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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence of anything other than sloppy handling?


it's not evidence...but one can equally argue they came from Moon ejected rocks on Earth...hence the contamination.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   

a reply to: DJW001
Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence

thats exactly the point ..



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: DJW001
Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence

thats exactly the point ..



So your evidence that the entire lunar exploration program is a sham is that some government employees can be lax? Haven't you just provided evidence that if it were a hoax it would be so sloppy that there would be all sorts of leaks?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


it's not evidence...but one can equally argue they came from Moon ejected rocks on Earth...hence the contamination.


How would anyone know what Moon rocks are supposed to be like? Prior to Apollo 11, many scientists thought tektites were lunar ejecta. As I have pointed out, both the United States and the Soviet Union returned samples from the Moon. I have documented that they exchanged. The samples were independently analyzed by scientists from the Cold War rivals and the samples' provenance confirmed.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Do you understand what I have done? I found a contemporary source that documented the exchange, then found a publication that contains the analysis I mention. That's all you have to do to provide valid historical evidence. Why do some people find this so difficult?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


DJW I can't believe you still have problems understanding the concept of historical revisionism.


Thank you for being up front about your revisionism. Here is an actual definition of the sort you practice so the uninitiated can understand the way you are trying to manipulate them:


Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism. This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism.

In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).


en.wikipedia.org...(negationism)

Now, read what proper revisionism is:


History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time.


Note the importance of the word "evidence." This thread is about what constitutes evidence. You have never submitted anything that meets a reasonable definition of evidence. You do, however, invent ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents and attribute conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite. (Funny how you stopped quoting "After Apollo" when I got my own copy.)



Here is the perfect example of your misunderstanding :


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.


Mis-labeling your opponents and constructing a straw man out of thin air by trying to shoehorn all of your potential rivals into a one-size-fits-all is totally unacceptable.


Where did I say all Moon Hoax proponents? You are the one creating a straw man by claiming I am trying to "shoehorn all of [my] potential rivals into a one-size-fits all.


Then you say that "documentation is subject to human error"; however, when it comes to Apollo documentation, don't you usually insist that NASA is to be accepted as a source of immutable truth?


Nope; in fact, I have even pointed out a few occasions when they have lied, and why. For example, they downplayed Bormann's illness on Apollo 8 because there was not much they could do about it. They have been known to cover up astronaut indiscretions. They are not always honest about the politics behind their policies. Once again, you're creating the strawman, not I.


They (Moon Hoax proponents) need to provide an equal volume of: list of 12 crazy things you want


What's crazy about, examining Executive Orders authorizing various phases of the deception?

What's crazy about reviewing memoranda from government officials and private contractors describing aspects of the hoax?

What's crazy about evaluating blueprints for the special sound stages used to fake the film and videos?

What's crazy about looking at the technical drawings of the rigging used to simulate reduced/zero gravity?

What's crazy about wanting check out detailed accounting records showing how the project was paid for?

Do I need to go on? I know you're not going to answer, you're going to change the subject.


What? That's not how historical revisionism works at all.


You mean that's not how your brand of revisionism works. You are a denialist, and are afraid of facts. Each of the requests I made would be evidence. They could establish a fact. You have no evidence, and therefore no facts. Note that true revisionism is about the interpretation of facts.


As an Apollo Reviewer I have no obligation whatsoever to meet your demands for an "equal volume" of what tends to amount to self-incriminating conspiracy paperwork. You would be asking for lots of papers from the Nixon era - an era of secrecy, bribery, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.


What makes you immune from the obligation that every other genuine historian has? Invoking Nixon excuses nothing. For all his secretiveness, the Nixon Tapes came to light. They mention Watergate, but not the Moon Hoax. Why is that?


And while I commend you for taking on the inglorious task of this thread and bringing with you the methodology of critical historical analysis - you should dive even further into the murky depths.


It's a pity you won't join me. Genuine historical investigation is even more fun than making things up.


Did you know there is more than one kind of historical method?


Yes; there is an entire field called historiography. One thing that most approaches to history share is the need for evidence to establish facts.


There are 3 different methods according to Nietzsche: the monumental, the antiquarian and the critical.


And there are two types of philosophy, the Dionysian and the Apollonian. Did you know that Nietzsche was insane?


The critical method is a revisionist method that the first two methods will not actually tolerate for long because it represents a threat - the first two often will try to obliterate the third method. This can be seen in every Apollo thread when anyone makes the sophomore mistake of lumping all "Apollo Hoax proponents" into a single category of opposition.... which is exactly what you have already done.


The problem being: I didn't do that. That is a strawman of your creation. I hope everyone keeps that in mind.

Since I am approaching the character limit, I will simply point out that your two arbitrary examples are perfect illustrations of "inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents and attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite."


However, as an Apollo Reviewer (a critical method revisionist), these are only two prime examples why the monumental and antiquarian methods are not sufficient for Apollo, that Apollo deserves the critical treatment, and there is no escaping it... the Apollo narratives have serious problems.


Ironically, it is the critical method I outlined in the OP, and you have thoroughly rejected it.
edit on 2-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Curious69


Yes thats kind of my point, besides those who would want to fool somebody to belive the moonlandings could also make up the composition of moon rock,


How would they know what Moon rock was made of? Remember, the Soviets brought back their own soil samples. The US and USSR exchanged samples and the results matched.



Moon dust.





Lunar samples being exchanged.

There is documentary evidence that the US and USSR confirmed each other's claims. Where is the evidence that either one faked it?


Good point, and precisely how would YOU know? for any such scam to work both nations would have to be in on the deception. and i think that is a very possible scenario, the bad relationship between usa and ussr was just a front to decieve you and me.
Its a game of control of the masses very much in both superpowers interrest. follow the money!



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Good find! dont trust any government, their foremost interrests are control of the masses, by any means possible.
Lying and deception are the softest weapons in their toolbox.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Curious69

Why did they stop? Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Never mind, that's way off topic.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Well did it just stop or did they just change the brand name?
My point is that its in both nations interrest not to humiliate each other. the russians for the sake of pride and probaganda and for the americans a place to make money dissapear and control the paranoia of the masses for the big bad bear.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Curious69

Actually, there is a massive propaganda campaign going on in Russia to deny the Moon landings ever happened. The Soviets admitted it was for real, Putin's Russia is being revisionist. (The bad kind.)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I dont buy that. the masses just got acces to the internet just like you and me, and like us they have opinions about possible conspiracies, you can find the most outragious opinions and content on russian websites, that would never have happened in ussr times, the russians do not have censorship on the web like communist china, but both russia and usa governments use very simular tactics to influence opinion on the web, naturally europa and china are players in the same game.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Sure, it would make sense if the first moon landing has been staged, but why the rest? And why even bother staging them? What's the point, when only the first one had a world attention while the rest didn't had much attention even on national level, not to mention worlds?

Doesn't make sense



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Curious69

Actually, there is a massive propaganda campaign going on in Russia to deny the Moon landings ever happened. The Soviets admitted it was for real, Putin's Russia is being revisionist. (The bad kind.)


Once again you blame everything that is taking place in Russia on Putin, and you twist the perspective so that everyone can have a shot of your anti-russianism ... but what the Russians actually want to do is put an end to the endless debate (something that this thread will obviously not manage to do).




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Once again you blame everything that is taking place in Russia on Putin, and you twist the perspective so that everyone can have a shot of your anti-russianism ... but what the Russians actually want to do is put an end to the endless debate (something that this thread will obviously not manage to do).


Why are you trying to derail the thread with your reflexive defense of what you assume is a slight against Putin? There is no debate. As I have explained in the OP the historical record is clear. The revisionists have never been able to support any of their claims with evidence. The fact that RT, an official organ of the Russian government, is trying to make it look like there is an actual debate proves my point, doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Yes this proves that there is a debate ... And you can either debate it or close the debate once for good. Isn't that what you'd like to see ?

RT is Russian propaganda is laughable statement ...
unless RT itself confirms this ...
then this becomes true ...
truly laughable ...


(Turn on subtitles)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




is trying to make it look like there is an actual debate


aren't you here...making this thread...because there is a debate ongoing ?

or are you simply beating a dead horse then ?

Take your pick.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Yes this proves that there is a debate ... And you can either debate it or close the debate once for good. Isn't that what you'd like to see ?


A disagreement is not a debate. The historical record, and all the supporting evidence, indicates that the United States and the Soviet Union sent men into space. Some people do not agree, and argue that it is a priori impossible. That is not a debate. Some concede that the United States and the Soviet Union put men in space, but that, at some point, the United States started lying and that they never sent men to the Moon. The historical evidence is clear. There is none supporting the nay-sayers. I have outlined in the OP what sort of evidence would be necessary to support the Moon Hoax theory. Until some is produced, they have no case. No case, no debate.

Now, if you hate America, you can repeat any revisionist nonsense about what America has or has not done to your heart's content. Someone may correct you, but if you don't have the facts on your side, that's not a debate.
edit on 2-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


aren't you here...making this thread...because there is a debate ongoing ?

or are you simply beating a dead horse then ?


I'm trying to explain what is necessary for there to be a debate.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The fact that you don't want to consider anything conflicting with your personal consideration of things and dismiss them automatically with claims of fallacies/hoax/forgeries is surely a way to avoid a debate ... There is nothing to debate here, eat this, believe that, take it for granted ...
May I remind you that the US president who decided to send these people up there (something I don't even want to deny myself), was killed by a 'magic-bullet' ?
Deny the obvious is one thing, pointing out inconstancies is another.


edit on 2-2-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
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?


Maybe as a temporary patch to be first? Only the filmmaker and the astronauts and the ones organizing it would need to know. Then you do go to the moon secretly when sending something into space later. The ruse would make you the all important first.

Read up on how much it meant to be first and why at the time.
news.discovery.com...


“It was designed to solve a political problem, that’s really what it was about,” Launius said. “It was a Cold War competitive measure in response to a couple of major foreign policy setbacks in the spring in 1961.”

For starters, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space on April 12, 1961. Then, on top of this huge scientific and engineering accomplishment, that same month saw the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Cuban forces crushed a CIA-backed, paramilitary force of Cuban exiles.

Shock and Awe
In other words, Americans felt like their communist adversaries had them on the ropes. They needed to land the mother of all punches. If they couldn’t be the first in space, they could try to beat the Russians to the moon.



The launch of Sputnik 1 generated fear across the US - and a quiet realisation that the country had fallen technologically behind the Soviet Union.

www.bbc.com...




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join