Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

And, by the way...

I suspect you will respond to the above by stating that you have read the document.

No. You have NOT read the document. I know you have not read the document. The complexity of the material and its presentation is professional-- and leaves no room for comment on the cover art as a valid means of questioning its authenticity.

Look here, Frira. Are you trying to tell us that you have psychic abilities?

No. I am not psychic-- it just looks that way.

It looks that way because I "read" people, word choice, subject matter, conclusions drawn-- those things tell me much about a person-- more than how they hold their hands and the gaze of the eyes when speaking.

I kind of admire that you were willing to put your NASA belief system on the line and I'm impressed that you spent 33 pages defending it. But now you have absolutely crossed that line.

ATS is a forum for discussion. ATS is not your personal blog. There are many many free blogs out there if you want to blog about your personal pictures, your personal recollections about what your Daddy told you about Apollo.

Quit your whining.

33 pages IS a discussion-- not a blog. That it smacks you in the face and you wish it to go away is not my concern, and arrogant of you.

I'm sorry to have to break the news to you in this way : you are wrong, Frira. I have read SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo so that I may deny my own ignorance. The first time I encountered it was in the Aussie Genius thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

SP-368 is akin to a scriptural text for the Apollo faithful in that the orthodox believers may not deviate from it. I did read the entire book because I am open minded skeptic. The book contains 567 pages of tables & summaries written in 1975. Fecal matter and urine testing, mice killing, etc. Pages and pages of food menus, medical tablet intake regimens, etc.

You are correct. SP-368 is an important document in the Apollo mythology. Take for instance the possibility that certain astronauts were fearful of disclosing certain ailments that, if reported, might knock them off the program.

SP-368 doesn't come out and say "Michael Collins lied to his flight surgeons" but the report says what it says :

One interesting medical event that occurred on this flight was reported by the Command
Module Pilot in his account of the Apollo Program. _ He revealed that he had experienced
dysbarism (bends) on his first space flight (Gemini 10) as well as on his second
(Apollo 11). He described symptoms involving the left knee as a sharp, throbbing ache
which gradually worsened and leveled off at a moderate, but very uncomfortable level of
pain. The symptomatology was less painful on Apollo 11 than it had been on Gemini 10.
Unfortunately this information was not made available to the medical team during either
the Gemini or Apollo Programs. Source Page 73 of the pdf www.hq.nasa.gov...

Before I let you change the subject...

And that, you see, is part of of the problem.

Instead of responding to why a cover illustrator would be let in on the "great secret" as you claim, which was always obvious to some us, but now obvious to you as a major problem in your scenario-- you abandon that argument to take up another without first conceding the point.

And also, let me point out that it is you who took to the low disparagement and name calling of your opponents.

So get your perspective straight-- both in what your argument is, and in the rules of engagement by which you wish to abide. If you name-call and disparage, don't expect mercy for foolishness in your arguments-- it saps my patience.

So...

So Frira I have read this book quite extensively. I know this book well enough to discuss it. That is what ATS is about Discussion is it not?

You led off with the cover picture, and have defended a wild scheme based on a picture. I know that is far as you got with the report-- and you know that I know it.

If it were otherwise, you would have led off with the content of the report and not the picture on the cover.

There is so much data in that report, so many details, that it would be perilous to present the data as fact if it were fiction. That the report and the data contained within it exists at all would be difficult to explain if the moon landings were a hoax, as the public was NOT clamoring for proof, "We want to see biomedical data to PROVE to us Apollo was real!"

No, NASA produced the report because the data was valuable. And if you have now read it-- you already know that.

Now, I believe you were going to make a claim beginning with your acceptance that the report of Collins and the bends is true?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So, you read extensively a near 600 page book about what you consider,

an important document in the Apollo mythology.

Why would you waste so much time? If as you say its not real?

Are you seriously referencing that Aussie kid thread? You can't be serious. You need to come to the party with more than a kid's mentality.

You realize you can't use NASA data to disprove NASA data right? You need a reputable 3rd party that isn't some Aussie kid to convince your side of the 'mythology'.

this thread just popped up in another one regarding "Magic Mountain" OP your story is amazing!!!!!

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
this thread just popped up in another one regarding "Magic Mountain" OP your story is amazing!!!!!

Thank you for saying so. I was just along for the ride, but that was some ride my father gave me. He was something special.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have a question for the doubting thomases who think the moon landing is a hoax. You've been shown we did have the rocket technology to do it. You've been shown all the calculations on how to keep a human being alive in space. You've been shown space photos left and right. You've been given the testimony of the people who went to the moon and the people who worked to get them there. You've even been given explanations for all the supposed "evidence" you're using, from why the flag on the moon remained straight to how the Apollo craft got through the Van Allen radiation belt. You have religiously brushed all this off as being faked photographs, paid witnesses, staged events, etc etc etc.

May I ask what evidence you WOULD accept that would finally convince you to drop these absurd hoax claims? If photographs, scientific explanations, eyewitness accounts, and moon rocks aren't sufficient evidence, then what is?

I'm not convinced one way or the other. I tried to get an answer to that out of my brother only talking about aliens and UFOs. He couldn't/wouldn't reply. He just kept repeating "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As to the moon landings the reasons for doubt are legion. Funky photos, jurassic technology, previous government lies, and generally that things don't add up. Then too, the main source for evidence of success is NASA. In fact, it's about the only source. The argument of 'thousands of people' really doesn't apply since 99% wouldn't know anything about it. Just because somebody built a rocket doesn't mean it went anywhere. Looking at a readout doesn't mean the data is real, and on and on. The fakery could have taken as few as a couple dozen people, not counting the astronauts. Nobody really knows when the photos were made or where. Unmanned probes could have faked the space ship. Etc., etc. I have my own questions I can't find answers to. None of the geniuses at BAUT or GLP can answer them (they sure can answer everything else!), so I still have doubts. Tell Astromut hi for me. He seems to be really good at answering questions other than what is asked and he's the resident 'debunker/shill'.

As for your question, there is NO evidence that will convince many people. We've been lied to too much.

Back to my brother. Would photos be evidence? Nope - they could be faked. Film? Nope- CGI. How about if you saw it with your own eyes? Nope - I could be hallucinating. As far as that goes I've seen pictures of something that looks like the Taj Mahal.

reply to post by HimAgain


With that kind of logic if the controls said you were approaching the airport at 1,000 feet altitude and you needed more evidence of that to lower the landing gear, I'm glad you are not a pilot.

More than 50% of the time the posts on ATS are made by people who live the motto 'deny truth'. There really are a lot of stupid people out there. I've been reading ATS since 2001 and its steadily filled up with more and more idiots. Everything is black and white to me. You are either bad or good stupid or smart. Which would you rather be? I believe there are conspiracies and cover ups. Just not everywhere you look. All of the dumb posts people make are distractions from what's really happening. I have to admit I often get news 24 hours before the MSM makes a story out of it. That is fun because when I get news like that I Facebook it and then the MSM says
raking news. I'm a red head. I'm always pissed off. So don't take me personally unless I want your head on a platter.

The moon landings were not a hoax. The sheer volume of people that would have to be involved in such a wide spread conspiracy almost automatically negates this as a possibility.

Plus, the Government just ain't that good.

If it was a hoax then how did they get the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array" up there and set up? Which can be verified.
science.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Lexx790
If it was a hoax then how did they get the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array" up there and set up? Which can be verified.
science.nasa.gov...

I don't think was faked,but this is brought up the most probably because of mythbusters.IMO, it's actually some of the worst proof because sending a robot to put up a laser would be easier than man,and I believe the Russians did use a robot for its laser.

reply to post by NLDelta9


The readings from the laser reflector started in July of 1969. Now why would NASA send a probe and a manned mission at the same time just for laser mirror reflecting data? Fake the manned mission and succeed at the robot mission when we all know pretty well NASA didn't launch a rover of any kind for over a decade after Apollo. The data is there and the moon hoaxers have no answer to that, other than making up stories, or hiding behind the couch and throwing raspberries at grandma.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by NLDelta9

 

The readings from the laser reflector started in July of 1969. Now why would NASA send a probe and a manned mission at the same time just for laser mirror reflecting data? Fake the manned mission and succeed at the robot mission when we all know pretty well NASA didn't launch a rover of any kind for over a decade after Apollo. The data is there and the moon hoaxers have no answer to that, other than making up stories, or hiding behind the couch and throwing raspberries at grandma.

Like I said, I don't think was faked.

I'm just saying the laser is not really good evidence and if were to fake the laser would be the easiest.

As to the laser argument, go here to read an interesting take.

Of particular note as to when they were "fired" (taken from the above link):

"However, the above record of when the laser(s) was/were first fired turns out not to be correct. Jerry Wiant stated that the McDonald Observatory was unable to obtain any readings from the lunar surface until 'mid-August 1969.'"

I find myself recently conflicted about the moon landings after spending some time at the above linked site. Pouring over all the still photos that have been dissected is compelling evidence that something is not right. To simply disregard this as "quackery" is just as ignorant.

For those who were alive back then, and even for the generations that came after, we all want to believe that men did walk on the moon. But above all else if there is even a sliver of evidence against the claim, it must be taken into account with all the seriousness of the original belief. Nobody wins if we all have been duped. Likewise, if the claims of hoax can be refuted we still benefit. But to disregard them completely is foolish. You may not like your beliefs being questioned, but that's science, isn't it?

This one's for all of the "Moonies" out there in "The Apollo Missions Really Did Happen" Fantasy land
Even the ever somber Russians laughed when they saw this one

I was just watching it on TV like the rest of you.

We all could of easily been faked out.

If they faked it...It sure fooled me.

I wonder - shouldn't the flag cast a shadow? Or do NASA flags disobey the laws of optics as well as all the other known physical laws of the universe..........

Is it possible that NASA has gone "shopping" here?



Ohhhhhh how dumb of me not to have seen it ........NOW I see what they mean - they are telling you, i.e., (us dummies here in the real world) that the shadow to the LEFT OF THE FLAG is the one we should be looking at - huh? ....Har Har Har

Not only have they (the foto/goons at NASA) shopped in the flag but it looks like they shopped in the Astro/Manequin too.

Let's look a little closer OK? Would a willing "moonie" please tell us what do your discerning eyes see there?
Thank you..........

reply to post by Vitruvian


Aldrin was standing on ground that was slightly higher than where the flag was in the background. So there is a bit of a ridge obscuring the bottom of the flagstick and the shadow (in your image, you can even see the bottom of the flagstick is obscured behind this ridge).

In this picture, you can better see the slight swale (lower land) that the flag was set in:

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

But in your posted link we can see what appears to be a legitimate shadow extending from the flagpole. oe the distance of the shadow from the pole in your image and compare that distance to the image I posted above.

Linked image posted by Soylent


Orignal image posted above by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Vitruvian
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

But in your posted link we can see what appears to be a legitimate shadow extending from the flagpole. oe the distance of the shadow from the pole in your image and compare that distance to the image I posted above.

Linked image posted by Soylent

Orignal image posted above by Vitruvian

edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: added photo

Well, yeah...this image was taken from a different angle.

That was the point of me showing that image: from that angle, you can seen the slightly lower surface that the flag and the shadow were in. The image you posted is from an angle that you can only see the ridge, and not the little swale in which the flag was planted.