Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

reply to post by wildespace

Great. I'm glad that you agree that there are a large number of intelligent people who question the moon landings
It's remarkable how you can steer the conversation your way by getting people in defensive mode and then turning their arguments on their head. Debating with moon hoaxers is really an awkward business.

Did miss-understand your position on this? Do you agree that there are a large number of intelligent people out there who question the moon landings?

Yes or No?

Getting people on the defensive? LOL. You and ATS need to take a long hard look at yourself. I'm just trying to hold my own here. Apparently people on ATS don't like to be asked tricky questions, and don't like it when they are backed into a corner...

I came to ATS making solid sensible points and asking good questions. What I have gotten from the likes of you is dogmatism, attempted ridicule, and a generally unpleasant experience. To be honest I expected better from ATS. I thought you lot would be more able to understand what I am saying.

You will reserve your judgement for as long as you live. One experiment by NASA will not persuade the hoax believers or doubters. There will always be something else that will need to be proven or debunked, always something else that looks "wrong". It's a merry-go-round.

No. I clearly stated what would convince me. Go and read all my comments again.

Your suggestion that all people who question the moon landings are a united single group who all think the same way is also wrong.

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by wildespace

 

Did miss-understand your position on this? Do you agree that there are a large number of intelligent people out there who question the moon landings?

Yes or No?

No, I don't agree, at least not in the sense I think you're trying to give it. What is your definition of a large number? Even if there is a thousand of intelligent people who had put out books, videos, lectures and websites calling the landings a hoax, it is still a very small number of the human population or even of the scientific community. Besides, being intelligent isn't a safeguard from being wrong, especially when you have political or other predispositions.

From my own experience, I haven't seen any intelligent people defending the hoax theory. Everything I have seen so far is amateurish and without a clue as to how things really work.

reply to post by wildespace


I have already said this: en.wikipedia.org... is my definition of a large number.

I guess you did not read that. I doubt you will now..

Besides, being intelligent isn't a safeguard from being wrong, especially when you have political or other predispositions.

Hell yea. I agree with that. Now... I wonder what would happen if we did a poll of those posting in this forum (or similar) and looked at who is a "hoaxer" and who was not. I think you will find an interesting link between the nationality of a person and their views. In my experience people who are American tend to be more accepting of the official story told by the American government.

From my own experience, I haven't seen any intelligent people defending the hoax theory. Everything I have seen so far is amateurish and without a clue as to how things really work.

I guess that's the end of this discussion then. You are obviously far more intelligent than me. I bow to your superiority.

reply to post by MrN9k


Actually I would like to see some hard numbers.

The wiki link you give talks about percentages of people polled, yet does not list the amount of people polled.

25% can be significant, yes, but it is dependent upon the amount that it's a percentage of. For example, 25% of 1 million is a very large number, but 25% of 1000 is much smaller.

Seeing the actual numbers polled in the first place would be interesting and informative, if you could find them? (just a request, not proving anything here, just interested).

In wildspaces defense, I have had the same experience with moon hoaxers, but that is here on ATS mostly. I'm not going to claim that all of them are that way, however, it can be easily shown that a vast majority of them here on ATS do act that way.

Worse: we've had people banned from here who were moon hoaxers because they were so desperate to try and prove things were fake, they would lie about themselves or things (that get's you banned from here). They tend to resort to insults and attacks.

However, don't judge ATS just by this thread, go out and explore other threads and other subjects. I'm sure you'll find that ATS holds a huge mix of everything you could imagine here (IE you just go here. Stay and explore).

I will tell you right now, YOU are the first whom I've debated this subject that has actually stayed much more civilized and presented very good arguments. So if nothing else, stay to help make the place more productive!

reply to post by eriktheawful


Thanks dude. Your comments are very appreciated.

The environment here does appear somewhat hostile. I can understand why many new users to this site might react in an adverse way because of that... I guess like you say that comes from the fact that ATS gets a lot of different people come here. I guess the trick is for everyone to remember that each new person is different from the last. New users will react accord to how they are treated... Some people will always be dicks... The world keeps spinning...

Where you said "I will tell you right now, YOU are the first whom I've debated this subject that has actually stayed much more civilized and presented very good arguments."
...
I'm an admin on Uncyclopedia so I'm used to dealing with confrontational situations. Even so I struggled to keep myself civilized here. I'm not surprised if many new users are not able to do so.
...
I kinda figured that people debating this issue would have read the wiki article on this already, but I will go into more detail about how I use Wikipedia as some reading this may not do this:

*. Read the article all the way through...
*. Each time you see a number like [20] in the text that's telling you that there is a "source" to the information they are talking about. By clicking on that you can find the original document they got the info from. So, if you wanted to find out more about where the %25 came from you would click on the link and see where it went. Sometimes they link to the document itself, sometimes it's just a reference to it and you have to find it yourself... Obviously by checking the quality of the references you can learn something about the quality of likely reliability of the article..
* Then I take a look at the page history... I scan down looking quickly at the comments getting a feel for what parts of the article people are debating, and what is being edited. I want to know how old the article is, and how many different people are editing it. That helps tell me the quality.
* Then I take a look at the talk page. That's often where I learn far more than actually reading the article itself. On the talk page you can see what the controversial parts of the article are, and from that you can look at what both "sides" of the controversy are saying. That way you get a more balanced view, and not just the view of the last person to edit the article.
* When I have done all that I sometimes leave a comment on the talk page about an issue I might have found, and see what kinda reply I get later...

From doing the above kinda thing on Wikipedia IMO it's actually possible to use Wikipedia as a very powerful and effective tool. Even if it's just a place to find source documents. I would not recommend just reading an article on Wiki and taking it as gospel without putting a fair amount of effort into checking how good that info was. Some Wiki pages are much better than others...

---
From clicking on the sources for the article we are talking about II found this from GALLUP: www.gallup.com... IMO GALLUP are one of the better people at taking surveys.

The article which suggests it's %25 does appear rather high to me. I can't easily find the source it gives either, but I did find this without too much trouble:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I like the part where it say "Eleven of the 1009 people surveyed thought Buzz Lightyear was the first person on the Moon." Everyone know Sheriff Woody got there first!

On the wiki article, where if says:
"In a 1994 poll by The Washington Post, 9% of the respondents said that it was possible that astronauts did not go to the Moon and another 5% were unsure.[13] A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the Americans surveyed doubted that the Moon landings happened and that 5% of those surveyed had no opinion,[14][15][16][17] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[14] "

Lots of different polls giving similar results... Looks good to me...

...IMO.that is probably a bit closer to the mark. My point is that it's not just a small number of people... Of the people who were asked in those polls I also wonder how many have been exposed to "hoaxer" information. As those polls were taken from the general public I suspect the findings would be different if people who had been exposed to "hoaxer" information were sampled instead.

Do ATS not do polls on this kinda stuff? That might be funny to watch....

Again, thanks for your kind words.

There may be a lot of "average Joes" out there who are sceptical about the moon landings. I'm not saying they're all dumb, and there might be some very intelligent people among them, but it proves nothing. The validity of the moon landings is a matter of scientific evidence, and should be approached in scientific manner. Do the video and audio records show that they were on the moon? Can we see evidence of their presense there? What about LRO images that show the hardware left by the astronaut on the moon, and even their footprints in the lunar soil?

I'm not attacking you personally or calling you stupid, it's just judging from my experience, moon hoax believers are beyond hope and reasoning. You might be different, and a few experiments might swing your opinion, but that won't be true for the hoax crowd on the whole. NASA's attempts to dispell the hoax myth will only throw more wood on the fire.

reply to post by MrN9k


Thanks for the info on the wiki numbers. I'll look more into it when I get a chance this evening.

No, I'm afraid ATS doesn't do polls. I think they did do them years ago but stopped for whatever reason. You can find out by privately messaging one of the mods on here as I'm sure they'll know the history of it as most of them have been here for a very long time. Or you could start a thread in the Board and Business forum asking about it.

Let me give you an example of the types of Moon Hoaxers we tend to see on here (which I know does not reflect how you are, or all moon hoaxers, and I will be more than willing to admit that we who believe we went are bit biased in this area, but in our defense it's because of what we see. I guess you are the example that we should look to to see that this does not always hold true):

Let's say this is a murder case. The evidence presented against the defendant is:

1) Gun found in his home matches ballistic with the gun that killed the person murdered.
2) The defendant's DNA was found at the crime scene.
3) No alibi for the time of the murder.

That right there is enough to convince any jury, even though let us say, no motive can be found.

Most of the Moon Hoaxers we deal with here on ATS will ignore all 3 of those and say: No motive? No crime. The defendant is innocent!

Then, in some cases, when we actually do find the motive....the Moon Hoaxers on here will turn around and say: Well the gun was planted in the defendant's home......and they (the mysterious powers that be, aka CIA) planted his DNA all over the crime scene!

So you can see, it get's a bit frustrating trying to debate with them when they keep moving the goal posts, deflect, or will not acknowledge something.

If you feel you're the brunt of some of us acting what seems hostile, I apologize. However, keep this in mind: You do see this all over ATS in other forums. You should of been here for 2012 and been in that forum.....

wow.

reply to post by wildespace


If you read back you will understand why the issue of how many people actually question the landing was brought up. It was claimed that it's only a small minority. I hope I was able to demonstrate to people who apparently have never used Wikipedia that it's not a small minority. I agree this proves nothing.

As for the evidence? You don't need any if you have faith in what NASA say, and are going to use their material to support their claims. What you are saying is like a Christian saying "Look Jesus is real. It says so in the bible".

Experience has taught me not to trust such things.


RE:

I'm not attacking you personally or calling you stupid, it's just judging from my experience, moon hoax believers are beyond hope and reasoning.

Pre-judgement of people is normally bad. I try to avoid it. I often fail, but then... Anyway... Rather than call me a moon hoax believer how about calling me a NASA disbeliever? Now that I'm a lot more comfortable with.

Anyone know who to e-mail at NASA RE my pendulum experiment???

reply to post by eriktheawful

So you can see, it get's a bit frustrating trying to debate with them when they keep moving the goal posts, deflect, or will not acknowledge something.

So don't debate with "them". However "them" is... If it's frustrating for you, don't do it. We are not paid to be here right? I'm sure that the people who run ATS would prefer that those entering into discussions are doing so because they want to. Not because they think they must for whatever reason.

Someone who is posting replies because they feel they should, but does not actually want to is unlikely to be a good forum poster. I'm guessing this place is meant to be "fun"... At some level anyway...

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So you can see, it get's a bit frustrating trying to debate with them when they keep moving the goal posts, deflect, or will not acknowledge something.

So don't debate with "them". However "them" is... If it's frustrating for you, don't do it. We are not paid to be here right? I'm sure that the people who run ATS would prefer that those entering into discussions are doing so because they want to. Not because they think they must for whatever reason.

Someone who is posting replies because they feel they should, but does not actually want to is unlikely to be a good forum poster. I'm guessing this place is meant to be "fun"... At some level anyway...

ATS gets it content from all it's members. Some members bring news stories, some personal experiences, some bring theories or speculations. All members discuss these things. If they didn't, the forum here would be pretty lopsided.

Challenging things that are posted here on ATS, asking questions about them, debating them......all these things are what make ATS the place that it is. That includes you and anything you have to say. Without, ATS would be a pretty boring place for many.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance".
If someone posts something......and no one challenged it, debated it, or simply asked questions about it, then the things that should be brought up, pointed out, or the "other side of the story" would be left out. And if they are, there are possibly many "lurkers" who read here, but do not know those other things.

In other words....they would remain ignorant of them, if people, like me, didn't post in those threads.

When I do post in these threads, I'm not just addressing the OP or a single poster in that thread. I'm addressing any and all who read the thread. Some of those "lurkers" may not have their minds made up. Some may. But it could also help do something:

Spark something in them to stop being a lurker and become active here, which helps add even more content to ATS.......that makes any frustration fully worth it.

Is it fun? It can be. Each person on here is different. Each person has their own ways of posting information or why they do it.

The good thing is: that they do post. And if I can help with that, then yes, it makes it fun for me.

reply to post by MrN9k


What you have to look at is all the evidence as a whole.

The development of the Apollo program, the missions before Apollo 11 , the Russians trying to do the same, the missions being tracked, Jodrell Bank tracking Apollo 11 and a Russian probe heading to the Moon at the same time, the trace showing when Armstrong took control during the landing, the Photographic evidence taken by the Astronauts, the records of lander, instruments and feature positions worked out from the photographs, the distance covered using the Rovers, the hammer and feather, the pendulum and of course the LRO pictures of the landing sites matching the photographs taken by the Astronauts.



Top from Apollo 17 DAC film camera bottom from the LRO.

That's not all the evidence!

How much more do you need

I mean on here you can post a fuzzy video from youtube of a dot of light in the dark in the ufo section or a picture of a rock on Mars and say it's an animal or skull or any proof of life THESE will have no other evidence to back them up but they will get hundreds of stars and flags , but you can post 100's of items to back up Apollo and people still say hoax.

Deny Ignorance they say

reply to post by wmd_2008


I think I mentioned before in this thread, but my position is that I don't trust NASA at all. I want proof of 1/6th gravity. Yes, I know there are lots of attempts at this on youtube... None I have seen so far convince me for reasons I discussed earlier. If I saw the pendulum experiment recreated on Earth in a vacuum chamber I think it would be possible to compare (speed up and slow down and such) that to the footage taken on the moon by NASA. I think it would be harder to fake 1/6th gravity than go to the moon, so I think that would prove it for me.

Someone suggested I e-mail NASA and ask them if this has been done. I will. Anyone know who I should contact at NASA???

reply to post by MrN9k


Are you the guy that has an engineering background



Have a look at this and I can't believe if you have an engineering background that you had any doubt!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


That's the second time in this thread someone post that video... I love the music....

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

That's the second time in this thread someone post that video... I love the music....

No comment on the figures then re gravity you do understand the laws of motion and how g on the moon was worked out

Since you could only comment on the music I will take that as a NO!

reply to post by wmd_2008


I suggest you read back to where this video was discussed previously in this thread. All the best.

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I suggest you read back to where this video was discussed previously in this thread. All the best.

Point me to it !!! Have you watched all the video care to explain the bag drop to everyone and why that is not proof

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh you lazy so and so! I will go find it for ya...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I post before then, but this was when I rejoined recently and post again.

To understand my views on this you would probably need to read everything from then until now.

Yes I have watched the video...

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Oh you lazy so and so! I will go find it for ya...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I post before then, but this was when I rejoined recently and post again.

To understand my views on this you would probably need to read everything from then until now.

Yes I have watched the video...

edit on 6-3-2013 by MrN9k because: (no reason given)

Well GUESS what my video link is NOT the same video so you didn't watch it here is my link again ***SNIP***



What you have shown is you jump to conclusion dont look at links and talk total BS it common practice on here if you refer to something in a previous post you supply a link to the video/picture etc like I have done above


Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

reply to post by wmd_2008


They all move like robots on the video. Maybe man never went to the moon, but robots did. Moving around robots, who can throw bags in the air and all. That was the same video posted earlier, and I, too, like the music, which is rare for me with a video, unless it's Garfunkel and Oates.

"That's one small step for a robot, one giant leap for robots"

And I'd like to hear MrN's take on the video, although I don't understand the maths. A specific question about the pendalum, why all the fuss when it could have just been slowed down so it looks like 1/6 th gravity. I'm playing a devil who's advocating here, as I believe man and robots went to the moon, hand in hand.