Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

Except that at no time has any moon hoaxer been able to show "absolute proof".

Instead, all they have been able to show is:

Speculation.
Ignorance of how science and physics works.
Incorrect guess work.
Wild claims that are always proved wrong.

So please: tell us again how people that believe the moon lands happened are angry because you have absolute proof that they did not?

We are all still waiting for it.....and instead we see the "proof" fall flat on it's face, over and over and over and over again.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity
Indeed.

As each piece of "evidence" that the landings were faked is shot down, the desperation of those who refuse to accept the reality that they occurred deepens. They get sillier and sillier. More and more delusional.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why is it so hard for them to face the actual facts? Why do they have to come up with more and more stupid stuff? What's in it for them?

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: turbonium1

Except that at no time has any moon hoaxer been able to show "absolute proof".

Instead, all they have been able to show is:

Speculation.
Ignorance of how science and physics works.
Incorrect guess work.
Wild claims that are always proved wrong.

So please: tell us again how people that believe the moon lands happened are angry because you have absolute proof that they did not?

We are all still waiting for it.....and instead we see the "proof" fall flat on it's face, over and over and over and over again.

It is very hard, if not impossible to prove a negative.

Proof requires true statements, which are always things that exist. Proving something that does not exist requires proving that it is none of the possible situations.

Does it matter whether we went or not, as long as you are happy to believe we did?

Moon shots are big government public relations.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Proof requires true statements, which are always things that exist. Proving something that does not exist requires proving that it is none of the possible situations.

You mean like the situation in which people did walk on the Moon? Not possible?

Could unicorns have existed? Yes.
Is there evidence they did? No.

Could the Moon landings have occurred? Yes.
Is there evidence that that did? Yes. A whole lot of it.

Tell me, why is it so difficult to believe that it happened? What says that it could not have happened? Nothing. Not a single thing. That's what the hoax believers continue to attempt to come up with and continue to fail at. They continually clutch at straws which, on rudimentary examination, disintegrate. When their errors are pointed out, they ignore the correction. They are the definition of delusional.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Proof requires true statements, which are always things that exist. Proving something that does not exist requires proving that it is none of the possible situations.

You mean like the situation in which people did walk on the Moon? Not possible?

Could unicorns have existed? Yes.
Is there evidence they did? No.

Could the Moon landings have occurred? Yes.
Is there evidence that that did? Yes. A whole lot of it.

Tell me, why is it so difficult to believe that it happened? What says that it could not have happened? Nothing. Not a single thing. That's what the hoax believers continue to attempt to come up with and continue to fail at. They continually clutch at straws which, on rudimentary examination, disintegrate.

I never said it didn't happen. I have said there is no proof other than spoken affirmations.

Like UFO stories. Which could be true.

What results could only have come from a walk on the moon?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I have said there is no proof other than spoken affirmations.

You are confusing "proof" with evidence.
Proof is a subjective term unless you are talking about mathematical proofs. There are literally mountains of evidence that the landings occurred. Physical evidence, documentary evidence, photographic evidence. Only those with an impenetrable confirmation bias can ignore that evidence and continue to attempt to pick away with idiotic claims (like no glove) and to continue after those claims are discredited.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I have said there is no proof other than spoken affirmations.

You are confusing "proof" with evidence.
Proof is a subjective term unless you are talking about mathematical proofs. There are literally mountains of evidence that the landings occurred. Physical evidence, documentary evidence, photographic evidence. Only those with an impenetrable confirmation bias can ignore that evidence and continue to attempt to pick away with idiotic claims (like no glove).

There is no dead body with a bullet hole in it.

Only media.

Why does it matter?

Because it is a socialistic activity, and a precedent for lies.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

There is no dead body with a bullet hole in it.

Huh? In any case, there are Moon rocks and a lot of other stuff.

Because it is a socialistic activity

Really? Seems pretty capitalistic to me. You know who built all the stuff, right? You know, civilian contractors and such. The USSR (arguably socialist) did not seem to have been able to pull it off.

and a precedent for lies.

Like lying needs a "precedent?"

a reply to: Phage

Really? Seems pretty capitalistic to me. You know, civilian contractors and such. The USSR (arguably socialist) did not seem to have been able to pull it off.

The moon shot was privately owned? and turned a profit?

NO. and NO.

The moon shot was not capitalistic, and your assertion is typical of the innocent socialist.

What was the hurry, other than to make the cold war look non-wasteful?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The moon shot was privately owned? and turned a profit?

1) No.
2) Yes. For the contractors involved. Or do you think they did it for free? It is not the business of the government to turn a profit.

The moon shot was not capitalistic, and your assertion is typical of the innocent socialist.

And yet, the corporations which developed the hardware did pretty well for themselves. Or do you think they did it for free?

What was the hurry, other than to make the cold war look non-wasteful?

None. That was the point, pretty much. That we were the masters of space, not the USSR.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: turbonium1

Except that at no time has any moon hoaxer been able to show "absolute proof".

Instead, all they have been able to show is:

Speculation.
Ignorance of how science and physics works.
Incorrect guess work.
Wild claims that are always proved wrong.

So please: tell us again how people that believe the moon lands happened are angry because you have absolute proof that they did not?

We are all still waiting for it.....and instead we see the "proof" fall flat on it's face, over and over and over and over again.

Saying - 'you have absolutely no proof the moon landings were a hoax!', you ##%$!!

The anger comes from internal conflict. If you truly, and honestly, believe that there is no proof of a hoax, then it should NEVER make you angry/emotional to say there is no proof of a hoax.

I've made many specific points on the subject, over the years. There are some on the pro-Apollo side who have debated those points, maturely, and without anger (or not shown it in their replies, at least). Those are the people I respect, and like to debate here.

But there are many, many more replies which are venomous, angry, and such. Some may also discuss the issue, many others do not.

The anger comes from an internal conflict, as I see it. There is no other reason to become so emotional, so angry, at someone who thinks it was a hoax.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

It is very hard, if not impossible to prove a negative.

Proof requires true statements, which are always things that exist. Proving something that does not exist requires proving that it is none of the possible situations.

True. That is why the claim of landing on the moon has to be proven, first. The pro-Apollo side insists it has been proven we landed on the moon, and then say the hoax side has no proof it was a hoax.

Every piece of so-called 'evidence' for the moon landings has been refuted, yet they still consider it proof of the landings.

It is not up to the hoax side to prove there are no landing sites on the moon. It is up to the pro-Apollo side to prove there ARE landing sites on the moon.

They show images from lunar orbit, with undefined little specks and blobs, and say 'that (referring to a little blob) is the LM. And those (tiny little specks) are the astronauts' footprints. They are exactly in the right spots, so these images prove we landed.'

Of course, to claim these images are proof of the landing sites is utterly ridiculous. They are completely unidentifiable, and even if they WERE at the 'right spots', they could be ANYTHING.

So when I ask why NASA has never taken high-resolution, close-up detailed images of the LM, the flag, and so on?..

They say 'Why should they bother? Just because you hoaxers think they should?'

I say, 'No, because they NEED to have such images, to prove they are, indeed, landing sites'

They say 'The spots/bloabs match up to the LM, footprints, etc. exactly. What else do you need?'

I say ' I need to see they ARE what you CLAIM they are'.

They say, 'You wouldn't believe the images were genuine, anyway, so what's the point?'

I say, 'I would need to prove to you that the images were not genuine. I cannot 'believe' they were faked if I have no evidence of them being fake.'

They claim the hoax has no proof, yet they claim little blobs and specks are proof that we landed on the moon..

It's ridiculous.

a reply to: Phage

2) Yes. For the contractors involved. Or do you think they did it for free? It is not the business of the government to turn a profit.

So no,

It is not the business of the government to turn a profit.

The moon shot did not return a profit.

It was done for the glory of the collectivist confiscatory centralized government.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The moon shot did not return a profit.

It did, for the contractors involved. As, to this very day, government contracts provide profits to the contractees. The government made no profit because, as I said, it is not the business of the government to return a profit. It is their business to spend other people's (us) money. In this case it was money well spent. A lot of very good tech resulted.

It was done for the glory of the collectivist confiscatory centralized government.

What was confiscated? What does any of this have to do with whether or not the landings occurred?

In fact, these so-called 'landing site' images prove that we did NOT land on the moon.

Images that are claimed to show the Apollo 15 LM, with disturbed soil around it...

Here's the problem - none of the Apollo 15 lunar surface images show this disturbance of soil around the LM!

Of course, they have dredged up more bs excuses - 'The soil disruption is very subtle, and diffuse. It cannot be seen from close up. It can only be identified from a great distance, such as in orbit.'

Now, the pro-Apollo side needs to prove this is even possible. Because it doesn't make any sense. If you disturb soil over an area like that seen in the images, would you be unable to see it from close up, yet can see it from 50 km altitude?

How can you disturb the soil on the ground, over a 5 km radius, and it still looks no different than the soil beyond the radius, but when you look at it from 50 km altitude, the disturbed soil can be distinctly identified from the soil beyond it?

If you live in the magical Apollo-land...

a reply to: turbonium1

Of course, they have dredged up more bs excuses - 'The soil disruption is very subtle, and diffuse. It cannot be seen from close up. It can only be identified from a great distance, such as in orbit.'

Can you provide a source for that quote?
Or did you make it up?

a reply to: turbonium1

Absolute nonsense.

There are many photographs on the ground that clearly show the footprints and rover tracks disturbing the surface. Your problem is that you are translating "I'm not sure what I'm looking at" to "It isn't there", as well as incorrectly putting words into other people's mouths to try and dismiss what you think their explanation is.

You can even see the disturbance from the LM ascent footage, which matches exactly what you can see from the LRO. You can also see features in the ascent footage within Hadley Rille that are confirmed by Chandrayaan images.

onebigmonkey.com...

It is not a direct quote, it is a paraphrase, which is why I put it in single quoation marks. A direct quote is put in double quotation marks.

The paraphrase originates from someone on another forum, years ago.

This is the main rebuttal I've heard on this issue, so I paraphrased it from memory.

Can you now address the point?

a reply to: turbonium1

This is the main rebuttal I've heard on this issue, so I paraphrased it from memory.

So, you made it up.

Can you now address the point?

I could. But there would be no point.

Mod Edit - Since the OP has been shown to be wrong but continues to change the 'goal posts' regarding evidence or proof, this thread is now moved to the LOL forum where that kind of behavior is acceptable.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Absolute nonsense.

There are many photographs on the ground that clearly show the footprints and rover tracks disturbing the surface. Your problem is that you are translating "I'm not sure what I'm looking at" to "It isn't there", as well as incorrectly putting words into other people's mouths to try and dismiss what you think their explanation is.

You can even see the disturbance from the LM ascent footage, which matches exactly what you can see from the LRO. You can also see features in the ascent footage within Hadley Rille that are confirmed by Chandrayaan images.

onebigmonkey.com...

No, I am referring to the Apollo 15 'soil disturbance', which is seen from lunar orbit, but not seen in any Apollo 15 surface images.

An actual, physical disturbance of soil can be seen from lunar orbit, at the exact location (supposedly) around the LM, from lunar orbit. So, this disturbance should also be identified from the lunar surface, but it is not. In fact, this disturbance would not only be visible from the surface, it would be even more defined from close up.

This is the specific problem which you need to address..