It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF.

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Don't let the title fool you, this thread does not offer proof that the Moon landings were faked, it provides a definition of what evidence would be necessary to prove they were.

Whether or not astronauts landed on the Moon in the last century, or indeed, whether or not human beings have even left the surface of the Earth, is not a scientific question, it is an historical one. Historical methodology uses a number of critical techniques to examine several types of evidence: contemporary documentation, eyewitness accounts, secondary sources, and physical evidence. All of these are cross checked against one another. The reliability of each source is evaluated, and a theory constructed to harmonize them all. As further evidence emerges, such as the discovery of new archives or physical remains, this evidence is incorporated into the theory if it fits, or the theory is altered to accommodate it.

One fallacy that Moon Hoax proponents make is that "if a single detail is wrong or contradictory, the entire narrative must be false." This is a fallacy because documentation is subject to human error. Numbers get miscounted, locations get misidentified. Every few years archaeologists or military historians "discover" where the Battle of Agincourt took place. Just because the battlefield seems to meander across the French countryside from year to year does not dismay historians. There is ample documentation, first hand in some cases, from both French and English sources to confirm that such a battle took place. Furthermore, the course of history would probably have been much different had it not. Likewise, it is no problem that the French and English sources "spin" their narratives to make their knights more virtuous and the other side more treacherous. The body counts were adjusted accordingly.

Another major fallacy is that the burden of proof lies entirely on those who affirm the historical record. This leads to moving goalpost phenomenon. First, they want confirmation from a source that is not NASA. When that is provided, they claim that the source has somehow been corrupted, and want another one.When that is provided, they claim it, too, was faked, and so on. If one wishes to claim that the body of historical evidence is false, the burden of proof falls on the challenger.

There is no point hiding behind an opinion being "plausible." If one believes one's interpretation of events is "plausible," one needs to explain why. Why is it plausible that a country would spend billions designing, building and launching equipment, but not use it for its intended purpose? Why is it plausible that America's geopolitical rivals, the Soviet Union, China, and France, would not expose the fraud? Why is it plausible that the government's internal opponents, like the Union of Concerned Scientists would not expose it? Why is it plausible that thousands of scientists and engineers were unable to detect the imposture? Why is it plausible that they could all be bribed or threatened in order to be silenced? You get the picture.

I consider myself to be objective, and am perfectly willing to consider counter-narratives to the history of the space program. I certainly understand that there was much more cloak and dagger involved than the public was allowed to see: Blue Gemini, MOL, the (still) classified telecommunications and ranging experiments flown on various missions. I'm sure the political narrative was not as clean as it is usually presented. (Ever notice how most of the newly built NASA bases were below the Mason-Dixon line?) The squeaky clean image of the first astronauts is also suspect. There is adequate documentation to make inferences about these "counter-narratives."

But what about the allegation that the lunar landings were somehow "faked." Well, given how much documentation the historical record contains, anyone making that claim has got a lot of work they need to do. They need to provide an equal volume of:

1) Executive Orders authorizing various phases of the deception.

2) Memoranda from government officials and private contractors describing aspects of the hoax.

3) Blueprints for the special sound stages used to fake the film and videos.

4) Technical drawings of the rigging used to simulate reduced/zero gravity.

5) Detailed accounting records showing how the project was paid for.

6) Employment records detailing the names of the thousands of engineers, technicians, and special effects experts employed in the project.

7) The physical remains of the sound stage(s) used.

8) The physical remains of the various props, scale models, etc.

9) Eyewitness accounts by individuals involved in the project.

10) Journal entries detailing employees participation.

11) "Out-takes," hours and hours of film and video that could not be used for one reason or another.

12) Behind the scene film and photographs showing how the production was done.

Provide me with enough of the above, and I will not only be convinced, I will spread the word. I'm not holding my breath.
edit on 1-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Nicely said


I know I have heard others say it, but I firmly believe that if there was any small sliver of a doubt that it really happened the way NASA says it happened, there would be a host of other nations who would throw us under the bus in a heart beat.

I mean think about it, China finds out that it probably actually didn't happen and they now have a small window to be the ACTUAL first?! Or Russia? India? ESA? Sure, there are weird anomalies and a few things that make me wonder, but in no way can I look at the whole picture from both sides and remain rational while saying "we didn't go".

Just no way.

S&F



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
You forgot one :
The binding factor preventing the 10s of thousands of folks that would have known from speaking up . And how it would be enforced for all these years.
Peace



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
You forgot one :
The binding factor preventing the 10s of thousands of folks that would have known from speaking up . And how it would be enforced for all these years.
Peace


Exactly; the hoax proponents have never even been able to produce an alleged "whistle blower!"



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I feel like this is you...and your time is gonna come****



***credit to Robert Plant

-Christosterone



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Another major fallacy is that the burden of proof lies entirely on those who affirm the historical record. This leads to moving goalpost phenomenon. First, they want confirmation from a source that is not NASA. When that is provided, they claim that the source has somehow been corrupted, and want another one.When that is provided, they claim it, too, was faked, and so on. If one wishes to claim that the body of historical evidence is false, the burden of proof falls on the challenger.


Oh, yeah, the "Groundhog Theory." probably should be called Whack-a-Mole. Somebody "demands" a question be answered. It is, definitively, and they pop up out of another hole with an entirely different issue.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think the the type of evidence presented by conspiracy theorists on this is fair game, it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Nice thread. You had me worried there for a second with your thread title. Glad I read on.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Thread Title:
"The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF"

First 18 words:
"Don't let the title fool you, this thread does not offer proof that the Moon landings were faked"

Thank you for setting the perfect example of why NEVER to trust a title here...
...and also, why that is so doggone regrettable.

Have a nice day


...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt

No comment on the actual content of the thread?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: redoubt

No comment on the actual content of the thread?


Go find a book... look at the title. If it draws a degree of interest to see you pull it and flip it open... and then find the initial wording as such?

No. None.

...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I dont think i'll ever be able to get off the fence on this one.

They would have needed to test the equipment out on a mock moon to make sure whatever they put up there would work, so theres an excuse for a lot of things in this respect.

But also, why would they lie about it to their own people and indeed the world? Just to test the waters for future "feats of science" to lie about?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: redoubt

No comment on the actual content of the thread?


He's just pissed he got suckered in. So did I in light of the previous thread suggesting ATS traffic was being driven downward by "the authorities." I thought, "Great! I'll just cite this thread as the real reason ATS traffic is down, because people are tired of BS theories like the Moon Hoax!"

Alas, you got me, so I couldn't as easily pull off my pending post.


And I don't have a problem with that.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
in the cyber industry we tend to call this type of title, "Click bait"



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
What is the meaning of the following quoted statement from your OP? Space launch is easier/cheaper near the equator, from what I understand, but I guess, perhaps not all NASA bases are launch sites, and furthermore, your point seems to have something to do with politics.



(Ever notice how most of the newly built NASA bases were below the Mason-Dixon line?)
a reply to: DJW001



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

What is the meaning of the following quoted statement from your OP? Space launch is easier/cheaper near the equator, from what I understand, but I guess, perhaps not all NASA bases are launch sites, and furthermore, your point seems to have something to do with politics.



(Ever notice how most of the newly built NASA bases were below the Mason-Dixon line?)
a reply to: DJW001



Yes, rather than build launch sites in the Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico, NASA built bases in Florida and Texas. Cape Canaveral was already a test range that was upgraded to a spaceport. LBJ was from Texas. Huntsville, Alabama, became the most important civilian research and development facility. It has been suggested that this was part of a politically motivated southern economic development program. I forget the title of the book, but you can probably find references to it by googling.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01


in the cyber industry we tend to call this type of title, "Click bait"


I prefer to think of it as an eye catching title.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt


Go find a book... look at the title. If it draws a degree of interest to see you pull it and flip it open... and then find the initial wording as such?


If you find the topic interesting, why not join in? For example, can you think of any reason why none of the evidence I have suggested necessary has never been provided?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

What is the meaning of the following quoted statement from your OP? Space launch is easier/cheaper near the equator, from what I understand, but I guess, perhaps not all NASA bases are launch sites, and furthermore, your point seems to have something to do with politics.


It's not politics, it is a technical fact. It's easier and cheaper to launch into space closer to the equator. That's the only reason our major launch site is in Florida. It's as close to the equator we can get and still be in US territory. That's why the EU Space Centre is in Guiana, which is 300 miles north of the equator.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

If someone really wants to prove the moon landings were fack, I ask them to explain one thing to me and I will consider any other "evidence" they may present.

I do not remember the astronauts involved but I have seen the video of the "Galileo test" which was performed on the moon. They astronaut dropped a feather and a hammer at the same time from the same height and they both hit the "ground" at the same time.

This is not the point of my query.

I want to know how they made the hammer fall so slowly, as it does in the video. Did they somehow "cancel" gravity in the area where they were filming for a few minutes?




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join