Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Thank you for proving our point for us regarding "the 400,000" being relevant.

Clearly, the presence of 400,000 scientists, engineers, technicians etc who worked on the technology and testify to its reality:

(a) makes the fact that the the technology was real "more probable than it would be without the evidence", and

(b) the fact that the technology was real is clearly "of consequence in determining" that Apollo was genuine.

You said which "rules" you would be using, so stick to them. The rules don't only apply when you want them to apply, I'm afraid, except in the little courtroom in your head.

Hey Sayonara, I really do sympathise with people who think the moon mission was a hoax. I too thought it was a strong possibility for a few months, many years ago. There are people with some seemingly convincing evidence that it was hoaxed. But if you take each idea from the hoax advocates, and subject them to proper, rigorous study, it becomes apparent that each and every idea which supposedly points towards the missions being hoaxed are false. There isn't one, tiny piece of evidence that there was a hoax.

The handful of people who have become famous on the internet as hoax advocates are all ignorant of many basic facts. If you read their material without looking for yourself at other sources of information, it seems like there are strong arguments for there having been a hoax. I know, I was quite convinced when I first encountered the moon hoax websites. But, I found that if you go outside of these sources and check all of their so called facts the entirety of their arguments break down. And break down completely.

What I'm trying to say is just; check the facts. Go through each fact and check it with information outside of the moon hoax websites. Write a list of facts that you believe and go through it, one by one. See how they stand up. You will be surprised.

reply to post by mrwiffler


He's at the point where he thinks the moon landing sites are there but were faked by tiny bouncing robots. I doubt he's got the faculties to assess those facts with a balanced analytical eye.

Rob48
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Thank you for proving our point for us regarding "the 400,000" being relevant.

Clearly, the presence of 400,000 scientists, engineers, technicians etc who worked on the technology and testify to its reality:

(a) makes the fact that the the technology was real "more probable than it would be without the evidence", and

(b) the fact that the technology was real is clearly "of consequence in determining" that Apollo was genuine.

You said which "rules" you would be using, so stick to them. The rules don't only apply when you want them to apply, I'm afraid, except in the little courtroom in your head.

Ladies & Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,

Please refer to the FRE because Apollo Defenders need to adhere to these standard rules of evidence. In this example, these expert testimonies are limited to the area of expertise. The 400,000 engineer/scientists, expert witnesses, are still subject to cross-examination. Those are the rules.

What it also means is the Apollo Defenders want to bring in 400,000 different experts to offer opinions on the "moon landings". Still there is no controversy in the opinion that the hardware was built or launched into low earth orbit. Therefore, when, in fact, there were only 24 "moon men" I would argue that 399,976 of the expert witnesses don't need to be called into play because nobody in this thread has seriously ever doubted that Nazi rocket scientists, the Pentagon, NASA, or it's contractors, engineered built and launched all those Saturn missiles, Apollo components and modules for NASA and by direct order from the President of the United States.

I think at this juncture it should be required for the Apollo Defenders to stipulate who the 24 expert witnesses will be.

TL;DR The "expert opinions of 400,000" (aka the 400K Fallacy) are not relevant to the issue of the major controversy of "moon landings" or "identifying the photographers of the Apollo 12 70mm Hasselblad catalog".



RULE 705. DISCLOSING THE FACTS OR DATA UNDERLYING AN EXPERT

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion — and give the reasons for it — without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And when are you going to apply your rules of evidence to yourself? Or are they only convenient when talking about people that believe in Apollo?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I believe you raise an interesting point about the "400k Fallacy". I work for a large corporation but I hardly know the inner-workings of the stock holders or those at the top with the mahogany offices. That doesn't stop me from being an expert of the product I sell, because I am - but if they were to pull off some type of sham, I could easily be fooled and I'd probably sell the idea as I'm told to (unknowing that I'm being deceitful to my customer base).

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Are we still playing this stupid game of pretending an internet discussion is some sort of legal procress?

I have heard in person the expert witness testimony of 3 of the 24 astronauts who went to the moon. I can confirm they are extremely knowledgeable in their field of expertise.

If at any point you would like to nominate an expert witness (because you clearly aren't one) feel free to do so.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Unfortunately his expert witnesses are mostly long dead.

Quite what he thinks Howard Hughes was doing for Apollo, I don't know. From what I've read, Hughes spent most of the late 1960s sitting in a hotel room watching movies in his underpants.


(PS, Mr Jupiter, this was an exaggeration for comic effect, and not intended as an expert testimony...)

Plenty of these experts were fooled by Zond 5 transmissions thinking that they were manned-missions. They just transmitted the messages from the craft and many on the ground thought they were coming directly from Zond. Hypothetically, they could have done the same to the experts with Apollo. They may be intelligent and hold a high IQ - but they aren't impervious to being fooled and combined with their pride can be the ultimate wool over their eyes.

cestrup
Plenty of these experts were fooled by Zond 5 transmissions thinking that they were manned-missions. They just transmitted the messages from the craft and many on the ground thought they were coming directly from Zond. Hypothetically, they could have done the same to the experts with Apollo. They may be intelligent and hold a high IQ - but they aren't impervious to being fooled and combined with their pride can be the ultimate wool over their eyes.

Hypothetically. Lots of things are hypothetical.

Its also hypothetical that people really went to the Moon. However, there is a lot of strong evidence that supports the "we really went to the moon" hypothesis, but much weaker evidence in support of the "it could have been hoaxed" hypothesis.

cestrup
Plenty of these experts were fooled by Zond 5 transmissions thinking that they were manned-missions. They just transmitted the messages from the craft and many on the ground thought they were coming directly from Zond. Hypothetically, they could have done the same to the experts with Apollo. They may be intelligent and hold a high IQ - but they aren't impervious to being fooled and combined with their pride can be the ultimate wool over their eyes.

Really? News reports from the time show otherwise and more importantly they could back that up with evidence.

news.google.com...,12417

www.svengrahn.pp.se...

books.google.co.uk... =en&sa=X&ei=LSJQU4XZNMje7AbH9YGwBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Zond%205%20transmissions&f=false

What Zond 5 did contain was a biological payload that proved quite convincingly that space radiation was not instantly fatal.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Indeed, Zond is actually more evidence that you couldn't fake a lunar mission (or, conversely, launch one without anybody noticing), because independent observers were watching:



The Soviets initially denied it, but Jodrell Bank knew what they had seen.

A couple of days later, Moscow came clean:

Soylent Green Is People

cestrup
Plenty of these experts were fooled by Zond 5 transmissions thinking that they were manned-missions. They just transmitted the messages from the craft and many on the ground thought they were coming directly from Zond. Hypothetically, they could have done the same to the experts with Apollo. They may be intelligent and hold a high IQ - but they aren't impervious to being fooled and combined with their pride can be the ultimate wool over their eyes.

Hypothetically. Lots of things are hypothetical.

Its also hypothetical that people really went to the Moon. However, there is a lot of strong evidence that supports the "we really went to the moon" hypothesis, but much weaker evidence in support of the "it could have been hoaxed" hypothesis.

I am in complete agreement that people could have walked on the moon. I'm also not closed off to Apollo being an elaborate production. Honestly, every proof I've seen from the defender side has mostly been controlled by NASA and could easily been manipulated by using just a little of an imagination. I'm not 100% either way but I'm leaning towards hoax. The footage of them on the moon being the tie breaker.

cestrup
The footage of them on the moon being the tie breaker.

If we're using that as a tiebreaker, then how the blue blazes was this clip filmed anywhere other than on the moon? Just how big was that one-sixth gravity studio? (Clip starts from about 3:10)

reply to post by Rob48


For one, I never discussed anything about a studio with 1/6 the earth's gravity. Ha, you can't pin that on me. Secondly, it cuts to him driving the rover nor does that video ever show him getting off of the rover. Devils advocate here - but there's plenty of ways movie magic could have handled that scene. If this were an elaborate hoax, I don't think they would be limited to one studio. Nor would the studio have to be at 1/6 gravity. The scenes of them hopping around look nothing more than men on a harness and slowed film IMO.

cestrup
reply to post by Rob48

 

For one, I never discussed anything about a studio with 1/6 the earth's gravity. Ha, you can't pin that on me. Secondly, it cuts to him driving the rover nor does that video ever show him getting off of the rover. Devils advocate here - but there's plenty of ways movie magic could have handled that scene. If this were an elaborate hoax, I don't think they would be limited to one studio. Nor would the studio have to be at 1/6 gravity. The scenes of them hopping around look nothing more than men on a harness and slowed film IMO.

Well please explain this using your best physics!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


That film is of very poor quality. So much so, that it's hard for me to determine much. The moving piece appears to be in slow motion IMO. Much as everything else I've seen from the footage. I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to wow you with any math. What am I supposed to take from this film? I suppose I'm supposed to calculate something but that's rather hard when I don't know the weight nor the size of the objects moving.

PS - at work and had to watch without sound.

reply to post by cestrup

Weight (or rather mass) doesn't affect the period of a pendulum. All that matters is the length, and the strength of gravity. You can eyeball the length by comparing it to the astronauts or the LM. Clearly it is very roughly about 1 metre, i.e. a "seconds pendulum" (1 second in each direction). But the period is much longer than 2 seconds. And the astronauts are moving at normal speed, so the film hasn't been slowed down.

As you know, T = 2π sqr(L/g).

So for a given length L, the only way to increase the period T is to decrease the value of g. The film cannot have been shot under Earth gravity.

QED.

a reply to: Rob48


thanks for the clarification, dude! I was having a little trouble trying to figure out (due to the resolution) what I was intended to look at.

originally posted by: Rob48
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Unfortunately his expert witnesses are mostly long dead.

Quite what he thinks Howard Hughes was doing for Apollo, I don't know. From what I've read, Hughes spent most of the late 1960s sitting in a hotel room watching movies in his underpants.

(PS, Mr Jupiter, this was an exaggeration for comic effect, and not intended as an expert testimony...)

Yes, I can take a joke.

Would you be surprised to find out that nearly all the Hughes insanity stories are directly from his *highly paid* Mormon entourage in the Hughes organization? It's kind of hard to find 'expert witnesses' to the real state of Hughes' health because of the fact that everyone around him was being paid exorbitant amounts of money to perform mundane personal assistant chores for Hughes.

On the other hand, would you be surprised to find out that the U.S. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Nicaragua, Turner B. Shelton, (appointed by Richard Nixon himself, natch) met with Howard Hughes face to face, at the Managua Airport in 1972, and it was reported in the papers,

"He looks extremely well! His handshake was strong! His health seems to be good. He was wearing a short beard that covers his face and build into a Van Dyke on his chin. His hair is cut short. It's sort of gray and black - salt and pepper."

Who are you going to believe? The Hughes Mafia or a U.S. Ambassador?