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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Once again this what you consider these people must be thinking as of your own point of view...


But you cannot deny that this observation is valid.


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 ?


There are some people who reject all authority, especially government authority... but in those cases the loss of objectivity means that they are not really interested in the truth, just further confirmation of their belief.


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.


Correct, which is why there was a motivation to actually develop the technology instead of fake it.


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 ?


Why believe the Weather Bureau? At some point you either have to take a leap of faith and admit that not everything the government tells you is a lie... or you will need to leave society altogether like the whackos in Montana.


That's the perception of someone who take a stance in a particular debate.


Again, given the impossibility of certainty, one can only go with the probabilities, and the more evidence in favor of one hypothesis, the more probable it is.


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.


I will probably never convince anyone who has formed an opinion based on animus, but at least I can educate those with an open mind.
edit on 3-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

But you cannot deny that this observation is valid.


It's 100% true as of your point of view, 100% false as of the point of view of someone who disagree with you.
I gave you a counter-example :

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 ?


originally posted by: DJW001
There are some people who reject all authority, especially government authority... but in those cases the loss of objectivity means that they are not really interested in the truth, just further confirmation of their belief.


Do you take everything featuring a US governmental seal for granted ?


originally posted by: DJW001
Why believe the Weather Bureau? At some point you either have to take a leap of faith and admit that not everything the government tells you is a lie... or you will need to leave society altogether like the whackos in Montana.


So everyone who doesn't take the magic-bullet official theory for granted is a whacko ?


originally posted by: DJW001
Again, given the impossibility of certainty, one can only go with the probabilities, and the more evidence in favor of one hypothesis, the more probable it is.


Do you prefer proofs, or probability of proofs ?


originally posted by: DJW001
I will probably never convince anyone who has formed an opinion based on animus, but at least I can educate those with an open mind.


If you never managed to convince anyone, you should reconsider your ambition to educate people.


edit on 3-2-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


It's 100% true as of your point of view, 100% false as of the point of view of someone who disagree with you.
I gave you a counter-example :

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


Did I say 100%? I'm sure there are many reasons might choose to believe what they do, to insist that I think otherwise is just trolling.


Do you take everything featuring a US governmental seal for granted ?


Absolutely not! Fortunately some things are fairly easy to check on because they can be verified by direct observation or calculation. If you read the OP you would understand the methodology of historical investigation.



So everyone who doesn't take the magic-bullet official theory for granted is a whacko ?


I don't believe the magic bullet theory and I'm not a whacko. On the other hand, people who are so paranoid that they are incapable of believing that even the United States government-- or Vladimir Putin, for that matter-- can sometimes tell the truth, is seriously unbalanced.



Do you prefer proofs, or probability of proofs ?


Formal proofs are great, but as Gödel showed in the link you yourself posted, no proof can be complete. In the real world I am happy with overwhelming evidence.


If you never managed to convince anyone, you should reconsider your ambition to educate people.


There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say I never convinced anyone, I just said that I figure I will probably never convince anyone with an irrational aversion to being persuaded.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Did I say 100%? I'm sure there are many reasons might choose to believe what they do, to insist that I think otherwise is just trolling.


If you can provide an example of something that is 75% true ... why not. In this case how are people supposed to distinguish the 25% inaccuracy in a particular statement ?


originally posted by: DJW001

Absolutely not! Fortunately some things are fairly easy to check on because they can be verified by direct observation or calculation. If you read the OP you would understand the methodology of historical investigation.


What about things people cannot check by themselves ? Like the moon-landing for ex.
As I said earlier people rely on the same source as the claim for most evidence, hence their suspicion of forgery.


originally posted by: DJW001

I don't believe the magic bullet theory and I'm not a whacko. On the other hand, people who are so paranoid that they are incapable of believing that even the United States government-- or Vladimir Putin, for that matter-- can sometimes tell the truth, is seriously unbalanced.


If only people were only speaking truth ...


originally posted by: DJW001

There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say I never convinced anyone, I just said that I figure I will probably never convince anyone with an irrational aversion to being persuaded.


By someone who pretend to know thoughts in people heads ...

Something you presented at first like Putin's ambition to do historical revisionism - because you know Putin's thoughts :


originally posted by: DJW001
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.)


Turns out to be something you are delighted about a few post later :


originally posted by: DJW001
I am delighted that the Russians will add more evidence to the historical record. Of course, if the satellite fails, some people will blame American sabotage. If it spots the equipment, the same people will claim that the Americans "got to them." (Not that there is such a thing as Anti-Americanism.) Either way, there is still no debate.


And you don't want to debate opinions you intend to impose ... hide that under historical investigation if you want. How old does one lie needs to be to become historical ?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


If you can provide an example of something that is 75% true ... why not. In this case how are people supposed to distinguish the 25% inaccuracy in a particular statement ?


Now you are definitely trolling. How's this:

25% Religious objection

35% Anti-Americanism

15% General Anti-Authoritariansm

25% Other reasons.


originally posted by: DJW001


What about things people cannot check by themselves ? Like the moon-landing for ex.


The same way you would check to see if any historical claim were true. Examine all the documentation and artifacts. If you are not motivated enough to do that, the matter isn't an important one to you, and your opinion probably uninformed.


As I said earlier people rely on the same source as the claim for most evidence, hence their suspicion of forgery.


Then double check it against other sources. If the lunar samples don't match the ones brought back by the Soviets, you would be on to something. But they match.


If only people were only speaking truth ...


Sometimes people speak the truth, especially when it benefits them. It was an enormous advantage to develop all the technology to put people on the Moon. Why develop all that technology and not use it for its intended purpose? Why does no-one ever answer that question?


By someone who pretend to know thoughts in people heads ...


Being a human being, I can guess at what others might be thinking in order to act the way they do. It is a necessary life skill.

www.livescience.com...


Something you presented at first like Putin's ambition to do historical revisionism - because you know Putin's thoughts:


I don't pretend to know Putin's thoughts on the matter, I have observed a trend in the country he rules. I know that it is an organized attempt because one of its perpetrators told me so in a threatening U2U message here on ATS. (They have long since been banned.)


Turns out to be something you are delighted about a few post later :


I'm not happy about the revisionism, I am happy that there will potentially be more evidence from another source.


And you don't want to debate opinions you intend to impose ... hide that under historical investigation if you want.


I am not imposing anything. You are welcome to believe anything you want, but if you want serious, intelligent, critical thinkers to take your opinion seriously, you had better understand what the rules for making a valid case are.


How old does one lie needs to be to become historical ?


The moment the lie passes your lips. The further away in time it gets, the harder it is to see the details, but the easier it is to view dispassionately.
edit on 3-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I won't quote the post I'm replying to as it's rather long, but any revisionism in what is very recent history would not be about what happened, but surely the why? I'm often bemused by why people want to deny the moon landings and the reasons they use for doing so.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: DJW001

I won't quote the post I'm replying to as it's rather long, but any revisionism in what is very recent history would not be about what happened, but surely the why? I'm often bemused by why people want to deny the moon landings and the reasons they use for doing so.



Exactly. Setting aside the dramatic speeches and earnest testimony in Congress, there is a great deal about the motivations, true goals,and back room politics behind the space race yet to be covered. Were there kickbacks? Bribes? Sweetheart deals? What did it take to get a NASA facility built in your state? What sort of surveillance equipment were they secretly testing on supposedly civilian missions? These are the sort of questions genuine historians are asking. Only a fool would waste their time trying to prove that something so copiously documented never happened. It would, as I have said before,be like trying to prove that D-Day never happened.
edit on 3-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Now you are definitely trolling. How's this:

25% Religious objection

35% Anti-Americanism

15% General Anti-Authoritariansm

25% Other reasons.


What are these numbers supposed to represent ?
Is this attempt at a personal judgement on me ?
What are you personal credentials to feel entitled to do so ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Being a human being, I can guess at what others might be thinking in order to act the way they do. It is a necessary life skill.


But it's still a guess.
Why do you feel necessary to judge people ? Is there no way to argue ?


originally posted by: DJW001
The same way you would check to see if any historical claim were true. Examine all the documentation and artifacts. If you are not motivated enough to do that, the matter isn't an important one to you, and your opinion probably uninformed.


It is not as if looking only at genuine historical facts, would keep people away from conspiracies.
I already mentioned JFK, let's try another one ...
How did the astronauts get up there ?
With a Saturn V rocket.
Who was in charge of its conception ?
Wernher Von Braun.
How did he arrived in the US ?
Operation paperclip.

Whoops.


originally posted by: DJW001
Sometimes people speak the truth, especially when it benefits them. It was an enormous advantage to develop all the technology to put people on the Moon. Why develop all that technology and not use it for its intended purpose? Why does no-one ever answer that question?


Because it offers a certain advantage when considered for military applications for ex.
And that you don't want everyone to know about you most advanced military gears.


originally posted by: DJW001
I don't pretend to know Putin's thoughts on the matter, I have observed a trend in the country he rules. I know that it is an organized attempt because one of its perpetrators told me so in a threatening U2U message here on ATS. (They have long since been banned.)


Whining is not a form of argumentation imo.
And did you observe (wonder how btw) than unlike you, People living in the 'country he rules' are hugely satisfied by his achievements.


originally posted by: DJW001
I'm not happy about the revisionism, I am happy that there will potentially be more evidence from another source.


That's almost the best argumentation you gave to show that this will always be an endless debate : what would be your reaction if the Russian probe didn't confirm this. Hoax/forgery/propaganda ... pot meets kettle.
The fact that you call 'revisionism' something that was explained to you, by his author, as an attempt to close the debate and not only to fuel the views of any particular side in this debate is symptomatic of your distorted perspective of anything coming from Russia.


originally posted by: DJW001
I am not imposing anything. You are welcome to believe anything you want, but if you want serious, intelligent, critical thinkers to take your opinion seriously, you had better understand what the rules for making a valid case are.


Why did you try to play both the historical and hoax cards in a single week in an attempt to seal the debate ?


originally posted by: DJW001
The moment the lie passes your lips. The further away in time it gets, the harder it is to see the details, but the easier it is to view dispassionately.


I'd say the longer the lies is being presented as a truth, the more embarrassing it is to confess ...


edit on 3-2-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Real critical history is striving for a more accurate narrative. What OP is trying implement in this thread is a castle-defense of monumental/monolithic history mixed with the antiquarian (antiquated?) method of apologia, which is basically quoting experts all day long.


Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.


Hence, those who would believe the NASA narratives and find it their duty to defend it are called Apollo Defenders, rightly so, because that is how they properly operate. It is not appropriate for the Defender to require the Reviewer to obtain anything, including documents, which are unlikely to exist. You Defend, You Apologize that is all you do. Nothing more, nothing less; not a childishly long list of fantasy documents you have cooked up in your own mind.

The Apollo Reviewer, who is striving for a more perfect narrative, is called upon to break the castle-defense created by the Defenders using monumentalist & antiquarian methods. The Defenders have this advantage already! what other advantages do they need to protect their narratives?? A punch in the face?

This is done not by asking the Reviewers "What (fantasy) documents would convince you of x, y & z?". That isn't how it works now and it has never worked that way.

Critical review works by crushing the main pillars of your monumental castle-defense and leaving you with nothing left to protect. Even the antiquarian-experts (the Apollo priests) cannot answer for many, many lingering questions in the Apollo narratives. I'll give just one example : Frank Borman's secret travel itinerary in Russia shortly before Apollo 11. (Not trying to derail, it is just an example.)

Here are some of the Pillars of Apollo which are currently being destroyed on the internet:
Radiation, Van Allen Belts
Images/films/sound media
Astronaut testimony
Moon Rocks (including Kreep rocks)
No comparable missions by any other space group in 43+ years
LRRR's

When these pillars can no longer hold up the temple, the castle-defense fails, the Defenders must surrender, the Reviewers will win.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Blah blah blah blah blah.


So the short answer is that you cannot provide any evidence for the stories you are making up, so you have to attack the people who insist on using legitimate historical methodology. Thank you for playing.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It requires someone a huge ego to consider that his personal - and thus per definition subjective - point of view should be carved in the marble of history.
The moon landing may be the historical truth but what it is for sure is the official version.
Historical truth is not the same as official version. You probably consider that it is genuine because you applied critical thinking to it and came to the conclusion that it was consistent but that's your personal - and subjective - point of view. Not everyone has the knowledge to carry out such an exercise.

If we consider only what is official, history should include a US president who initiated the Apollo program killed by a magic-bullet and a Nazi scientist relocated to the US in a shadowy context than includes untold events in a totally irrelevant place like Antartica ...
I may have myself considered such a surreal tale, but I had the intellectual honesty to put that in the appropriate section of the forum :

Iron Sky 2
edit on 4-2-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Rather than play your games, I will simply summarize the OP, which you apparently still have not read. Some (not all, so please don't go there) Hoax theorists think that the lunar landings were a scientific experiment, and that therefore they must be repeated independently to be valid. This is wrong on two counts. First, they were not a scientific experiment, they were the consummation of a series of actions and events. They were historical events, and therefore happened in the context of their times. Second, repetition of experimental results is not necessary to validate a scientific theory; a theory can be falsified if a repetition of the experiment fails to produce the same result, but papers get published all the time without the reviewers actually doing the experiment for themselves. (Some of the most famous experiments in psychology have only been done once, and modern ethics prevents them from ever being repeated.)

Serious historians have developed a methodology which allows them to determine the shape of events, to put them in their context, and to examine the motivations for particular decisions being made. It involves looking at documentation and physical evidence, and then applying critical thinking to evaluate the trustworthiness of the various documentary sources, compare and, ideally, harmonize them, then compare those records with what physical evidence remains to determine what must actually have happened. From this evidence one can then confidently conclude that certain things are facts.

Once the facts have been determined, historians can proceed to analyze them to get insight into the motivations of the various players. It is in this realm, not the who, what, when or where, but in the why that historians begin to disagree; this is where historical revisionism kicks in. All historians agree that the Allies landed on Normandy on D-Day. They disagree on why the invasion did not take place earlier (the Russians think that was deliberate) or why (not whether) Eisenhower was made Supreme Commander rather than, say, Montgomery.

I did not make these rules of evidence up. They are not arbitrary. They are not fantasy. They are the bare minimum for an historical event to be accepted as fact. And just to re-emphasize, I am using "historical" in the sense of pertaining to specific events, as opposed to "scientific," which pertains to universal physical principles. The presidency of Barak Obama is an historical event, even though it is still going on.

After summarizing what historians consider to be evidence: documents, including memos, letters, journals, maps, blueprints, newspaper articles, photographs, films, etc, and physical artifacts, including landscapes, machines, buildings, clothing, rocks, and so forth, I pointed out that there is a wealth of such evidence in support of the accepted "historical narrative." I then drew up a parallel list of what sort of evidence would be necessary to support the revisionist narrative(s). A rational person could then weigh the two bodies of evidence against one another to determine which interpretation has more evidence in its favor, and thus be more likely to be true.

Here is the elephant in the room. There is no evidence that any of the revisionist interpretations is true. So, rather than admit that, the theorists have to find excuses for why absolutely no evidence whatsoever exists: It was the most secret thing ever and absolutely everyone involved was perfect. Not one shred of paper survived, not one person was willing to pay for his mother's heart surgery by turning whistleblower. The second prong? Attack historiography altogether. Spew out self righteous word salad that turns poor scholarship into heroism.

From now on, if anyone wants to make a claim about whether or not the lunar landings really happened, they had better have a theory that can meet the minimal standards of evidence.
edit on 4-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What a conflicting situation :
Being fed up arguing and feeling the need to have the last word at the same time ...

The problem arise when you consider that historian / scientist / psychologist your refer to, happens to be on the same payroll as those who made obviously questionable claims about other historical related events that took place roughly around the same time.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You need to start reading what other people post. You are welcome to the last word. Make it relevant.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I did. And I have to confess that I always took the moon landings for granted so far, I never really bother questioning them. While trying to make a point, unfortunately all you managed to do is cast doubts as I had to enumerate inconsistencies in official statements given your ambition to write history as of your own point of view. And that's the thing I oppose more than any specific claim in this debate. Given that any individual with the ambition to proclaim an universal truth is on the verge of totalitarianism.
And it is no surprise that, in this context, you took the opportunity to throw Religious/political/geostrategic insinuations in the mix.

Just a stat : around 7% of US citizens consider the moon landing may have been faked. That's over 22 millions people. 22 millions anti-American historical revisionists - for the US alone.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


While trying to make a point, unfortunately all you managed to do is cast doubts as I had to enumerate inconsistencies in official statements given your ambition to write history as of your own point of view.


Historical methodology is not "my point of view."


And that's the thing I oppose more than any specific claim in this debate. Given that any individual with the ambition to proclaim an universal truth is on the verge of totalitarianism.


As you would have known if you ever bothered to actually read what I post, the historical methodology is for establishing specific facts. Universal principles are the realm of the natural sciences, or metaphysics.

Two questions: What is your objection to the historical methodology I laid out in the OP? Be sure to click on the link to wikipedia so you know that I am not just "making this up." I am simply explaining the process that real historians go through. It is not my personal opinion, and has been developed over centuries to minimize subjectivity.

What methods do you use to determine whether or not statements are factual? How do they differ from the process I outlined in the OP? Here's your shot at the last word.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What is the historical methodology conclusion when it comes to JFK's magic bullet ... ?
It is just a matter of choosing certain sources over the others.



Just another question, in another thread you brought the following schematics :



There is a gold-plated visor to protect from the solar glare.
Why is there a pocket for sunglasses ? How are they supposed to put sunglasses with their sealed helmet on ?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


There is a gold-plated visor to protect from the solar glare.
Why is there a pocket for sunglasses ? How are they supposed to put sunglasses with their sealed helmet on ?


They take their helmets off inside the spacecraft. No answer to my questions?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Then why fit a pocket for sunglasses on their spacesuit ? A dedicated storage area inside the cabin would have been enough.



No answer to my questions?


Which one ?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Then why fit a pocket for sunglasses on their spacesuit ? A dedicated storage area inside the cabin would have been enough.


Not if you are moving around the cabin, or going back and forth from the Command Module to the Lunar Module. End of off topic aside.




No answer to my questions?


Which one ?


Both:

What is your objection to the historical methodology I laid out in the OP? Be sure to click on the link to wikipedia so you know that I am not just "making this up." I am simply explaining the process that real historians go through. It is not my personal opinion, and has been developed over centuries to minimize subjectivity.

What methods do you use to determine whether or not statements are factual? How do they differ from the process I outlined in the OP?

You said:


What is the historical methodology conclusion when it comes to JFK's magic bullet ... ?
It is just a matter of choosing certain sources over the others.


What are your criteria for "choosing certain sources over others?"




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join