The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.

Thanks for this wonderfull sentence. Who invented it ?

Legal burden of proof

In a court of law, the mountains of evidence in favor of the Moon landings having happened would win the case for the defense easily. The prosecution cannot even find a single witness.

Not a change...it started with the people who spread the moonlandings as real not the people who question it.

I have made it explicit how Hoax theorists can prove that the Moon landings were faked. No Hoax theorist has ever explicitly stated what they would consider proof that they were real, short of actually visiting the Moon in person. Would you care to correct that lacuna on this thread? (Incidentally, you are free to choose not to believe the evidence, but if you want to convince others you are going to need to find valid reasons.)

a reply to: DJW001

I can understand that after a while it start getting on your nerves to debunk the same arguments over and over again but, that's the whole purpose of a forum such as this one.
Flagging per default everything that comes from certain sources, or that contradicts your own conviction, as hoax is only relevant as of your own point of view. And calling someone's point of view odious while being unable to argue constructively with him is just a sign of weakness; but that's my point of view.
Personally, I dropped all the arguments I had against Christian creationists for ex. in one thread and didn't make it a personal issue. There are other causes I will keep on arguing for given that the problem is still pending and that I have personal reasons to feel concerned.
The Apollo program is over now.
The fact that some people wish to reconsider the moon landings doesn't mean they automatically want to refute the entire space programs.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Indeed , that was my thought. I don't believe in god anymore either.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

There is no worse blind man than the one who don't want to see.

Never a truer word.
I had determined not to post in this disgusting 'thread' again, but I now see that there are those who understand the fallacy in the heading, and consequently now being the intellectual property of ATS.
My own belief, based on what I have found, is that the landings happened pretty much as given. (I did witness the event on TV as it happened and ironically, my pictures were even worse than the ghosting sequences, since the aerial had ghosting problems besides) however for younger generations the reality is much harder, faced with all sorts of material conflicts, most of them explainable. Then you will get the crazies who will say that the Moon landings never happened, while exhorting that nobody went back to the Moon because they were warned off by aliens, almost in the same breath.
Then there was the technology, it was basic compared to now, but, in the early 80's we started to get the 'benefits' of that tech like electronic calculators, I had to use them, and frankly they were a piece of crap, Rockwell comes to mind there, they just froze after ten seconds of input if you went too fast, but Apollo had an error system so that 60's tech was actually better than the spinoff shiite I was using in the 80's, however, you knew the tech was something real, albeit far from perfect.
Anyway, there is other stuff, the magic 35mm Earth pictures taken from well outside low Earth orbit that match to the tee, low Earth orbit satellite pictures taken at the same time. It's all there.

Apollo as monumental history - to question it is offensive to the establishment. Please visit the gift shop on your way out.

Apollo as antiquarian history - to interpret the evidence differently means that you are a threat to the establishment. And pretty please visit our gift shop!

Apollo as critical history - the monumentalists and antiquarians will come out of the woodwork to shut it down. You are not welcome in the gift shop, please leave!

The OP just wants to dictate monumental/antiquarian history and is not really interested in the critical examination of Apollo.

NASA made keep out zones around the Apollo landing areas... a process of containment that is unwarranted and suspicious in and of itself. The process is the same at the Texas School Book Depository.... the exact spot where Oswald allegedly shot from "the sniper's nest"- ha ha ha - is walled off in plexiglass and you cannot approach the window on the 6th floor.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So... you are afraid to set specific benchmarks for evidence that would prove things one way or another. Thank you for playing. I look forward to meeting your standards of proof when you can decide what they are.

a reply to: smurfy

My own belief, based on what I have found, is that the landings happened pretty much as given.

Wise, thank you.

a reply to: webstra

Indeed , that was my thought. I don't believe in god anymore either.

Neither do I. What is your point?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I can understand that after a while it start getting on your nerves to debunk the same arguments over and over again but, that's the whole purpose of a forum such as this one.

Why would anyone create a forum dedicated to rehashing the same thing over and over again? Incidentally, are you aware what forum this is?

So... no-one wants to say what they would consider to be proof? Okay. Please explain why not?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

What would you consider to be proof of the lunar landings? I have explained in detail what I would accept as proof to the contrary.

a reply to: DJW001

The fact that none of the arguments of the 'hoaxers' can't sustain thorough consideration is one thing.
This means unfortunately you have to debunk them over and over again ... and not the other way around, as someone mentioned earlier :

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

If you want to convince them we went to the moon it's up to you to provide the evidence. If they want to convince you it was a giant hoax, it's up to them to prove it.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

If you want to convince them we went to the moon it's up to you to provide the evidence. If they want to convince you it was a giant hoax, it's up to them to prove it.

Correct. There are literally tons of documents detailing every step of the operation, including memos, blueprints, photographs of assembly lines, eyewitnesses to motor tests, launches, and assorted phases of the actual mission. There is a list of participants, all of whom would be more than happy to testify under oath. If the pro-Hoax crowd can produce an equal volume of evidence, there would be ground for debate.

a reply to: VP740

Did you ever heard of any such thing as a conspiracy theory that denied the fact that Tintin made it to moon before the Americans ?
That's what Hergé wrote at the time you know ...

And that's the main reason why some people will always cast doubts at the Apollo program : most evidences are provided by the same source as original claim.
In the same way, some people are probably considering that the Chinese lunar rover is turning in circle in the same studio Kubrik used at the time ... you won't be able to convince them ...

I guess that even if they had the possibility to travel themselves on the moon, they may consider that this has been dropped more recently than originally asserted in order to 'validate the conspiracy' ...
No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone to cast doubt.
If the claims sounds hollow, this is can be easily debunked.
But if you do it wisely, this can start a constructive debate.

This is not just about the moon landings.
Think 1+1=2 ?
Think again

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Did you ever heard of any such thing as a conspiracy theory that denied the fact that Tintin made it to moon before the Americans ?
That's what Hergé wrote at the time you know ...

It is precisely because there were such convincing science fiction comics and films that some people think they "know" what pictures from the Moon should look like. The Earth should be huge. The craters should be jagged. You should be able to see stars.

And that's the main reason why some people will always cast doubts at the Apollo program : most evidences are provided by the same source as original claim.

What's odd is that no-one questions Sir Edmund Hillary's claim to have reached the summit of Mount Everest. Only he and Norbu would know if it's true. It is clear that a lot of the Moon Hoax theorists are motivate not by the search for truth, but a desire to diminish the prestige of the United States, or even to affirm their belief that humanity is incompetent and deceitful.

In the same way, some people are probably considering that the Chinese lunar rover is turning in circle in the same studio Kubrik used at the time ... you won't be able to convince them ...

Correct. They are not interested in the truth, they are interested in confirm their biases. If the Russian cubesat does succeed in photographing an Apollo landing site, the Hoax believers will claim that it, too, was a hoax.

I guess that even if they had the possibility to travel themselves on the moon, they may consider that this has been dropped more recently than originally asserted in order to 'validate the conspiracy' ...

Some already assert that it was all done by robots.

No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone to cast doubt.

Absolutely. There are members of ATS who profess that the Earth is hollow, or even flat.

If the claims sounds hollow, this is can be easily debunked.

Yes, but never to the satisfaction of those with an agenda.

But if you do it wisely, this can start a constructive debate.

Unfortunately, the "debate" is usually one sided.

This is not just about the moon landings.
Think 1+1=2 ?
Think again

That is the crux of the problem. I have outlined the accepted methodology for evaluating historic claims in the OP. There cannot be 199% certainty of anything, as Gödel proved. The best one can do is set constraints that allow one to reach reasonable conclusions. Most Moon Hoax theorists insist on metaphysically certain proof that the historical record is absolutely correct in every minute detail. Their default position is that in the absence of the impossible certainty, it, ergo, must be a hoax. The problem is, they exempt themselves from those same standards of proof when it comes to their own alternative theories!

a reply to: DJW001

Just two observations :

It is clear that a lot of the Moon Hoax theorists are motivate not by the search for truth, but a desire to diminish the prestige of the United States, or even to affirm their belief that humanity is incompetent and deceitful.

Once again this what you consider these people must be thinking as of your own point of view...
Couldn't it be because the NASA is itself a US governmental agency, that governmental agencies are not famous for their transparency, and it is a sane reaction from tax-payer to figure out what the government decided to do with their money ?
Apollo was driven as well by national prestige and scientific advance - but with military application in mind. The US was at first scarred that the sputnik satelite may have a military use.
Considering the moon hoax conspiracy is not only a way to discredit the US as you seemed to suggest at first, it might also be defence mechanism against other governmental lies : if they told BS about JFK and the magic bullet for ex., why would I believe them about the moon landings ?

The best one can do is set constraints that allow one to reach reasonable conclusions. Most Moon Hoax theorists insist on metaphysically certain proof that the historical record is absolutely correct in every minute detail. Their default position is that in the absence of the impossible certainty, it, ergo, must be a hoax

That's the perception of someone who take a stance in a particular debate.
Shouting against a wall can be exhausting sometimes, but it produces echo for those who still have ears.
Even if you manage to convince just one person, it was worth doing it.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: webstra

Indeed , that was my thought. I don't believe in god anymore either.

Neither do I. What is your point?

My point is that if I don´t believe in god...i don´t have to proof that god does not excists...just as i don´t have to proof that the moonlandings are a hoax.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: webstra

Indeed , that was my thought. I don't believe in god anymore either.

Neither do I. What is your point?

My point is that if I don´t believe in god...i don´t have to proof that god does not excists...just as i don´t have to proof that the moonlandings are a hoax.

You are welcome to believe anything you want. I am curious: why do you think the Moon landings were faked? You weigh in on every thread about this topic, but you never do anything but express your opinion. Do you mistrust authority? Do the results of the mission conflict with your world view? Are the Moon landings the only thing you think were faked? Do you believes the Americans have put men in space at all? How about the Russians?