Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: bobbypurify

If you look beyond the hoax arguments and take some time to study Apollo, which no hoax believers ever do, and if you examine the crooked and deceptive origins of the hoax theories, it's not hard to arrive at the truth.

Questioning the validity of anything is fine by me, and I reckon it's fine by any of the pro-Apollo people on here, but if you are honestly looking for the truth, and not just trying to bolster already held convictions, then all the information to show that the landings did in fact occur is available to you, as are the refutations to all the hoaxers claims. The real question IMO is whether you are willing to be objective and rational.

The footage looks cheesy, the background in the photos looks like a backdrop, the exercises they were performing on the moon were far from careful, the fact that no independant station had the real live feed from NASA raises some concern, the landing of the LEM, the space inside the LEM wouldn't fit astronauts, the LEM itself looks like a joke, radiation, the FACT that the arguments by pro-apollo on the VAB has been altered many times since 2000, plenty of footage mishaps combined with the photo record that have never been adequately explained, the speed at which control and the astronauts communicated, etc, etc etc...we've all heard what they are.

As you've stated, none of us have been beyond cruising altitude, so when you make a statements like "the footage looks cheesy" this just shows how subjective your views are. You don't know what it's like to be on the moon so how do you know how the footage should look? I could go on but I hope you get my point.

Your stance on this subject is your own business, again if you are honestly looking for the truth it's all there.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I am looking for the truth and we can agree to disagree on whether it's there or not. The cheesy footage is of my opine and I can understand if someone thinks that it appears authentic. That's just a difference of perception. Are you 100% on your convictions of Apollo's record? Meaning, do you leave a 1% of doubt that maybe the Apollo moon project was a fabrication?

a reply to: bobbypurify

Forgetting the things that were your opinion, I was puzzled by things like your reference to radiation. This has been shown numerous times to have been well within acceptable levels and several spacecraft have since confirmed the radiation levels both through the VAB, in space and in the Moon environment. Why does this keep coming up?

originally posted by: bobbypurify

What's amazing to me is that one can't be critical of this event and NOT receive aggressive repremand. None of us have even been higher than a commericial airliner's cruising altitude so we should at least hold back some sentiment as to Apollo's truths. Maybe we didn't go Maybe we're told the science is good with no way of empirically verifying it. It seems a lot of faith is put into the science behind deep space travel.

why would you say alot of faith is put into the science?? hoax believers have their proof in front of their faces but choose to ignore it..

probes are affected by the deep space environment and will fail eventually..

engineers require solid science to design these probes in order to make them last the desired mission length..
if that data is severely understated just as hoax believers would have us all believe those probes would never last the desired mission length so basically if that science is make belief like you are suggesting then every single spacecraft in human history would NOT last as long as they expect..

just because the average joe cant verify the science due to their ability to access the information or their ability to understand it does not invalidate the science used to design every single spacecraft in human history.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Are you 100% on your convictions of Apollo's record?

Completely, utterly, and absolutely.

a reply to: AgentSmith

The arguments have changed much since the early 2000s as to how the Apollo crew traversed through the belts. Allen Bean didn't even know what they were. The only thing the pro apollo side has is NASA data and an email supposedly signed by Van Allen himself. Hmmm? If I'm being critical, this doesn't seem to add up. Oh, and the fact that nobody else has attempted to put a man (and atleast documented it publically) through them. Also, there's plenty of radiation beyond the belts in various forms as well as on the Moon. So, I can either put all of my trust into space agencies or remain critical for the above reasons.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
I've been following this thread and the Jarrah White (closed now) because this subject is so interesting. To me, we haven't been to the moon and I believe the fact that nobody has even been close to replicating America's supposed feat is the clincher. Now, I am not 100% on my beliefs. I'm perfectly content to be proven wrong in due time - it won't happen in this thread as I've read arguments from both sides ad nauseum.

The footage looks cheesy, the background in the photos looks like a backdrop, the exercises they were performing on the moon were far from careful, the fact that no independant station had the real live feed from NASA raises some concern, the landing of the LEM, the space inside the LEM wouldn't fit astronauts, the LEM itself looks like a joke, radiation, the FACT that the arguments by pro-apollo on the VAB has been altered many times since 2000, plenty of footage mishaps combined with the photo record that have never been adequately explained, the speed at which control and the astronauts communicated, etc, etc etc...we've all heard what they are.

A lot of that is opinion, and seemingly opinion based on a lack of actual knowledge, and mostly based on regurgitation of the lack of knowledge of hoax promoting conspiracy websites.

Post something specific and let's discuss that, rather than vague "it looks funny" stuff.

Now, I realize that there will be probably 4 or 5 people who will respond to me, belittle my intelligence (classic propaganda technique), let me know with 100% certainty that I'm wrong and we've been to the moon and NASA's Apollo record is infalliable. This will happen in response to my post. They have to have the last word.

You are wrong, and I don't see why someone who is wrong should be allowed to make statements are incorrect without correction.

What's amazing to me is that one can't be critical of this event and NOT receive aggressive repremand.

You get what you give. Ask polite and intelligent questions and who knows what will happen. I for one, and others here, have for too long been the subject of endless ridicule and abuse by people who frankly wouldn't know where there backside is without a diagram to be overly tolerant.

None of us have even been higher than a commericial airliner's cruising altitude so we should at least hold back some sentiment as to Apollo's truths. Maybe we didn't go Maybe we're told the science is good with no way of empirically verifying it. It seems a lot of faith is put into the science behind deep space travel.

And maybe all the scientist and engineered involved are actually correct. Try considering that

Oh well. That's just how I feel. Great thread and great info and I'm excited to chat with you guys. I just wish this conversation could remain more civil, sans insults, and have both sides admit they don't know the absolute truth and discuss this with the utmost curiousity. Good job, peeps!

I do know the truth. I'll be polite and pleasant to anyone who is the same to me, but I'm not going to admit I'm wrong for the sake of a quiet life.

By all means question something, but asking questions means being prepared to accept the answer. If you decide in advance which answer you want, you aren't asking questions.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

The arguments have changed much since the early 2000s as to how the Apollo crew traversed through the belts.

No, the published trajectories through the belt have always been the same.

Allen Bean didn't even know what they were.

The video that comes from is heavily edited and taken out of context. It is not true that he did not know what they were - he has discussed them.

The only thing the pro apollo side has is NASA data and an email supposedly signed by Van Allen himself.

Not an email, a letter. The other thing is the tonnes of evidence showing that they would not have received a fatal dose, versus no evidence whatsoever that they would.

Hmmm? If I'm being critical, this doesn't seem to add up. Oh, and the fact that nobody else has attempted to put a man (and atleast documented it publically) through them. Also, there's plenty of radiation beyond the belts in various forms as well as on the Moon. So, I can either put all of my trust into space agencies or remain critical for the above reasons.

Or you could do some reading.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You are wrong, and I don't see why someone who is wrong should be allowed to make statements are incorrect without correction.

Wow, okay.

A lot of that is opinion, and seemingly opinion based on a lack of actual knowledge, and mostly based on regurgitation of the lack of knowledge of hoax promoting conspiracy websites.

I think I predicted this.

So, the entire hoax argument is ignorant? That's quite the statment. I'll let others make such declarations because you know what they say about blanket statements and marginallizing

originally posted by: bobbypurify

So, the entire hoax argument is ignorant?

basically yes..

NASA arent making up the science that backs up the Apollo missions that is impossible, you cant fool millions of scientists worldwide on the subjects they are experts in, which is what the hoax believers are suggesting..

if hoax believers think they are fooling the world with fake science then what does that make them??

a reply to: onebigmonkey

What's your proof that interview was heavlily edited? Especially when he asks a question and the response comes immediately after with no cuts. Sounds more like your opinion.

I didn't bring up the trajectory, but I do question it. Of course this is taboo. But, the argument has changed from the pro apollo side as to how they faced the radiation hazards of the belt. I said nothing of "fatal doses". Do you claim it hasn't changed?

I've done plenty of reading and have come to a different conclusion than you. Of course, this means you're smarter than me.

a reply to: choos

IMO, Apollo is a Sacred Cow. There is no questioning of it because it brings your character into discussion. It's like 9/11 and societal constraints do not allow for constructive criticism of said events. Thankfully the internet allows it.

I'll tell you what. You want to be entirely subjective? You seem like a smart fella. Why don't you do an experiment professionally questioning the Apollo record? See how far that gets you. See how quickly you'll be labeled negatively. Then, you may understand why noone speaks out against it.

a reply to: bobbypurify

so engineers are using fake science to design real working spacecrafts that are required to last years?? like i said earlier.. if all the data available is severely understated as hoax believers want us all to believe then why do we have successful probes??

if all the data available is severely understated then every single spacecraft designed by humans would have failed before their expected mission length.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

The arguments have changed much since the early 2000s as to how the Apollo crew traversed through the belts.

Really? I don't believe the publications have changed.

Allen Bean didn't even know what they were.

From a Bart Sibrel video, I enjoyed personally congratulating Buzz for smacking the guy in the head... A few points:

- His videos are usually heavily edited to omit context
- Alan Bean is an Astronaut, not an astrophysicist. In a way, they wouldn't even have to know about it - it's down to the flight dynamics people and the engineers to solve the problem. He's also an old guy now and it was a long time ago. Use it or lose it, if you put anyone on the spot then they forget things. They're not superhuman encyclopaedias. And that's if he actually did forget, I couldn't find a version of the video that wasn't edited and rearranged like Bart's window cut out deception to omit the earlier part of the shot.

The only thing the pro apollo side has is NASA data and an email supposedly signed by Van Allen himself.

And data from from other space missions from space agencies around the world.
In their race to the Moon the Russians sent various probes measuring data such as radiation, they even sent a live payload which orbited the Moon and returned with it's contents still safe and alive. Look up Zond 5.

There are also the results from Chandraayan-1

If you hunt around then there is plenty of data from many missions, though you may have to interpret it yourself rather than it being written up in a paper.

Hmmm? If I'm being critical, this doesn't seem to add up. Oh, and the fact that nobody else has attempted to put a man (and atleast documented it publically) through them.

There has been no need and financial constraints are a problem. Ironically if people like you somehow convinced more people that space exploration is fake it makes it harder to fund and reduces the chances of anything exciting happening soon. Luckily, in reality it appears that this train of thought is still a tiny minority so at the moment it's just the 'normal' battle for funding. Privatisation should help as well.
Our technology allows for risk free and cheaper (no need for them to return) robotic explorers, so that's what's happening at the moment. The Apollo missions were short term with minimal risk, anything in the future is more likely to be long term so there are different factors to consider and overcome.
Look at it this way, you could visit Chernobyl but you probably wouldn't want to set your tent up there.

Also, there's plenty of radiation beyond the belts in various forms as well as on the Moon.

Addressed above, the experiments measured and logged radiation throughout the entire environment.

So, I can either put all of my trust into space agencies or remain critical for the above reasons.

Well space agencies and their scientists are the experts, so it makes more sense to trust them than some idiot online that doesn't know jack about anything relevant.
You can also do a degree, maybe do a home degree in Physics covering general physics, maths, astronomy, cosmology and planetary science modules. You'll understand a lot more and won't have to rely on other's opinions.

a reply to: AgentSmith

I've read what the Zond-5 has done. What's significant about the biological payload and radiation?

But, have a star for your response. Other than the end where you assume my education is lacking, you perfectly responded. See, you seem smart and write eloquently - but, I'd be a fool to assume your education.

a reply to: choos

so engineers are using fake science to design real working spacecrafts that are required to last years?? like i said earlier.. if all the data available is severely understated as hoax believers want us all to believe then why do we have successful probes??

I can't respond to this, buddy. I'm sorry. I never made mention of any of the things you posted and I feel as if I responded, I may be lead into a discussion of which I never intended to be in.

When I went through basic at Ft. Knox, We were still using the M60A3 tanks. Driver's training included using training included using an early Driving Simulator that composed of two rooms. One room had a Driver's Compartment Mockup, built on hydraulic rams to make it move around according to the terrain you are"Driving" on, All viewed on 3 giant screens in front of you. The other room had a Hot Wheels type tank mounted to a little arm, This tank had tiny Cameras, that produced the real time image to the screens in the other room. The Tank was moved along a big table (built much like an elaborate model train set, with buildings, fences, roads, hills, trees, etc) using a system much like a modern CNC machine, or like a giant printer head. It was Expensive and we were promised death if we wrecked the tank into anything on the table... It was crude, but beautifully simple in it's design.

I tell you guys this just as an example. If Uncle Sam will go through this much trouble an expense to teach a DAT(Dumb Ass Tanker) how to drive a tank, I am pretty sure they built a Simulator for everything, and probably a simulator for that simulator. We are talking about going to the moon here, a huge expense that the Taxpayer actually supported, happily.... They practiced A Lot, even if they never really got there...

As far as Disclosure... I agree they Drip Feed us as time goes on, some things are just to big to let out of the bag. I still don't know how I feel when it comes to the Moon. All of the surface images and I mean all of them seem to have tale tale signs of Kubric pioneered filming techniques, that are pushing me to believe that if they did go to the Moon, what they showed the public, was smoke and mirrors, for whatever reason.

a reply to: bobbypurify

you did, you just didnt realise it.. you said:

It seems a lot of faith is put into the science behind deep space travel.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if we are putting our faith into the science that is fake.. then what does that make every single satellite and probe made??

a reply to: wastedown

I feel the same. I'm not convinced but I have my reasons as to why I doubt. Maybe they did go but the astronauts we know of aren't the team that actually went. I don't know. But I have some suspicions just like you. It just doesn't look right, it looks produced.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

I've read what the Zond-5 has done. What's significant about the biological payload and radiation?

They didn't die, and they also had a human dummy with dosimeters. So it shows even in the Soviet experiment the radiation was 'safe'.

But, have a star for your response. Other than the end where you assume my education is lacking, you perfectly responded. See, you seem smart and write eloquently - but, I'd be a fool to assume your education.

I actually wasn't trying to be rude. I offered genuine advice based on my own experience that I thought would help you. I don't doubt you have an excellent education, but you can't be qualified in that field for your radiation comment alone. That's not being rude or even assuming really, as it's an obvious conclusion to make if you were making a genuine comment about it. Perhaps I'm a little to direct, so sorry if you took it the wrong way. It can be hard to tell when I'm just speaking normally (when apparently a bit rude in my manner and directness) or actually trying to be rude (which is when I'm a real dick).

The section below I wrote while you were responding to me, it's not aimed at you specifically but just a general observation from my perspective. I'm pretty direct in what I say and yes I say it as fact, because that's how strongly I feel about it.
I also try and explain why I and others feel the way we do, though I can't speak for other specific people on this forum.

If you learn and understand the relevant science and engineering aspects then the only logical and obvious conclusion is that they went.
There are no 'ifs' or 'buts', the only way it goes towards believing it was a hoax is when you start to remove that knowledge or go into some wild philosophical debate questioning reality like the flat earth people.
From what I can see the only people that try and learn and still don't believe it:

a) Didn't understand what they are trying to learn (which is fine, but they should accept that others do)
b) Have some underlying beliefs (like Sibrel's religious ones) that override anything else
c) Want to make money from the gullible and/or want fame
d) Any combination of the above

Look at this way then - you are an expert in a field and know without a shadow of a doubt it is correct. You know other people in that field and trust them with your lives, you have personally seen evidence. Basically due to many factors, you know it is correct.
Someone comes along who doesn't know about it and claims it's lies. How does that make you feel?
How does it make you feel when you try and correct them but they refuse to listen because some twit on YouTube said it's fake?
How does it make you feel when the person calls you a liar, or a shill. How does it make you feel when the person calls your friend/family/colleagues liars and actors?
Would it make you irritated? Would you get a little bit spikey with people if you had to put up with it daily from a few individuals for years and years?
Even though it drives you round the bend, would you not want to defend yourself and those you care about, as well as the principle of it - especially if it is actually a great achievement for humanity?