An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

reply to post by swimmer


You are the one challenging history as we know it, so it is up to you to prove it. Each of the points brought up against this has been shown to have an explanation other than yours, and just as plausible.

Think of it as a tennis match. You hit, they hit, back and forth. Each must outdo the other. When I said that you needed to search for new proof, I was not speaking unthinkingly. This is exactly what you need.

As it stands now, you're asking me to prove the opposit, is not how history is changed. In science, a theory or law stands until someone proves the old one wrong. The old one does not have to re-prove itself each time a contending theory blows into town.

If you have nothing to use for ammunition, that is hardly my fault.



[edit on 12-11-2007 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by swimmer
and the highest authorities on "debunking" are you and jra...

In your own mind, you are maybe a mile tall...

For me, you guys have "debunked" - nothing. You are just killing the interesting topic with a lot of propaganda style amateur logic...with no evidence whatsoever.

Skeptic-friend and other people who posted here in the earlier stages have PROVED that there was no Moon Landing. Anyone with elementary scientific knowledge can see that. In your own mind though, jra and other "debunkers" have "debunked" ....who knows what.

My message to you, jra and the likes: There was no "Moon Landing". Learn to live with that.
[edit on 11-11-2007 by swimmer]

This is not evidence. This is a complaint. There's a difference. So where's your evidence??? You say there has never been a moon landing. OK fine prove it. Stop complaining and start posting evidence unless of course you have none to post????

Originally posted by swimmer
Proof has been posted here over and over again. As a matter of fact, people who believe in Moon Landing story should post evidence - where is the proof that they landed on the Moon?...

....pictures show wrong shades, no stars...and million other details.
Vehicles used for "Moon Landing" ? - a joke. No way has that technology been sufficient....

All of the supposed "proof" has be plausibly and scientifically shown to be a fallacy.
- The "wrong shades". The various shadows shown in the Apollo photos has been proven years ago to be completely correct. That's a very old argument.
- "No Stars" is such an amazingly bad argument that I don't even know how to respond. This has been talked about and debunked a number of times by a number of people in many ATS posts and other websites.
- "Insufficient Technology" doesn't make any sense because The U.S. was also creating other great technologically advanced aircraft and spacecraft at that time (late 1960s - early 1970s.) During that time, the U.S. was designing the Space Suttle, designing Skylab, designing the F-15 fighter jet, they were already flying the SR-71 Blackbird, and the military had computers that were advanced enough to fly and land an airplane without a pilot.

What exactly were the technological shortcomings that would prevent them from going to the Moon? Be specific and please show facts proving that the specific technology you cite was beyond our ability in 1969.

As a matter of fact, lets revisit the "shadow problems" and the "no stars" issue. Please post the scientific reasons why the shadows and shading were improper. Include the issues of a rolling landscape and perpective, and show how the shadows don't work, even taking these into account. Please provide the luminostity studies that show that the Moon's surface and the lunar module itself would not provide sufficient reflectivity to be filling in some of those shadows.

And please post the proof that stars would be visible (both in a camera and by a person) when viewing something as brightly lit as the moon. A person may be able to see some stars, but I think it depends on where that person was looking. Show me the evidence that a camera which has exposure time set to take pictures of a brightly lit moon can also take pictures of stars.

We have shown you all this evidence that backs up the fact that we went to the moon. Please provide your evidence that we did not (not just your claims)


[edit on 11/12/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


It seems that some people are wedded to an idea, and refuse to accept any other proof except their own. It's a shame when they think that saying "you're wrong" is all they need to do.

I've asked the poster to gather new evidence, better presented, if he wants to convince people of this idea he has. It is now up to him todo something more than repeat the same old arguments.

"It seems that some people are wedded to an idea, and refuse to accept any other proof except their own. It's a shame when they think that saying "you're wrong" is all they need to do."

I couldn't say it better...it really seems that some people are wedded to an idea...whatever they learned at school. They refuse the truth. They can't handle the truth.

reply to post by swimmer


you still are ignoring big muley. why ?

just because it's proof probes weren't used, and nasa did put men on the moon, I can't see why you would avoid discussing it.

No offence, but the oppositions post is fulled up with with no substance at all. I sometimes wonder how you guys can bother.

Thanks.

[edit on 13/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

Originally posted by swimmer
"It seems that some people are wedded to an idea, and refuse to accept any other proof except their own. It's a shame when they think that saying "you're wrong" is all they need to do."

I couldn't say it better...it really seems that some people are wedded to an idea...whatever they learned at school. They refuse the truth. They can't handle the truth.

swimmer --

That first paragraph perfectly sums up your own attitude about this supposed moon hoax.

You have presented some theory that points to a hoax (shadows, shading, lack of technology, no stars, etc). Others have then rebutted your assertions by using science, common sense, and logic -- then you aswer those rebuttals by saying "I don't care about your evidence that we actually went to the Moon, because I know you're wrong".

Every bit of "Moon Hoax Proof" can be explained and rebutted, but you are the one who refuses to accept this evidence.

Here are a number of sites that respond to all of the Moon Hoaxers' assertions:

www.braeunig.us...

www.iangoddard.net...

www.badastronomy.com...

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

www.uwgb.edu...

If you could find valid reasons to find fault with this "Moon Hoax Debunking" evidence, then please post your specific issue with the rebuttal evidence presented in the links above.

In the meantime, 'swimmer', to continually state "I don't care about the rebuttal evidence -- you're still wrong" is not doing anything to move this debate along.

[edit on 11/13/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

I love speculation, myself. I don't know how many S/F stories that started off with a big "What if" were great. But in the real world, speculation can't run into cold hard facts, and survive the impact. Facts always win.

Originally posted by swimmer
"It seems that some people are wedded to an idea, and refuse to accept any other proof except their own. It's a shame when they think that saying "you're wrong" is all they need to do."

I couldn't say it better...it really seems that some people are wedded to an idea...whatever they learned at school. They refuse the truth. They can't handle the truth.

You do realize you're talking about yourself right? Well yourself and skeptic friend. I don't want to leave anyone out

Well, for every line I wrote, there are approximately 100 lines against me...I got some attention...

Here is one of the million links that explains to ignorant people why "Moon Landing" has never happened:

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

I have seen a number of great videos that people with strong scientific background have made, some of those were mentioned on this topic. So, if you want to learn more, go back and read the whole topic.

As for jra and the rest of the gang...great effort! You have managed to write about me so much, that I feel proud of myself! You must be really irritated???

For the police-minded moderator: This topic is not only about the technical aspect of "Moon Landing", but also political, artistic (it is a work of art, I admit), psychological etc. etc....and it is not forbidden for us to also have some fun here, is it?


...and I think that you should bring some more guys to defend NASA...I am too tough for just 5-6 of you guys...hahahaha

[edit on 13-11-2007 by swimmer]

...and I think that you should bring some more guys to defend NASA...I am too tough for just 5-6 of you guys...hahahaha

roflmao.

Bro, you're loosing this arguement.

Originally posted by swimmer
Well, for every line I wrote, there are approximately 100 lines against me...I got some attention...

It's important to prevent the spread of false information.

As for jra and the rest of the gang...great effort! You have managed to write about me so much, that I feel proud of myself! You must be really irritated???

Is this your TROLL.... I mean goal? Seems you're pretty much admitting the only reason you're hear is to irritate people as opposed to bring any legitimate discussion to the group.

For the police-minded moderator: This topic is not only about the technical aspect of "Moon Landing", but also political, artistic (it is a work of art, I admit), psychological etc. etc....and it is not forbidden for us to also have some fun here, is it?

If abuse of others is fun to you, I would indeed imagine it is forbidden.

...and I think that you should bring some more guys to defend NASA...I am too tough for just 5-6 of you guys...hahahaha

If you actually posted ANY evidence, you might get somewhere. So far you've spent your last dozen posts insulting people then in this post, added 1 link. Not an impressive record.

Dear Sirs, ATS managers, how do you reason?
The thread “Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” is always fix on 25 replies, very few persons read it but it is in the second place.

“An End To The Moon Conspiracy” has slipped down to the second page but many people read it every day even if there are not new replies.

How do you reason?

“An End To The Moon Conspiracy” should be on the top.
Then, let me think:
Kennedy said: “We must go to the Moon” and Americans built in 63/64 Langley Crane

to test the spacecraft that would land on the Moon.

But, in spite of their efforts, they were not able to build a rocket to land on the Moon.

In fact there is no film that shows Lunar Module that flies suspended from this crane.

Why did they build Langley Crane?
To fly this strange cement-mixer?


Langley Crane is the big monument – 250 foot large - that testifies Americans never went to the Moon.

“Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” is still in the second place with its 25 replies.

“An End To The Moon Conspiracy” with 2393 replies and a lot of yesterday views is in the tenth place.

There will be some reason.

What then?

I have seen that in this thread there are some very intelligent people that

will be able to explain the why and the wherefore Americans never

suspended from Langley crane the real Lunar Module Eagle in order to test

its flight endowments, and the why and the wherefore they suspended this

cement-mixer – de luxe version



Finally, thanks to all those intelligences, we will understood.

Originally posted by greatbrain
“Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” is still in the second place with its 25 replies.

“An End To The Moon Conspiracy” with 2393 replies and a lot of yesterday views is in the tenth place.

There will be some reason.

What then?

The “Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” thread is stickied, meaning that it's fixed to the top, it won't move. “An End To The Moon Conspiracy” is not stickied, so it will drop when their are no replies. Why is this of any importance?

will be able to explain the why and the wherefore Americans never

suspended from Langley crane the real Lunar Module Eagle in order to test

its flight endowments, and the why and the wherefore they suspended this

cement-mixer – de luxe version

It doesn't matter what they suspend from the crane. It's just a simulator, the actual vehicle is of no importance. The purpose of this facility was to train the astronauts to practice their landing, and not to test the LM and its flight characteristics.

reply to post by jra


Thank you. I was about to post the very same thing, but went to check the threads to try and understand the problem our poster was having. I came back and you were all over it. (I feel so useless and slow. )

Welcome to the forum greatbrain. We're glad you came by. Please do read and post. Once you get the hang of how things work, you'll have no problem understanding what's going on.

But you will have to have good science and good logic to make headway here, as many people in this forum are fact finders. You'll see.

Originally posted by jra

The “Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” thread is stickied, meaning that it's fixed to the top, it won't move. “An End To The Moon Conspiracy” is not stickied, so it will drop when their are no replies.

This is a bad beginning. I have a great brain and you must explain your assertions.

Why the first thread is stickied and the second one drops?

I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. I simply propose a few questions in the following image;

reply to post by DrussRob


1. No Stars in the Pictures.

This is an old argument that has been responded to (and easily debunked) many times.

The moon is a very bright place when the sun is shining. The lunar soil is very reflective and the astronauts suits are white. The cameras were set to a fast shutter speed because of the brightness of the scene being photographed. This fast shutter speed would not allow enough starlight in to the camera to expose the film.

If you took your camera with shutter speed settings for daytime pictures, then snapped a photo of the starriest sky on the darkest night, I suspect you would see no stars also (except possibly an extremely bright object such as Venus.)

2. What was the PSI of the rover tires?

The rover tires were not air-filled. They were made of a woven metal mesh, similar to a window screen, but tougher and stiffer. The mesh was outfitted with metal cleats. The whole thing required no air.

3. Is the flagpole wood?

The flagpole was made of metal.

4. Why doesn't the Sunlight burn up the flag?

Objects exposed to sunlight on the moon heat up to around 235 degrees (F). The flag was designed to withstand temperatures above that (to about 300 degrees.)

Here's a link to an article that talks about the Apollo 11 flag (the one in the photo is from Apollo 17, but I suspect the flag/flagpole system was of a similar design):
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

5. Who's going to clean up the mess?

Good question! -- I hope the astronauts didn't make too much of a mess.