position of trust and influence working for either, with or without the mother agency's knowledge ) was trying to fool the world's population about something as big as a major historical event, ( hypothetical case, not sound logical practice for finding truth ) it would follow that the agency would fake as little as possible and present as much credible evidence as possible to convince the masses. Your list pretty much covers it. If they could host a launch they would. If they could present unbelievably massive amounts of documentation they would, if they could provide moon rocks they would. The last might even be seen as the evidence that seals the bargain. It might make them as you so eloquently put it "justifiably confident".

Yet the hypothetical conspiracy remains undiscovered. Either the landings are real, or NASA is so justifiably confident in their faked evidence they should've fooled the HBs too.

Yet there is not consensus on whether the moon happenings landed or not. Either the landings are real ( simplest explanation ) or NASA is justifiably confident that no definitive single piece of evidence, ( in the context of of what was known and expected to be knowable at the time of the moon ventures ) will spoil the illusion created.

reply to post by FoosM

So my impression is that JW has focused himself on throwing doubt to every piece of evidence that NASA uses to claim they landed on the moon (rocks, signals, retroreflectors, etc). And then he goes and supports why the trip was impossible in the first place: Radiation.

No, he does it because he has no actual evidence to support his fantasies. Just one classified memo. Just one photograph of the CSM lurking in orbit. Just one disgruntled SFX artist willing to spill the beans. Zip. Nada. Tricky Dick couldn't even cover up a simple hotel burglary, yet Jarrah can't find a single piece of hard evidence to support his claims. Pathetic.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

All of Shakespeare's original manuscripts were eventually used to wrap buns or start fires. What's your point?

Did you say Shakespeare? I've got a Shakespear for you DJ. You will # your pants. My apologies to your dry cleaners. Nixon's Presidential Diary from July 17th 1969:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Come SJ, what do you got for us? Westinghouse, Shakespeare, CBS, Golf of Tonkin, Noel, you are about to tie it all up right? Right?

As with other Apollo missions providing TV coverage from the spacecraft, informal visits with the astronauts were highly scripted, using cue cards. Second moon walker Edwin Aldrin suggested the United States Information Agency scripted Apollo Eight's Bible reading and Neil Armstrong's first words from the lunar surface. Whether Armstrong said "That's one small step for man," or "a man", as he intended (with the article "a" lost to static), has never been resolved. The blurry black and white images of Armstrong jumping onto the lunar surface and the short surface explorations by Armstrong and Aldrin are widely regarded as television's first, and perhaps greatest, example of unifying a massive worldwide audience in common wonder and hope.

United States Information Agency scripted Apollo

United States Information Agency scripted Apollo

highly scripted

www.museum.tv...

reply to post by FoosM

Second moon walker Edwin Aldrin suggested the United States Information Agency scripted Apollo Eight's Bible reading

That's not the story I've heard. Here it is on YouTube. (After all, if it's on YouTube you know it must be true.)

Originally posted by FoosM

Come SJ, what do you got for us? Westinghouse, Shakespeare, CBS, Golf of Tonkin, Noel, you are about to tie it all up right? Right?

Just following my intuition on this one. It is interesting about Mr. Frank Shakespeare, isn't it?

Shakespeare was president of CBS for 19 years, 1950-1969.
In 1969 Nixon brings him into the White House to direct the USIA for 4 years, 1969-1973 , during those years all the Apollo landings are taking place. In 1973 Shakespeare heads straight over to Westinghouse ($250,000 cameras anybody?). The final post of his diplomatic career was Ambassador to the Holy See.... See? Do All Roads Lead to Rome? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, perhaps they do. Mercury. Saturn. Apollo.... Michael Collin's remark during his Gemini 10 EVA that he felt like a Roman god in his chariot... straight from his book Carrying the Fire which I know Jarrah White has multiple copies of. And the 1st edition copies are NOT CHEAP!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Come SJ, what do you got for us? Westinghouse, Shakespeare, CBS, Golf of Tonkin, Noel, you are about to tie it all up right? Right?

Just following my intuition on this one. It is interesting about Mr. Frank Shakespeare, isn't it?

Shakespeare was president of CBS for 19 years, 1950-1969.
In 1969 Nixon brings him into the White House to direct the USIA for 4 years, 1969-1973 , during those years all the Apollo landings are taking place. In 1973 Shakespeare heads straight over to Westinghouse ($250,000 cameras anybody?). The final post of his diplomatic career was Ambassador to the Holy See.... See? Do All Roads Lead to Rome? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, perhaps they do. Mercury. Saturn. Apollo.... Michael Collin's remark during his Gemini 10 EVA that he felt like a Roman god in his chariot... straight from his book Carrying the Fire which I know Jarrah White has multiple copies of. And the 1st edition copies are NOT CHEAP!

There you go! Shakespeare was/is a
U.S. Ambassador Vatican, 1986-89
U.S. Ambassador Portugal 1985-86
Catholic Campaign for America
Council for National Policy
National Strategy Information Center
The Heritage Foundation
Knights of Malta

Now what about this USIA?
What do you got on them? What is their mission, and what did they do for Apollo and whats their connection to the Golf of Tonkin?

In April 1970, NASA attempted its third manned moon mission in less than a year with Apollo 13. Initially, the public paid little attention to the mission. Enthusiasm for moon missions had waned in the wake of Apollo 11, ten months earlier. Critics began questioning whether the country might better spend the money devoted to space exploration on social ills like poverty and education. The television networks, sensing little public interest, did not even telecast a live interview with the Apollo 13 crew from outer space. However, this all changed on April 13. Astronaut James Lovell' s announcement, "Houston, we've had a problem," marked the beginning of a crisis that captured the attention and interest of the entire world. For four days, Americans and people from around the world collectively held their breath and prayed for the safe return of Apollo 13 astronauts Lovell, Fred Haise, and John Swigert.

Observers attest to Apollo 13's drama and significance. Writing in the summer of 1970, Washington Post reporter Stuart Auerbach called Apollo 13's four-day adventure "one of the most dramatic stories of the decade." Similarly, New York Times science reporter John Noble Wilford described it as "a drama of epic dimensions worthy of a Homer." Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox proposed that President John Kennedy's Apollo ended with the landing of Apollo 13. They characterized the mission as "the pinnacle of the spirit behind Kennedy's commitment" and depicted it as the last time the nation was "transfixed" by the space adventure. (1)
One cannot overstate the interest in the crisis. The United States Information Agency characterized the television and radio coverage of the splashdown as "probably at its highest peak for any single event in history, apparently surpassing even that of the actual walk on the moon by Apollo 11."

Its all about the ratings right?

After the Apollo 11 television spectacular, coverage of the following moon missions became increasingly brief and critical. Under considerable pressure to begin cutting back, NASA eliminated the last three planned Apollo missions, terminating the program with Apollo 17 in 1972. NASA actually paid the networks to cover the last Apollo mission (NASA oficial Chris Kraft, Jr., quoted in Hurt, 282). Coverage was spectacular nonetheless, from the nail-biting return of the explosion-crippled Apollo 13 spacecraft, to the lengthy moon walks and moon buggy rides of the last Apollos, covered live with color cameras. Such a part of American culture was NASA of the 1960s that it routinely provided technical assistance and advice to Hollywood, as with the many permutations of Star Trek, or provided entire series storylines, as with I Dream of Jeanie. Footage from NASA's massive film library appears in all manner of productions.

www.museum.tv...
www.accessmylibrary.com...

Thanks in part to television, the history of the American space program and its role in American life (including the dramatic acceleration of technological development which resulted, to which the television industry itself owes much), has never been completely written. Television presented fleeting spectacles, devoid of analysis, perspective, and retrospective. Because America saw the Space Program as television program, there was little demand for deeper analysis in journalism and literature.

Television coverage of the long-duration Skylab missions (1973-1974) provided entertaining images of astronaut antics in weightlessness, but was overshadowed by the Watergate hearings. Watergate signalled an end of the trust of government and hero worship characterizing the 1960s space program. NASA could no longer sell its heroes and expensive programs to the public. The heroism of ex-astronauts was often dismantled by the same media which had constructed it, as astronauts were exposed in shady business deals or dysfunctional lives, criticized for making commercials, or doubted in new corporate and political roles. Television could not accept the astronaut as human.

The American Space Program and the American television industry contributed mightily to each other's growth. Space missions have matched Hollywood productions for drama, suspense and excitement, and have consistently pulled in some of the medium's largest audiences. America's first astronauts were among television's first celebrity heroes. Some television journalists, such as Walter Cronkite and ABC's Jules Bergman (1930-1987), became famous for their chronicalling of the space program. The 69 year old Cronkite even applied to become an astronaut in 1986 (as part of NASA's short-lived "journalist in space" program).

www.museum.tv...

Was there a press group with you that wrote reports and news articles and then transmitted these through the local embassies to the local papers back home?

Yes. We had two USIA [United States Information Agency] advisors and four Voice of America [VOA] staff members traveling with us. One USIA fellow was a writer and one was a photographer that recorded all of the stops. They were filing reports through their agency channels and were giving information to the local press. There were also news conferences at all of the stops. One of the VOA staff members was a motion picture photographer who recorded all the major events in all the cities. Before we left on the trip, there was some discussion about one or two press reporters being allowed to accompany us on the entire trip and flying on the plane with us. But this idea was scrapped.

The propaganda machine was powerful! Im sure any country or newspaper that wrote articles dismissing the moon landings as fake, was probably put under pressure by the US.

history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

Its all about the ratings right?

No. According to your source its about effective crisis management and honest communication:

In April 1970, NASA faced its second major crisis when an explosion on board Apollo 13 threatened the lives of its three astronauts. NASA's handling of the crisis not only would determine the fate of the three astronauts, but also the image of the space agency and possibly the future of American manned space exploration. This paper examines NASA' s crisis communications regarding Apollo 13. It argues that NASA and the Nixon administration's handling of the crisis not only bolstered NASA's image, but it also may have helped to gain crucial public and congressional support for continued manned space exploration. The space agency succeeded by responding quickly to the crisis and communicating honestly and openly with its key publics. The study demonstrates how a successful response to a crisis can enhance the image of an organization.

Your own source.

Isn't it a bit late in the season to go cherry picking?

reply to post by FoosM

Im sure any country or newspaper that wrote articles dismissing the moon landings as fake, was probably put under pressure by the US.

Please provide some evidence for this opinion. Most countries weren't exactly bending over backwards to please the USA in those days.

any hoaxers should request(via a school student) that the GRAIL mission take pics of the apollo sites. If you have the guts to see your ideas go down in flames of course, lol

reply to post by syrinx high priest


GRAIL won't be carrying any cameras. It doesn't need them.

Originally posted by DJW001
GRAIL won't be carrying any cameras. It doesn't need them.

Actually it has a few camera's, nicknamed MoonKAM (Moon Knowledge Acquired by Middle school students), but it's more than likely that they'll be rather low resolution camera's.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


In other words, I guessed wrong. It's okay, I admit it.

Still, the bottom line is that you want NASA, whom you do not trust, to spend a large amount of money and effort "proving" something that the vast majority of the world believes to be true. Given your frequent rhetoric about the Gulf of Tonkin and reflexive mistrust of the US government, you would likely just dismiss the evidence discovered on NASA's Magical Solar System Tour out of hand. It's like testifying in court against a Mr. James Jones for grand theft, but when he gets out on bail, asking him to watch your house while you go on vacation.

reply to post by FoosM


I'm sorry, I don't see how race is relevant. Unless, of course, you were trying some juvenile trick to paint me as a racist.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

What I'm saying is you get at least 4 rovers to the Moon for the same price as 2 rovers to Mars. Just ballparking the figure...... but you were swinging and missing and entering NASA cost-overrun territory.

edit on 9/10/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

The only problem with Rovers is that many also believe the Mars rovers are fake.
Because, no matter what, the information is coming from one source.

Except, as you have been told time and time again, for corroboration from independant ham radio operators, Aussie radio telescope operators, people who actually broke into the Aussie feed live, before NASA even got it, the Russians, JAXA, India's space agency, etc.

I am not sure if you are simply incapable of absorbing this information, or just outright lying.

reply to post by jra


of course ! this way we can't see the real truth !

sorry, couldn't resist

Originally posted by bansheegirl
It's not completely circular logic ... there is actually a missing less obvious component. Observer such-and-such forms an opinion based on various other items of evidence that they have been exposed to, Based on that exposure, and on the practices of their verbal community ( i.e how other people have reacted to that evidence or their perception of it ) they form a position towards the issue. In the case of people not believing a moon landing happened there may be a perceived mis-match between the evidence and what they either logically expect to find there, or what their intuition tells them should be. In some cases observers will approach the material expecting to be believe it but then be jarred by a mis-match ( or may simply believe the evidence based on what they see ) in other cases they may approach the material expecting to dismiss it, and be convinced in spite off all that ( or indeed remain unimpressed ).

Then later when new evidence is presented this initially formed opinion, and the multitudes of additional information accreted to it over time that have supported it ( from their point of view ), prevent in this case, that evidence from being, in itself, taken as proof of anything other that than NASA can create ( through extended enterprise on one side, through fakery on the other ) images of the moon from orbit that include signs of prior human activity.

In other words, people think it's real, because they were initially told it's real.

It's easy to say that Exhibit A may have been faked. It's easy to say Exhibit B could have been faked. And exhibits C through to Z. Any lawyer can do that. But he has to provide evidence indicating a)HOW the prosecution's evidence was faked, and b)that it was faked. He has to back up his claims.

Gainsaying is easy. Proof is hard.

Assuming an agency ( NASA, the government, someone in a position of trust and influence working for either, with or without the mother agency's knowledge ) was trying to fool the world's population about something as big as a major historical event, ( hypothetical case, not sound logical practice for finding truth ) it would follow that the agency would fake as little as possible and present as much credible evidence as possible to convince the masses. Your list pretty much covers it. If they could host a launch they would. If they could present unbelievably massive amounts of documentation they would, if they could provide moon rocks they would. The last might even be seen as the evidence that seals the bargain. It might make them as you so eloquently put it "justifiably confident".

Confidence is not enough. The sheer volume of evidence is impossible to fake in secrecy. The video alone would require more and better effort than anything or anyone available in 1969.

Yet there is not consensus on whether the moon happenings landed or not.

The conspiracy theories are the overwhelming minority. Most people on Earth who know about the moon landings think they happened. Plenty of people believe incorrect things all the time.

Either the landings are real ( simplest explanation ) or NASA is justifiably confident that no definitive single piece of evidence, ( in the context of of what was known and expected to be knowable at the time of the moon ventures ) will spoil the illusion created.

I am talking about the collective bulk of evidence, not one single piece. Evidence picked over by really smart people for 42 years. And then other smart people looked at what those smart people said. And so on. Not to mention the thousands of smart people working directly on the program, including literal rocket scientists. They had to be either coerced or fooled, and somehow kept quiet for 42 years.

If their faked evidence is so good, why can unlettered random people on the Internet find "anomalies" that escaped trained scientists who specialize in exactly these fields? Even if there was a hoax, that would indicate the random people are simply wrong in declaring these "anomalies" a smoking gun.