What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

[Bob Watson]

Still looking for clues in his movies? Is the walrus Paul? I buried Paul. So is truth found in a movie? Or a record cover?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[SPX]

Still looking for clues in his movies?

Ha, I'm sure I'll get bored with it pretty soon. But the subject is still fun for now.

You know, this thread set in motion a series of events that actually lead to my watching 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time a couple of nights ago. It's interesting how things work out like that at times.

 

[boomerang]

Great poetry and visual art have a way of conveying thoughts and feelings on multiple levels. It's that 'deeper meaning' thing.

For instance--I've always wondered if the Beatles song "I Am The Walrus" as about nuclear and economic holocaust. Whaaaa?, you say.
The lyrics are replete with images of mass death and economic collapse.

"I am the egg man." Egg has at times been used as slang for nuclear warheads.
"They are the egg men." It takes more than one person to launch a nuclear weapon.
"If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain". A tan (burn) from what?
"....waiting for the van to come..." The vanguard of war is approaching.
"Corporation T-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday..." The great stock market crash of 1929 occurred on what has become known as "Black Tuesday".

Or maybe this is all so much personal BS. But the point is that real poetry has a way of connecting with the subconscious mind. Even when the words make no literal sense.

 

[marduk]

Well, I agree that we should remain skeptical. But at the same time, as the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. So I also think it's important to remain open-minded, even to outlandish ideas.

Even when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

When does being open minded cross over into blind faith?

 

[SPX]

Even when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I have seen cases before, both in history and in my personal life, where the thing that was "obviously false" ended up being true. Like I said, I'm pretty sure we went to the moon. I also think 9/11 was exactly what it appears to be.

But I have heard enough interesting arguments to the contrary that in good conscience I have to leave a 3% chance open that I am wrong.

When does being open minded cross over into blind faith?

Well blind faith would indicate that there's an actual belief in play. I am only talking about being open to possibilities and avoiding absolute certainty.

 

[marduk]

I have seen cases before, both in history and in my personal life, where the thing that was "obviously false" ended up being true. Like I said, I'm pretty sure we went to the moon. I also think 9/11 was exactly what it appears to be.

But I have heard enough interesting arguments to the contrary that in good conscience I have to leave a 3% chance open that I am wrong.




Well blind faith would indicate that there's an actual belief in play. I am only talking about being open to possibilities and avoiding absolute certainty.

Ah, OK, I'm with you then.

Open to new evidence but also open to looking at things with a critical eye.

 

[Charlie Prime]

An easy test to show people have been there. The reflectors are still there, exactly where they should be

Your standards of evidence are too low. The Soviet Union put laser reflectors on the moon. This fact does not prove their astronauts visited the Moon in person.

I wish someone would explain why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

 

[marduk]

Your standards of evidence are too low. The Soviet Union put laser reflectors on the moon. This fact does not prove their astronauts visited the Moon in person.

I wish someone would explain why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

Baloney.

If you aim a laser at the moon, it spreads to a 7-10km radius on the lunar surface.

We pointed it at an apollo site.

Or are you saying the Soviets put a reflector on the American site? Because we were such good buddies at the time?

Which would also be baloney -- it's been verified with selene, etc data.

And let's follow the evidence chain:

1. inventory of launch vehicles taken including crew capsule, reflectors, life support, and crew
2. videos of astronauts getting into vehicle
3. 3rd party (including soviet) telemetry tracking of vehicle's launch, cruise, lunar orbital insertion, and LEM landing
4. video of said LEM landing, astronauts getting out, and setting up reflectors
5. independent (probably 10s of thousands of runs) of using the reflectors world-wide... right where they said it was
6. independent non-NASA evidence for footprints, LRV tracks, and (verbal at least) confirmation of imagery of LEM equipment still there... right where they said it was
7. lots of these astronauts are still alive and have never said anything to the contrary

That's my evidence chain.

Vs a patently ridiculous DVD and photos that are ALL explainable.

Your standards of fakery "evidence" is too low and moves into the realm of blind faith and wishful thinking.

No-one can explain why NASA faked the moon landing photos in your post because they didn't.

 

[Charlie Prime]

The Soviet Union put laser reflectors on the moon. This fact does not prove their astronauts visited the Moon in person.

I wish you would explain why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

I suspect you didn't even watch the DVDs before posting here.

 

[Bob Watson]

If photos were faked..it was to cover up alien presence

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[SPX]

The Soviet Union put laser reflectors on the moon. This fact does not prove their astronauts visited the Moon in person.

I wish you would explain why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

I suspect you didn't even watch the DVDs before posting here.

The analysis presented in the videos was certainly interesting, but you seem a little TOO sure that there aren't logical counter-arguments. After all, there has been a lot of evidence presented in the past that seemed perfectly damning on the surface but that didn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[SPX]

If photos were faked..it was to cover up alien presence

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Well that's always a possibility. I guess we'll find out when private enterprise finally gets there.

 

[marduk]

I'd be shocked if we didn't eventually find something weird on the moon from either ET's or a previous terrestrial civilization.

There's basically no erosion. The footprints, etc we leave there will essentially stay forever until they're covered by meteor impacts or ejecta, or the sun swells into a red dwarf and bakes it into slag.

Mankind could die off tomorrow, and intelligent cockroaches could evolve in 10-50 million years, get to the moon, and probably still see the footprints clear as day.

However, I'd be equally shocked if NASA were covering anything up like finding stuff there. I mean, if we had, you'd think we'd have a moonbase there by now with $trillion funding for NASA. We really didn't cover much exploration of the moon with the Apollo missions by hand. The entire range of the Apollo 11 mission would barely cover a soccer pitch.
How much of the Moon's surface did the Apollo 11 astronauts actually explore?

I don't buy the "we were warned off the moon" at all, given that non-NASA missions have gone there in spades.

 

[flipper]

Well that's always a possibility. I guess we'll find out when private enterprise finally gets there.

When private enterprise gets there they will own the moon and we will know less than we do now.

 

[Charlie Prime]

The analysis presented in the videos was certainly interesting, but you seem a little TOO sure that there aren't logical counter-arguments.

I never said there aren't logical counter arguments. I'm requesting them. I'm a skeptic. That's the point of this thread.

As is typical among fake skeptics like Marduk, they ignore the issue, construct Strawmen to attack, and engage in Ad Hominem.

Notice that in 94 posts on this thread no explanation has been offered as to why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

 

[marduk]

I'm no fake skeptic and I'm no debunker. I'm a fairly well educated person who's experienced enough strangeness to know something's up, but I am also unwilling to give up the logic centers of my mind in order to "believe."

I can't find a single ad hominem attacks in any of my arguments.

At the same time, I'm also not willing to run on the hamster wheel for you or anyone else when endless "evidence" is thrown about and the minute a debate happens, a new piece of "evidence" is trotted out.

BTW: the start of the "Analysis of the Lunar Photography" with the lunar flag blowing in the wind has been demonstrated in vacuum chambers already, so that's not evidence.

At 12:01 the "flap" video "discontinuity" I can see the top of the flap poking up from the pack. The pack was quite deep.

At 15:58 I don't see any "transparency" flipped over the window.

And on and on ad infinitum...

And in fact, your entire argument is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy (onus probandi) - by definition you posit that your argument is true and I must prove it false for it to not be so.

 

[SPX]

I never said there aren't logical counter arguments. I'm requesting them. I'm a skeptic. That's the point of this thread.

As is typical among fake skeptics like Marduk, they ignore the issue, construct Strawmen to attack, and engage in Ad Hominem.

Notice that in 94 posts on this thread no explanation has been offered as to why NASA faked the moon landing photos as described in the DVDs in my first post.

In one sentence you say you're a skeptic and that you're not saying there aren't logical counter-arguments, but in another sentence in the very same post you say "no explanation has been offered as to why NASA faked the moon landing photos."

This indicates that you do believe they WERE faked. Not that they could have been, but that they were. That's not skepticism. That's taking a definitive stance in favor of the viewpoint that yes, NASA faked the moon landing photos.

 

[SPX]

And in fact, your entire argument is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy (onus probandi) - by definition you posit that your argument is true and I must prove it false for it to not be so.

I believe he feels like the evidence offered in the videos is strong enough to establish that the moon landing was faked, and therefore that's the new and obvious truth. Hence, the burden of proof is now on you, because you are on the weaker side of the argument.

Not saying I agree. But that seems to be his viewpoint here.

 

[Charlie Prime]

NASA asserts the photos are genuine. The evidence in the DVDs makes me skeptical of that assertion.

 

[Trystero]

Here ya go:

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 1