Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Let's go back to this shall we:

originally posted by: Misinformation

Chandrayaan was headed up by an ex-nasa guy ,

Citations please. Let's see exactly what you mean by that and how it would affect anything.

who just so happens to be expert in cosmic radition & the van allen belts,,

Any references for us? They might answer some questions other anti-science posters have about radiation in the VAB.

the photography of the sites wasn't publicized ahead of time

Why would it be? It did not photograph the sites specifically, nor was it ever intended to do so, it just happened to capture them. The photographic image for Apollo 16's orbital pass is several hundred miles long - it could just as easily have missed it.

& took place on a days when few personnel were around....

And you know this how? This has to be the most ludicrous piece of knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense I've ever come across.

Do please enlighten us as to how you know the operating procedures of the ISRO and how you can be so confident that "few personnel were around". Please tell us what difference this would have made to anything at all.

interesting read that may or may not be related....Chandrayaan & the ISRO Spy case

the foundation of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) that took Chandrayan-1 to the moon

If you think this story is related to your claim to Chandrayaan faking images of Apollo astronaut activity on the off chance that some space enthusiast might just look for them, please enlighten as to how. I'' drop you a hint: it isn't.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Let's go back to this shall we:

originally posted by: Misinformation

Chandrayaan was headed up by an ex-nasa guy ,

Citations please. Let's see exactly what you mean by that and how it would affect anything.

who just so happens to be expert in cosmic radition & the van allen belts,,

Any references for us? They might answer some questions other anti-science posters have about radiation in the VAB.

the photography of the sites wasn't publicized ahead of time

Why would it be? It did not photograph the sites specifically, nor was it ever intended to do so, it just happened to capture them. The photographic image for Apollo 16's orbital pass is several hundred miles long - it could just as easily have missed it.

& took place on a days when few personnel were around....

And you know this how? This has to be the most ludicrous piece of knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense I've ever come across.

Do please enlighten us as to how you know the operating procedures of the ISRO and how you can be so confident that "few personnel were around". Please tell us what difference this would have made to anything at all.

interesting read that may or may not be related....Chandrayaan & the ISRO Spy case

the foundation of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) that took Chandrayan-1 to the moon

If you think this story is related to your claim to Chandrayaan faking images of Apollo astronaut activity on the off chance that some space enthusiast might just look for them, please enlighten as to how. I'' drop you a hint: it isn't.

Looks like he can't dispute the images so he has to attack the scientist. Little does he know many scientists were involved all over the world.

a reply to: jimmyx how did they get all the hardware on the Moon. All 6 landing sites were photographed by Japans Moon orbiter SELENE. Oh thats right Japan is in on the Hoax. There are also prisms left on the moon that universities use that if they calculate right with a laser beam if they hit the prism right the beam is reflected back. The Russians also i am sure monitored our progress to the moon every trip and i am there no one greater that would cry foul than them. When they went to pick up the astronauts from the capsul..how did they do that . i ask you.

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: ignorant_ape

there is a general overwhelming consensus that the Chandrayaan & LRO photography has been compromised,, only the propagandists refuse too admit it due their tendency to project fallacy for public consumption.

No there isn't.

For you and other hoax fetishists the Chandrayaan & LRO photography has to have been "compromised" in order for you to continue on your path of wilful ignorance.

Just like the 'chemtrail' crowd, moon hoax fanatics will widen the radius of their conspiracy circle when needs be, sometimes to encompass the whole of humanity, excluding themselves of course....because they know better, especially after watching a couple of youtube videos on the subject.

The biggest fallacy relating to the moon hoax conspiracy is it's origins, it was created by a small handful of attention seeking charlatans, who are proven liars, and who have been shown to twist facts and deliberately suppress information that doesn't support their idiotic thesis.

You honestly believe that you are the champions of truth when really you are a laughing stock, my sympathies.

a reply to: seabhac-rua
No there isn't.

Researchers , psychologists and social scientists, say data indicates,,, that contrary to the stereotypes the propagandists would have you believe, “moon hoax theorists” appear to be more sane than the propagandists who accept the official version of the moon landing...

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in “moon hoax theory" were not just hostile but fanatically attached to an abstract paradigm & suffered from the cognitive dissonance...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: seabhac-rua
No there isn't.

Researchers , psychologists and social scientists, say data indicates,,, that contrary to the stereotypes the propagandists would have you believe, “moon hoax theorists” appear to be more sane than the propagandists who accept the official version of the moon landing...

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in “moon hoax theory" were not just hostile but fanatically attached to an abstract paradigm & suffered from the cognitive dissonance...

I assume that you're referring to the 'articles' that did the rounds with titles along the lines of 'Conspiracy theorists are shown to be more sane'.

These 'articles' on woowoo sites were based on this paper:

"What about building 7?" A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

And this is what one of the two authors had to say about people like you, the people that wrote the 'articles' and the claims that conspiracy theorists are sane:

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.

The main basis for this misinterpretation appears to be the observed difference in hostility between conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments. On average, conventionalist comments tended to be somewhat more hostile. In the paper, we interpret this difference as the product of a fairly specific social situation in which the two rival opinion-based groups use different strategies of social influence according to their relative popularity, rather than as an inherent psychological difference. In fact, previous research by Marina Abalakina-Paap and colleagues has shown that dispositional hostility is positively, not negatively, correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories - in other words, people who believe more conspiracy theories tend to be more hostile. However, that finding doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion that conventionalists are better-adjusted than conspiracists. Either of these conclusions relies on the unstated premise that hostility is never good or justified, and that less hostility is always better. This is at least an arguable assumption, and there's certainly no evidence for it here.

In general, I would urge anyone who found this paper via the "sanity" article to please think critically about headlines in the future. It is tempting to believe without question self-serving headlines that validate your prejudices and beliefs, but that's precisely when critical thinking is most important.

Emphasis mine..

Congratulations once again on proving you are incapable of fact checking, incapable of independent thought, incapable of critical thinking and suffering from delusions of grandeur.

a reply to: Misinformation

FFS - stop right there :

even if your new claim :

" that hoax believers are more sane "

was true [ i will let agent smith deal with this - as he clearly read the report which you didnt ]

it does not affirm your origional claim :

" there is an overwhelming concensus that the images are comprimised "

so care to ` try again ` and attempt to demonstrate the validity of your alledged " overwhelming concencus " ?????????

originally posted by: Misinformation

Researchers , psychologists and social scientists, say data indicates,,, that contrary to the stereotypes the propagandists would have you believe, “moon hoax theorists” appear to be more sane than the propagandists who accept the official version of the moon landing...

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in “moon hoax theory" were not just hostile but fanatically attached to an abstract paradigm & suffered from the cognitive dissonance...

So, after watching a few youtube videos about the moon hoax, you not only feel more informed than everyone else you also now consider yourself "more sane"?

Hahahahaha. This is why I come here....really.

a reply to: Misinformation

Firstly: sources, or you're making it up.

Secondly, sanity has nothing to do with it. Verifiable scientific fact easily trumps which way round you wear your tinfoil.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: Misinformation

Researchers , psychologists and social scientists, say data indicates,,, that contrary to the stereotypes the propagandists would have you believe, “moon hoax theorists” appear to be more sane than the propagandists who accept the official version of the moon landing...

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in “moon hoax theory" were not just hostile but fanatically attached to an abstract paradigm & suffered from the cognitive dissonance...

So, after watching a few youtube videos about the moon hoax, you not only feel more informed than everyone else you also now consider yourself "more sane"?

Hahahahaha. This is why I come here....really.

Sad isn't it? If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: Misinformation

Researchers , psychologists and social scientists, say data indicates,,, that contrary to the stereotypes the propagandists would have you believe, “moon hoax theorists” appear to be more sane than the propagandists who accept the official version of the moon landing...

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in “moon hoax theory" were not just hostile but fanatically attached to an abstract paradigm & suffered from the cognitive dissonance...

So, after watching a few youtube videos about the moon hoax, you not only feel more informed than everyone else you also now consider yourself "more sane"?

Hahahahaha. This is why I come here....really.

Sad isn't it? If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.

I do feel sorry for them when not irritated by them. But I guess it's not their fault, to be fair we live in a world where a vast amount of the information we're bombarded with is misleading or downright false. And even though most of us have always known it, at last it has become more apparent and open that a lot of institutions and organisations (wherever it's political leaders, intelligence agencies, police forces, etc) have inevitable layers of corruption within them.
Not to mention some of the biggest problems with the media constantly feeding out anything they come across and causing confusion in their efforts to be first with any 'scoops', or the manipulative people that seek to corrupt vulnerable people's already suspicious minds in the name of YouTube videos and page views.
There are a lot of reasons to distrust, but to be able to filter through this one needs the experience and the intellect to see through it.

I guess to people without any engineering or scientific backgrounds it must all look quite magical and daunting to them, so it's not very difficult to convince them something may be false. Practically like magic to them I imagine, like taking a mobile phone into an Amazonian tribe. I forget sometimes that some people only have rudimentary analytical skills and will have been led astray by people as corrupt and selfish as the types of people they fear that have been exposed. All we can do is keep trying to educate people, but as they say you can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

I guess to people without any engineering or scientific backgrounds it must all look quite magical and daunting to them, so it's not very difficult to convince them something may be false. Practically like magic to them I imagine, like taking a mobile phone into an Amazonian tribe. I forget sometimes that some people only have rudimentary analytical skills and will have been led astray by people as corrupt and selfish as the types of people they fear that have been exposed. All we can do is keep trying to educate people, but as they say you can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.

The thing I see a lot on social media these days, and hear with my own ears, is a perceived gulf between what I hear people, especially conspiracy prone people, call the "intellectual elite" and "ordinary people". A lot of these people don't personally know anyone who has a third level education or who works in an academic or scientific environment. They are suspicious, in an almost Monty Python way, of "scientists" etc.

Check out "Christians Against Dinosaurs" for a good example of this tomfoolery, they contend that all palaeontologists are in on a big scam and make dino fossils out of rocks and putty in order to perpetuate this lie.

Science is under renewed attack, not only from religious fundamentalist, but now from this growing demographic of conspiracy obsessed troglodytes, who come at it from a different angle but are essentially the same as the religious people in the sense that they have abandoned reason in order to confirm and perpetuate their convictions, they even proselytise like the religious fundies.

For many, though by no means all, people interested in "conspiracy theories" we are dealing with a belief system, which paradoxically, has absolutely nothing to do with the search for the truth. I personally find this funny, sad and scary.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

so care to ` try again ` and attempt to demonstrate the validity of your alledged " overwhelming concencus " ?????????

let me try...it's sort of the same when AGW people pass on the old 97 % of world scientists agree on man made climate change...when in reality...study only interviewed around 1300 people. But 97 % of world scientists sounds way better.

Same here I reckon. There is a multitude of people that think photos are "compromised"...one way of the other. It's hardly overwhelming...like those 97 %...but if you were to interview solely among the conspiracy folk...than you would probably get something like 80-90 %

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: ignorant_ape

...but if you were to interview solely among the conspiracy folk...than you would probably get something like 80-90 %

Which doesn't bode well for the contention that people who believe in conspiracy theories are "more sane" that the rest of the populace.

All your assertion demonstrates is that we would "probably get something like 80-90 %" who don't bother to examine something like Apollo with an objective and rational attitude. Not surprising really, as it is quite evident that around 99% of moon hoax theorists know very little about the Apollo program, its relevant technologies and the history of that period.

Again, the sources of the moon hoax theories rarely if ever come under the scrutiny of hoax theorists, just like religious people never question the origins of their belief systems.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

Same here I reckon. There is a multitude of people that think photos are "compromised"...one way of the other. It's hardly overwhelming...like those 97 %...but if you were to interview solely among the conspiracy folk...than you would probably get something like 80-90 %

There's the problem. Asking people what they think only reveals their opinion, and too often opinion is taken as fact, despite that opinion having no basis in fact, or knowledge, or understanding. That opinion is, more often than not, dictated by a belief system that prefers not to have to think too hard and is happy to take whatever sugary youtube pill someone who looks and talks like them feeds them.

It wouldn't matter if 99.9% of people believed that the landings were faked, there isn't one piece of evidence that proves they were, and no matter which angle you take to examine Apollo data and material every single piece of it supports the fact that the landings happened exactly has described.

originally posted by: choos

you are confusing long term mission shielding with short term mission shielding of HUMANS..
and lumping it all together with what this guy is saying about shielding the ELECTRONICS onboard Orion..

you even realised he is talking about shielding the electronics.. and now you are trying to twist in what they say about long term missions??

do you know what one extremely effective "shield" against radiation is?? exposure time..

You claim there is an exception for short missions, of up to 7 days maximum, right?

And it is your burden to try and prove this claim, right?


You've seen the documents on aluminum. They confirm - aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield for the deep space environment, it actually makes GCR radiation more hazardous to a crew than before!

That is a fact.

But you still keep claiming that aluminum is adequate shielding, for a crew in deep space...

You claim it is adequate for short stays in deep space, of up to 7 days, maximum.


Huge problem - their documents don't support a lick of your argument, whatsoever !

No exceptions are mentioned in their documents, for any missions, for any duration.

For sure, the experts all knew Apollo is considered an exception to this, just as you consider it now.

They don't consider it an exception, and that's the reason they don't mention it.

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax

Too Much Cargo

Richard Hoagland details Chinese lunar mission

The NASA Apollo program was named after mythology and the Chinese Chang'e program is named after mythology.

originally posted by: LA1IMPALA
Do the moon hoaxers also think the Earth is flat?

If we never went to the moon how did all the hardware get up there? One of the 6 landings they left prisms on the surface that universities hit with lasers. If their calculations are right the beam comes back. Japan's orbiter photographed all 6 of the landing sights. Oh right Japan is in on it too right. We have also photographed the landing sights. If we faked it, why 6. Why not just one and "we did it". I would think with every new hoaxed landing the chances would go up of someone sneaking their own pictures out. Or just blabing what they know which remarkedly has never happened. I have never heard one individual come forward and say i witnessed the moon landing Hoax. You know why. B/C we landed on the moon all 6 times. Dont you think the Russians tracked and monitored our trips to the Moon they of all people would have exposed America if we had faked the moon landings.

The Apollo landing sites don't exist, so "all the hardware" supposedly left at the sites never existed, obviously.

If reflectors really are on the lunar surface, unmanned craft would have placed them there.

Why hoax more landings? We can only speculate. You think they'd hoax just one landing, as their chances of being caught would only go up by hoaxing multiple landings..

I think it's less risky to hoax other landings, for one, being more experienced in hoaxing it.

Money is certainly enough reason, alone, to keep it going, that's for sure.


And I've explained the Soviets ignored JFK's assassination, earlier, thus proving how evil enemies can often be really nice guys, right?!??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I've seen that before and it's complete BS. The guy who did the calculations neglected to mention, or kind of forgot to think about, the fact that the stated cubic capacity of the Command Module is after all the equipment he lists is put in, not before as the video implies.

Hundreds of people saw each Command Module land and the contents removed.