A film makers take on why the Moon landings were impossible to fake

[mako88sb]

I haven't a clue about the specifics of what he's talking about but it's great to see him explain it all in a way that even I can understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

Jarrah White who I'm sure some are familiar with made a video to counter some of this. Here's the response and again, he does a brilliant job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TelJ75pzP4

[Rhodes]

Nice! Thanks!:up:

[mapuc]

Thank you for the share.

I for one truly believe USA have been on the moon.

This belief have had it's torn now and then.

Markus

[Wolferz]

Those who think it was a hoax can abide by their opinions but, it happened. I witnessed the whole thing on TV, back when TV was honest in its reporting.
Mister Collins makes a good case regarding the tech available at that time and he's right. There is no way any of it could have been faked. The first television camera they set up on the moon was burned out when they inadvertently turned it toward the sun. Good thing there was a backup available or we wouldn't have witnessed anything other than astronaut home movies upon their return. That would have given the hoaxsayers plenty of ammo.:ping:
And of course we couldn't see any stars in the video feed. Can we see the moon during the day here on Earth, except during certain phases? Can we see stars during the day? The moon is always up there every day, as are the stars. They just get washed out by intense sunlight. Sunlight on the moon is much much brighter due to lack of atmo. Earth shows up in the lunar sky because it's a very brightly reflective planet.

[Rhodes]

As the author of the video explains, many of the hoax/conspiracy theorists do not have knowledge of photography or video! Many night photos that on takes, we do not see the stars, due to the exposition time.
I also laugh when during the reply video,the person that had made the refute for the first video says that 16mm film is used in TV and 35mm in cinema.

[Jimbuna]

Confirms what I have always believed...it did happen.

[Schroeder]

Confirms what I have always believed...it did happen.
No, no, no, no ,no! He's part of the conspiracy (he even gets a cheque from NASA at the end of the video!).:nope:
They have removed all the secret equipment which was very well able to fake that in 1969 and let it disappear in a even more secret hangar in area 51 (together with all the people they considered a risk)!

Don't be fooled!
(did anybody see my tinfoil hat?:hmm2:)

[Herr-Berbunch]

If it was real how come they didn't bump into the Nazis living there? Eh? Eh? Answer that one, knowitalls! :D

[Wolferz]

If it was real how come they didn't bump into the Nazis living there? Eh? Eh? Answer that one, knowitalls! :D

Yeah yeah,
If we answer that question, then you'll want to see the space suits covered with lunar cheese.:hmmm:

[danasan]

This documentation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/) prooves the fact that the USA was on the moon... a bit late... :D

[Jimbuna]

If it was real how come they didn't bump into the Nazis living there? Eh? Eh? Answer that one, knowitalls! :D

Come to think of it they never found that WWII bomber either :hmm2:

[antikristuseke]

Come to think of it they never found that WWII bomber either :hmm2:

Sunday Sport refrence?

Also if the moon landing was real, how do you explain the dead unicorns?

[Schroeder]

Sunday Sport refrence?

Also if the moon landing was real, how do you explain the dead unicorns?
The North Koreans ate them!:yep:

[Jimbuna]

http://www.freeloljokes.com/products/1992Cats%20can%20found%20in%20moon%20also.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=found+on+moon+funny&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=NxK1hk7eFCPZaM&tbnid=4JXN21jbEX5l6M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freeloljokes.com%2Fpictures.p hp%3Fpage%3D5%26category_id%3DFunny-Pictures%26catname%3DFunny%2520Pictures&ei=2n4CUvrgN-WR0AWpiYCgBw&bvm=bv.50310824,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNHMDBEaDs87hObiMHGybFumgZOdwg&ust=1375981612468261)

[Rhodes]

That's a fake! Every one knows that in 1969 there were no Photoshop!

[mapuc]

As written before I truly believe, but it have had it's moment were I have had a very little doubt.

Here's one of them and it's from a danish science program called "Viden Om" = About Science.

This time it was about sending human to Mars

Here is what she said: (I can almost remember every word)

"Before we send the humans to Mars, we have to solve the problem getting through the Van Allen Belt, we haven't solved that problem yet"
Then she talked about this radiations in this belt.

When she said those words my brain started to boil(not literally of course)

From what I know you have to pass this belt, if you want to put a man on the Moon.

I came to this result. The people behind this program haven't done it's research or this belt is further out in space.

Markus

[August]

That's a fake! Every one knows that in 1969 there were no Photoshop!

No foot prints around the astronaut either. :o

[mako88sb]

As written before I truly believe, but it have had it's moment were I have had a very little doubt.

Here's one of them and it's from a danish science program called "Viden Om" = About Science.

This time it was about sending human to Mars

Here is what she said: (I can almost remember every word)

"Before we send the humans to Mars, we have to solve the problem getting through the Van Allen Belt, we haven't solved that problem yet"
Then she talked about this radiations in this belt.

When she said those words my brain started to boil(not literally of course)

From what I know you have to pass this belt, if you want to put a man on the Moon.

I came to this result. The people behind this program haven't done it's research or this belt is further out in space.

Markus


Every mission to the moon involved going through the belts but despite what some "experts" claim, this is not as difficult as they would like you to believe. I don't know all the details but from what I've read, the design of the capsule was perfectly adequate to shield them from the worst of any radiation hazard. Also, the amount of time spent in the actual belts was a fraction of the time required to cause any lasting harm.

[mako88sb]

This documentation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/) prooves the fact that the USA was on the moon... a bit late... :D

I never did see that. So how many V-2's did it take to get them to the moon?

[Platapus]

The first television camera they set up on the moon was burned out when they inadvertently turned it toward the sun.

I am pretty sure that happened on Apollo 12. When Bean accidentally pointed the Westinghouse color TV camera at the sun while repositioning it after about 40 minutes of use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

[Wxman]

Moon landing hoaxers are nothing more than those that are colossally ignorant of basic tenets of science and physics.

These individuals are bleating fools, curdled staggering mutant dwarves smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying their alleged birth into this world; insensate, blinking calves, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts that sired them and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as they. Lepers cross the street to avoid these individuals. They are vile, worthless, less than nothing. If they aren't actually idiots, they've made a world-class effort to simulate such.

What snail-skulled little rabbits they are. Would that a hawk pick them up, drive its beak into their brains, and upon finding it rancid set them loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of their ignoble blood. May they choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of their own trite, foolish beliefs.

Monkeys look down on them and even sheep won't have sex with them. They are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. What possible meaning do they expect regarding their delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinions? What fantasy do they hold that they would believe that their tiny-fisted tantrums carry greater importance than that of a blind and depraved leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle - shrieking wildly in horror - awaiting for the bite of the pit-viper?

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid the hoaxers are. And I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. They're meta-stupid having surpassed trans-stupid stupid and transcending stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid that has gotten so dense that no enlightenment can escape to the degree of sub-singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. More stupid is emitted in one second by a single one of these individuals than the entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

I'd be apoplectic at discovering anything our universe that can really be equivalently stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.

I'm sorry. I can't go on. I just simply don't have enough strength left to sufficiently deride their ignorant questions, half baked comments, or any of the rest of their drivel.

:/\\!!

[Platapus]

You do have a way with words. :yep:

But how do you really feel?

[u crank]

@Wxman.

I think we get your drift. Then again....:O:

[August]

You do have a way with words. :yep:

But how do you really feel?


Judging by the amount of hits when you google various passages i'd say as least someone had a way with words. :)

[Penguin]

Thanks, mako88sb for sharing this, 2 great vids.

Two things were very interesting:
in the first video, how the author pointed out how often people who want to believe, slide into "magic" explainations.
I had a similar discussion during the weekend about cryptology. My two friends, who are no hoaxers, but not very computer savy, speculated about how the authorities have supercomputers who would not be available to the public. I tried to point out that even the best computers can't beat the laws of exponentiality, though they couldn't really wrap their heads around this. Even tried the old ricecorn on a chessboard example, but it didn't help.
Point is, it is not easy to explain technology and especially its limitations. Therefore big kudos to SG Collins for trying to explain it to the layman, I think he did a great job.

The second video exposes much about how those troofers work: Google some keywords, take one of the first 10 links and quote some random stuff= proof. :har: Nice and comfy from your home computer, why go out and ask people who know their stuff.

The book about the moon broadcast Collins' held into the camera looks also pretty interesting. For anyone who's interested in the technical aspect of the TV broadcast, I can also recommend this site: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/


I also laugh when during the reply video,the person that had made the refute for the first video says that 16mm film is used in TV and 35mm in cinema.

To be fair, this is the only thing I saw Collins' didn't get 100% right. Many TV movies/series have been shot on 16mm, though I think it wasn't very common untill super 16 came out.
In ENG, 16mm (reverse film due to time constraints) stayed popular untill the mid 70s, untill U-Matic became popular and affordable. However this makes Collins' quality remark still valid.
The hoax guy should just have gone to any film set on the world and ask the camera assistant what the hell they are doing after every take when they check the cam for fuzz which might have landed on the film during seconds of shooting. :)
That's why I loved this sentence: "If you're thinking of shooting 16mm at double speed with a 2300 foot load: Don't!" True words, dat! :rotfl2:

[Rhodes]

To be fair, this is the only thing I saw Collins' didn't get 100% right. Many TV movies/series have been shot on 16mm, though I think it wasn't very common untill super 16 came out.
In ENG, 16mm (reverse film due to time constraints) stayed popular untill the mid 70s, untill U-Matic became popular and affordable. However this makes Collins' quality remark still valid.
The hoax guy should just have gone to any film set on the world and ask the camera assistant what the hell they are doing after every take when they check the cam for fuzz which might have landed on the film during seconds of shooting. :)
That's why I loved this sentence: "If you're thinking of shooting 16mm at double speed with a 2300 foot load: Don't!" True words, dat! :rotfl2:

Yes, I know. The remark may induce error in saying that 35mm is use for TV, but it's not only 35mm. As you said, 16mm was also used. I learn that when reading about and then seeing (on dvd, one can see better) Monty Python FC. They use 35mm for studio scenes and on the street shootings, one can see the lesser quality of the 16mm that was used.
And so, many other TV series would had done the same!

And film format knowledge is also need : 35mm is possibly (writing from memory) the largest "miniature" format film. When going smaller, films tends to "be more grainier" when enlarged.

[Wxman]

...My two friends, who are no hoaxers, but not very computer savy, speculated about how the authorities have supercomputers who would not be available to the public. I tried to point out that even the best computers can't beat the laws of exponentiality, though they couldn't really wrap their heads around this. Even tried the old ricecorn on a chessboard example, but it didn't help...


I couldn't resist responding to this but it emminently is a digression to TOP.

The number of grains of rice on the first half of the chessboard is 1 + 2 + 4 + 8... + 2,147,483,648, for a total of 4,294,967,295 (2^32 − 1) grains of rice, or about 100,000 kg of rice (assuming 25 mg each).

The number of grains of rice on the first square of the second half of the chessboard is 2^32, or one grain less than the sum total of all the squares before it.

India's annual production of rice amounts to 0.57 of the number of grains placed on the 21st square in the second half alone.

On the entire chessboard there would be 2^64 − 1 grains = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 weighing 461,168,602,000 metric tons, which would be a heap of rice larger than Mount Everest and in excess of 1,000 times the global production of rice in 2010.

The probability that Jesus of Nazareth as being the single arbitrary random man in all of history that fulfilled a mere eight of the 60 major prophecies - and the associated 270 ramifications of such - contained in Scripture would be 1 in 10^17. Calculation yields that 10^17 silver dollars are of sufficient quantity to cover the face of the entire state of Texas (if piled to a depth of two feet). Texas is a very big state. Anybody that's driven through it knows how long it takes to get from one side to the other. 1 in 10^17 odds is equivalent to a blind man heading out of Dallas by foot in any direction, and for as long as he desires to do so, and then be able, on his very first attempt, to pick up one specifically marked silver dollar.

If one increases the fullfilled prophecies to 48 out of the 60 (including associated 270 ramifications), the odds are 1 in 10^157. Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening by random chance. This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel. But this happens all the time in evolution, odds worse than the number of electrons in the universe 10^120 absoutely happen all the time. I think I digress.

The physical analogy is that instead of silver dollars, you'll need electrons to cover the State of Texas, but to a depth of eight feet deep. This number is in excess of the total number of molecules in the universe (10^80), and more than all the electrons in the universe (10^120).

To get a brain around how big 10^157 is, I'm not going to randomly choose on electron out of that pile, I'm going to search through each one using the NUDT Tianhe-2 supercomputer - 16,000 computer nodes, each comprising two Intel Ivy Bridge Xeon processors and three Xeon Phi chips for a total of 3,120,000 cores - rated at 33.86 PFLOPS, i.e., 33.86 x 10^15 ticks per second. It would take no longer than 2.95 x 10^140 seconds to find the specially marked electron.

[Penguin]

I learn that when reading about and then seeing (on dvd, one can see better) Monty Python FC. They use 35mm for studio scenes and on the street shootings, one can see the lesser quality of the 16mm that was used.
And so, many other TV series would had done the same!

Never watched the extras from my FC box, will do that now! :salute:
So the trade-off for BBC's pea-counters was more expensive material for the indoor shots, but less lighting costs - and less roasting of the actors :)
Another thing which comes to my mind is, that film back then didn't have the sensitity of nowadays material.
First, as you mentioned 16mm is more grainy per se, second, you need more sensitive film in 16 under the same light conditions. As more sensitive also basically means bigger grain, using 16mm over 35 to fake the moon landing, would have made even less sense.

Another aspect is the depth of field. Many directors/DOP's always hated the "video look", which was also a reason film was used so long. Due to smaller exposure areas (tubes/ccds), compared to 16 or 35mm, video always had this look which even amateurs notice: the "mile-long-focus". Which has always been a quite strange work for techs to compensate it when working on staged stuff: first make it crisp, then do everything possible to make it not look so sharp, haha.
So that's another thing which people would have noticed when the landing would have been shot on film: the much lesser depth of field.

[TLAM Strike]

The biggest issue I have with these Hoaxers is that to truly fake it NASA would have to not just launch a rocket, but actually fly the spacecraft to the moon and back because anyone with a telescope could see the spacecraft. They could actually see things like fuel being vented by the spacecraft and even the cloud of O2 from the explosion aboard 13. Passengers aboard airliners even saw the command module entering the atmosphere with nothing but the naked eye.

If NASA could build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and back to fake the Apollo mission, and had previously landed unmanned spacecraft there we have to assume they actually did have the capability to land people on the moon!

Here is a nice little web page about the telescope observations of Apollo including some photos:
http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

[August]

The biggest issue I have with these Hoaxers is that to truly fake it NASA would have to not just launch a rocket, but actually fly the spacecraft to the moon and back because anyone with a telescope could see the spacecraft. They could actually see things like fuel being vented by the spacecraft and even the cloud of O2 from the explosion aboard 13. Passengers aboard airliners even saw the command module entering the atmosphere with nothing but the naked eye.

If NASA could build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and back to fake the Apollo mission, and had previously landed unmanned spacecraft there we have to assume they actually did have the capability to land people on the moon!

Here is a nice little web page about the telescope observations of Apollo including some photos:
http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Exactly.

The one I always liked is how any ham operator with a direction finder could easily tell that Neil Armstrong was broadcasting from the moon. You can't fake the origin of a radio signal.

[TLAM Strike]

Exactly.

The one I always liked is how any ham operator with a direction finder could easily tell that Neil Armstrong was broadcasting from the moon. You can't fake the origin of a radio signal.

Hoaxers will claim that the signal was relayed from one of the landers NASA had sent to the moon.

Of course they fail to realize that if NASA could successfully land a unmanned spacecraft on the moon then a manned one could also be landed. :03:

[Rhodes]

Penguin, I do not if there is something on the extras of FC, I read it on a site about the series. 16mm cameras are smaller so more portable to shoot in the streets and etc. Logical!
Yes, film back then would me more grainier, in 69 the fastest film should be around iso 400!
Never thought of the DOF, since I not interested in motion film/video, but it's a good point!
Other thing, Hasselblad made their photo cameras, why do some elaborate camera just to help NASA hoax! Also, after all this years, none camera eng. come out and say, the cameras were dummies and all was a fake! Or they did, but since it were in Swedish, no one got it...

(ops, forgot about Vendor...)!:D

[Gerald]

Penguin, I do not if there is something on the extras of FC, I read it on a site about the series. 16mm cameras are smaller so more portable to shoot in the streets and etc. Logical!
Yes, film back then would me more grainier, in 69 the fastest film should be around iso 400!
Never thought of the DOF, since I not interested in motion film/video, but it's a good point!
Other thing, Hasselblad made their photo cameras, why do some elaborate camera just to help NASA hoax! Also, after all this years, none camera eng. come out and say, the cameras were dummies and all was a fake! Or they did, but since it were in Swedish, no one got it...

(ops, forgot about Vendor...)!:D Be happy that they were genuine Swedish, best quality otherwise it would have been imported cameras from a low-cost country and no space trip :O:

[TarJak]

For anyone who's interested in the technical aspect of the TV broadcast, I can also recommend this site: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/
Thank you for posting this link. I've vistied Tidbinbilla where the Honeysuckle creek antenna is as well as the Parkes station. Both had some great displays of the work tehy were doing bringing the moon landing pictures to the world. I was a young lad of 5 when this took place, but I do remember sitting in front on my Grandparen't black and white TV avidly watching the landing being beamed live.

I for one think the hoaxers can all go take a flying leap.:salute:

[Wolferz]

Parke Station did a fine job of it too, Tarjak. :salute::up:

I guess I was lucky to watch it on a color television.

Wouldn't it be fun to send the hoaxers up there and show them Tranquility base and watch them eat crow?
In a space suit.:haha:

mmm crow paste and Tang.

[mako88sb]

Moon landing hoaxers are nothing more than those that are colossally ignorant of basic tenets of science and physics.

These individuals are bleating fools, curdled staggering mutant dwarves smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying their alleged birth into this world; insensate, blinking calves, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts that sired them and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as they. Lepers cross the street to avoid these individuals. They are vile, worthless, less than nothing. If they aren't actually idiots, they've made a world-class effort to simulate such.

What snail-skulled little rabbits they are. Would that a hawk pick them up, drive its beak into their brains, and upon finding it rancid set them loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of their ignoble blood. May they choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of their own trite, foolish beliefs.

Monkeys look down on them and even sheep won't have sex with them. They are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. What possible meaning do they expect regarding their delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinions? What fantasy do they hold that they would believe that their tiny-fisted tantrums carry greater importance than that of a blind and depraved leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle - shrieking wildly in horror - awaiting for the bite of the pit-viper?

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid the hoaxers are. And I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. They're meta-stupid having surpassed trans-stupid stupid and transcending stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid that has gotten so dense that no enlightenment can escape to the degree of sub-singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. More stupid is emitted in one second by a single one of these individuals than the entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

I'd be apoplectic at discovering anything our universe that can really be equivalently stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.

I'm sorry. I can't go on. I just simply don't have enough strength left to sufficiently deride their ignorant questions, half baked comments, or any of the rest of their drivel.

:/\\!!

Just in case there's the teeniest weeniest hint of a possibility that you might think the hoaxheads may have any redeeming qualities, this should purge it out of your mind:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZjgqM7loUc


I should mention that this Frenchman claims to be a aerospace engineer as well as a electrical & computer engineer. He's also come to the conclusion that all the scientist and engineers involved with Apollo were doing it under duress so although they went along with supposedly faking the missions, they left subtle clues so that somebody like him would eventually figure out NASA's duplicity. I've thought at times that it's all a big practical joke on his part but the guy has done well over 300 videos over the last 3 or 4 years and seems to be on youtube an inordinate amount of time defending his position. Pretty hard to believe someone would put that much time and effort into a prank.

[mako88sb]

Hoaxers will claim that the signal was relayed from one of the landers NASA had sent to the moon.

Of course they fail to realize that if NASA could successfully land a unmanned spacecraft on the moon then a manned one could also be landed. :03:

Yes but that's why some are trying to make the case that the Van Allen belts are much more of a barrier then we've been lead to believe and that in fact, according to them, no living thing has ever left lower Earth orbit. It really boggles the mind some of the nonsense they will come up with to try and perpetuate their daft theories.

Then of course there are the idiots that insist NASA should send a rover type robot to the moon to prove that there's anything man-made left there. Yeah right, as if they will ever believe any type of proof by NASA. They immediately discounted the LRO pictures of some of the landing sites as obvious fakes. There's no reasoning with these losers.

[mako88sb]

The biggest issue I have with these Hoaxers is that to truly fake it NASA would have to not just launch a rocket, but actually fly the spacecraft to the moon and back because anyone with a telescope could see the spacecraft. They could actually see things like fuel being vented by the spacecraft and even the cloud of O2 from the explosion aboard 13. Passengers aboard airliners even saw the command module entering the atmosphere with nothing but the naked eye.

If NASA could build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and back to fake the Apollo mission, and had previously landed unmanned spacecraft there we have to assume they actually did have the capability to land people on the moon!

Here is a nice little web page about the telescope observations of Apollo including some photos:
http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

That's a great site! Thanks for the link.:up:

[Dread Knot]

I should mention that this Frenchman claims to be a aerospace engineer as well as a electrical & computer engineer. He's also come to the conclusion that all the scientist and engineers involved with Apollo were doing it under duress so although they went along with supposedly faking the missions, they left subtle clues so that somebody like him would eventually figure out NASA's duplicity.



From the Clavius.org Apollo hoax debunker site. There are many glaring problems with the "scientists and engineers under duress or payoff scenario".

The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over 40 years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.


Disgruntled employees. Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.


No evidence of reward. The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are scattered across the country now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive.


No evidence of threat. Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work.


No posthumous revelations. Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.


No Boy Scouts. Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty. I think some more recent versions of Serpico come to mind too.
Clearly the idea of keeping half a million or so people quiet for forty years and counting is a very tall order.

[mako88sb]

From the Clavius.org Apollo hoax debunker site. There are many glaring problems with the "scientists and engineers under duress or payoff scenario".

The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over 40 years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.


Disgruntled employees. Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.


No evidence of reward. The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are scattered across the country now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive.


No evidence of threat. Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work.


No posthumous revelations. Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.


No Boy Scouts. Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty. I think some more recent versions of Serpico come to mind too.
Clearly the idea of keeping half a million or so people quiet for forty years and counting is a very tall order.

Yes, all those plus others have been pointed out to him and he eventually comes up for an excuse for everything. For example the death bed revelations he brushes off by stating the evil CIA, who of course is behind all of this, made it known that they would do harm to relatives left behind so nobody dares go that route.

As for the number of employees involved, his position is that there were actually only a fraction of them who knew about the supposed fake landings so they were able to compartmentalize and control what those involved actually knew. Of course, the fact that he has to come up with more and more conspiracy theories to explain every detail that would derail his claims which involves more and more people is something he dismisses as irrelevant.

The guy is obviously suffering some type of OCD about this topic and it`s progressed to the point were he now claims all the Mar`s rovers are also faked.

[Dread Knot]

Yes, all those plus others have been pointed out to him and he eventually comes up for an excuse for everything. For example the death bed revelations he brushes off by stating the evil CIA, who of course is behind all of this, made it known that they would do harm to relatives left behind so nobody dares go that route.


That's where so many conspiracy theories go off the track. To watch all these technicians and engineers day and night to keep them from spilling the beans requires a large army of agents who are in on the secret as well. At some point more people are "in" on the conspiracy than out.

[Dread Knot]

As for the number of employees involved, his position is that there were actually only a fraction of them who knew about the supposed fake landings so they were able to compartmentalize and control what those involved actually knew. Of course, the fact that he has to come up with more and more conspiracy theories to explain every detail that would derail his claims which involves more and more people is something he dismisses as irrelevant.



The "compartmentalization" or "need to know scenario" is well covered at Clavius as well.


At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.
The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.
These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work. In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

[Wxman]

Just in case there's the teeniest weeniest hint of a possibility that you might think the hoaxheads may have any redeeming qualities, this should purge it out of your mind:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZjgqM7loUc




I see how you you are. You're trying to get me winded up again. :shifty:

Conspiracy nuts, hoaxers and atheist types (of any philosphy, concept or idea) just can not be reasoned with. There are no shortage of conspiracies.

A good example are the 9/11 truthers. Rosie O'Donnel, the emminent architectural engieer of fame that is co-host on The View - as if she's any sort of authority on anything but her fat ass - stated unequivocally that "fire can't melt steel." HOW is anybody going to reason with such an ignorant slut as that?

Then there are the HAARP, chemtrail or Flt 800 "shoot-down" conspiracies (to mention a few, and not ignoring any others). You're just not going to budge these individuals a fempto-meter.

Once I was witnessing - evangelism - to an individual. And they threw out questions as objections to having faith. What about this? What about that? Oh, and then there's this contradiction. Oh, yeah, well then there's that contradiction. After rebutting each and every one, it dawned on me, "You're not going to accept anything I have to say, are you?"

"Oh, no. I'll concede what you say is indeed compelling. And I've heard it all before; I just can't be convinced of any of it."

"Then, why are you wasting my time?"

"Oh, I just wanted hear what you had to say about it."

In another case, after a day of open air evangelism, I approached an individual sitting on a wall adjacent to the sidewalk. Our bus was parked a few feet away and the team was getting ready to leave. I approached the individual and inquired, "Sir, may I ask you a question?"

He replied, "I'm not here."

I knew exactly what he was getting on about; nothing more than New Age philosophy bhuddist existentialism. "Right." I replied.

"Neither am I." and immediately got on the bus and we left in short order.

According to the rules of logic, no belief is necessary in and of itself despite any arbitrary argument's conclusion reasonably following its premises, being valid and, indeed, outright sound. For inductive reasoning, belief does not necessarily follow a strong argument (despite it being cogent).

One must not necessarily believe anything. However, the converse is not true; one's belief must necessarily be predicated either deductively valid (and preferably sound), or inductively at least weak (and preferbaly strong); for the latter cogence is preferable.

While an unfounded belief is irrational (it could be indeed true), unbellef is existentially dependent upon how compelling an argument must be for it to become convincing.

[Wolferz]

Would the Frenchman hoaxhead be Krazy Frenchman?
The secret squirrel of the Ubisoft forums.:haha:

Those who tell lies usually possess an inordinate desire to protect the lies.:nope:

I'm sure Buzz Aldrin has been getting loads of laughs over the chuckleheads and their hoax mania.

[Wxman]

I should mention that this Frenchman claims to be a aerospace engineer as well as a electrical & computer engineer... Pretty hard to believe someone would put that much time and effort into a prank.

There was a London street preacher that announced to his audience that every atheist was a fool because the Bible said so. A well known atheist in the crowd shouted back that was a slanderous insult, which he took personally, and he would sue the preacher for damages.

"Its not slander to tell the truth."

"And its not truth unless you can prove it! You'll have to go to court to prove I'm a fool, or I'll take every pound you've got!"

"I don't have to go to court to prove you're a fool," said the preacher calmly. "You say you're an atheist?"

"Yes, and not just a casual one. I've spent my whole life proving God doesn't exist. Its a pernicious myth!"

"You've spent your whole life proving God doesn't exist - through no small amount of effrort either I would speculate - , have you?" replied the preacher.

The well known atheist being involved in numerous lawsuits and lobbying for legislation was no stranger to the front pages of the newspaper, "YES!"

"Tell me this: if a man who spends his entire life fighting against something that doesn't exist isn't a fool, who is?"

[mako88sb]

That's where so many conspiracy theories go off the track. To watch all these technicians and engineers day and night to keep them from spilling the beans requires a large army of agents who are in on the secret as well. At some point more people are "in" on the conspiracy than out.

Yes and I've pointed out to him about all the scientists and engineers outside the USA's sphere of influence who have confirmed the landings plus the lunar rocks and core samples as being real. Yet we are supposed to believe according to him that the CIA is large enough to keep everybody toeing the line? It doesn't matter. We all underestimate the CIA's abilities but of course it's not odd that he's not in any danger even though supposedly coming close to exposing the faked landings.

Anyway, I find it's pointless arguing with him. He seems to think he will eventually re-write the history books and be regarded as another Galileo such is the extent of his delusional behavior. I see he's getting closer to 400 videos posted about the subject yet the amount of views of all of them is just a fraction of SG Collins video. I was once worried that these pro-hoax nuts were gaining ground but I think I've been over-estimating them by a fair bit.

[Wxman]

The "compartmentalization" or "need to know scenario" is well covered at Clavius as well.


At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.

The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.

These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work. In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

Succinctly put; such is the preemminent premise to a compelling argument in favor of the credibility and integrity of the account of the Apollo program.

The scope of the Apollo project is stupifying to contemplate. The effort was a national one and of epic proportions. The only thing that could be equivalent in contemporary times would be a manned Mars landing. I am, however, extremely skeptical that neither any nation could repeat such endeavor in today's socio/economic climate, nor is it conceivable it can be accomplished collectively on a global scale. Neither would be possible without some extreme transcending will on par with The Cold War struggle (which the Apollo program was an outgrowth of).

One only needs to peruse the collossal and incomprehensible mound of technical documentation that exists pertaining to all the aspects of the Apollo program. The interdependant disciplines necessary for all the various components necessary to be designed, manufactured and then assembled into a whole to function as a system is staggering; the Manhattan Project pales in comparison. How long did that remain a secret until the commies could build their own?

And the spin-offs into contemporary commercial technology is just as mind-boggling. In fact, its that argument in and of itself that is the most compelling reason to commit the economic resources on a global scale necessary for a manned Mars mission. The financial returns on such investment - albeit initially nearly astronomical - would be likewise of similiar magnitude (if not orders greater). Imagine all the thus far unknown technology and scientific breakthroughs that would get patented and then incorporated into consumer products; every aspect of life as we know it would be altered.

Just the water recycling sub-system of a Mars mission would be a transcending development. And the list of such technological breakthroughs necessary is endless.

[mako88sb]

I see how you you are. You're trying to get me winded up again. :shifty:

Sorry. I couldn't resist.:D

[mako88sb]

Just the water recycling sub-system of a Mars mission would be a transcending development. And the list of such technological breakthroughs necessary is endless.

Yes, I was reading about how they are trying to come up with a different way of feeding anybody on a Mars trip as the usual freeze-dried fare is not practical due to how limited water usage will be.

[Dread Knot]

Yes and I've pointed out to him about all the scientists and engineers outside the USA's sphere of influence who have confirmed the landings plus the lunar rocks and core samples as being real. Yet we are supposed to believe according to him that the CIA is large enough to keep everybody toeing the line? It doesn't matter. We all underestimate the CIA's abilities but of course it's not odd that he's not in any danger even though supposedly coming close to exposing the faked landings.

Anyway, I find it's pointless arguing with him. He seems to think he will eventually re-write the history books and be regarded as another Galileo such is the extent of his delusional behavior. I see he's getting closer to 400 videos posted about the subject yet the amount of views of all of them is just a fraction of SG Collins video. I was once worried that these pro-hoax nuts were gaining ground but I think I've been over-estimating them by a fair bit.

I agree with your assessment of the guy. Let the conspiracist have his fantasy. Pathetic as it is, it's likely all the claim to fame he has or will ever have.

The blind stubbornness of most conspiracy theorists does remind me of the joke about proponents of the alternate JFK assassination theories. When two of them find themselves in heaven before God, they ask him "who really killed JFK?" God soberly replies," Lee Harvey Oswald did."

One conspiracy theorists turns to the other and says. "Geez, even God is in on it. The cover-up is bigger than we thought." :03:

[Wxman]

...Let the conspiracist have his fantasy. Pathetic as it is, it's likely all the claim to fame he has or will ever have...FK assassination theories. When two of them find themselves in heaven


This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of their ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.
The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship.
Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely the are to think so.
Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills.
“In my early days it was an article of faith among a self-styled ‘intellectual elite’ that they could teach calculus to a horse…if they started early enough, spent enough money, supplied special tutoring, and were endlessly patient and always careful not to bruise his equine ego. They were so sincere that it seems downright ungrateful that the horse always persisted in being a horse. Especially as they were right..if ‘starting early enough’ is defined as a million years or more.”


Source: The Notes of Lazarus Long (Time Enough For Love)

Reasoning with conspiratists is akin to trying to teach a dog algebra.

[Wolferz]

With the special effects technology we have these days, we could conceivably put on a mission to mars photoplay that would rival Orson Well's panic producing radio play and actually make people believe it happened.
The hoax sayers would have a joygasm.
I'm surprised the hoaxnauts haven't blamed the belief in an actual moon landing on theCIA's MK Ultra experiments.:hmmm: Both projects did start around the same time period.:ping:

[Platapus]

That is the nice thing about conspiracies, both back then and today. All one has to do is make the claim and any contrary evidence is only further "evidence" of the conspiracy.

The more evidence that refutes the conspiracy, the more people believe the conspiracy.

Due to human nature, we expect someone to disprove a conspiracy that we happen to agree with, instead of first trying to prove it.

Anyone that tells you that a conspiracy is false, is part of the conspiracy. After all, only a select few "know" the "truth". :doh:

[Feuer Frei!]

ignorant slut as that?
Nice choice of language.

Keep in mind this is a forum aimed at all age groups.

[Wxman]

My bad. The oblique reference to a well known line of a long running Saturday Night Live sketch may not be so well known to an international audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_Update

SNL's version of "Point/Counterpoint" featured Curtin and Aykroyd making ad hominem attacks on each other's positions on a variety of topics. Aykroyd regularly began his reply with "Jane, you [expetive deleted]", which became another of the many SNL catch phrases (Curtin frequently began her reply with "Dan, you pompous [explitive deleted]").

But you're right, I should've gone all Emily Litella on O'Donnel regarding her 9/11 truther drivel and based on her stupid support of the Eagle Right's Ammendment, no wonder she thinks that way.

[Simmy]

The one thing the conspiracy people had never explained is, if man was never on the moon how is it people, many people, have been able to bounce lazers off the reflectors left there by the men who were there.

see: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

[razark]

...reflectors left there by the men who were there.
They'd say that they were put there by robotic landers.

[Simmy]

They'd say that they were put there by robotic landers.

Like they were around in 1969. I guess if you will believe that, you believe anything. Wonder if they could explain just how that would work?

[August]

They'd say that they were put there by robotic landers.

Now you have robots that not only can land, set up a communications relay station but can also plant and aim an entire array of reflectors? Seems to me that in the 1969 sending a human up there to do all that would actually be easier than designing a machine to do it.

[razark]

Like they were around in 1969. I guess if you will believe that, you believe anything. Wonder if they could explain just how that would work?
Surveyor 3:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Apollo12ConradSurveyor.jpg/650px-Apollo12ConradSurveyor.jpg

It not only managed an unmanned landing on the moon, but it did it in 1967, and made a pinpoint landing not far from Apollo 12's landing site. Such precision could only be the result of alien technology.


Seems to me that in the 1969 sending a human up there to do all that would actually be easier than designing a machine to do it.
That's why they faked the whole landing. They needed to come up with something to hide the fact that they were using very sophisticated robots, so they made up the completely unbelievable "men on the moon" thing. All the footage from the missions was real, they simply covered up the fact that Armstrong, Aldrin, and the rest were androids.

[August]

Androids that age like human beings?

Buzz Aldrin don't play that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

:)

[Wxman]

...The second lunar landing on November 19 was an exercise in precision targeting, which would be needed for future Apollo missions. Most of the descent was automatic, with manual control assumed by Conrad during the final few hundred feet of descent. Unlike Apollo 11, where Neil Armstrong had to use the manual control to direct his lander downrange of the computer's target which was strewn with boulders, Apollo 12 succeeded in landing at its intended target - within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 probe, which had landed on the Moon in April 1967. This was the first — and, to date, only — occasion in which humans have "caught up" to a probe sent to land on another world.

Conrad actually landed Intrepid 580 feet (175 m) short of "Pete's Parking Lot", because it looked rougher during final approach than anticipated, and was a little under 1,180 feet (360 m) from Surveyor 3, a distance that was chosen to eliminate the possibility of lunar dust (being kicked up by Intrepid's descent engine during landing) from covering Surveyor 3. But the actual touchdown point — approximately 600 feet (185 m) from Surveyor 3 — did cause high velocity sandblasting of the probe. It was later determined that the sandblasting removed more dust than it delivered onto the Surveyor, because the probe was covered by a thin layer that gave it a tan hue as observed by the astronauts, and every portion of the surface exposed to the direct sandblasting was lightened back toward the original white color through the removal of lunar dust...

...Apollo 12 successfully landed within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 probe. Conrad and Bean removed pieces of the probe to be taken back to Earth for analysis. It is claimed that the common bacterium Streptococcus mitis was found to have accidentally contaminated the spacecraft's camera prior to launch and survived dormant in this harsh environment for two and a half years. However, this finding has since been disputed: see Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the Moon... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis_on_the_Moon)

SOURCE: Wikipedia - Apollo 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12_Landing_Site#Landing)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Apollo12ConradSurveyor.jpg/650px-Apollo12ConradSurveyor.jpg

[razark]

Androids that age like human beings?
Obviously, they created one to look like the real Dr. Aldrin, and swapped the human back in after the flight. Why else would they keep the crew in a quarantine trailer? Either that, or they take him in every few years for cleaning and that's when they "age" him to keep up the hoax.

Buzz Aldrin don't play that.
See, that's just more proof. A real 72 year old man doesn't go around punching people. It's obviously a robot.

[August]

See, that's just more proof. A real 72 year old man doesn't go around punching people. It's obviously a robot.


Nah, a real robot doesn't have a temper to loose like that. And i've met a few 72 year olds that were quite feisty. :)

[Simmy]

Yes, Surveyor was unmanned, but didn't carry a reflector.
The Russians and the French actually placed reflectors on the moon with unmanned landers, after the U.S. was there. The problem is, that they could not be placed with the care a human could provide and return a much weaker single.
Some have even bounced off the Russian lander, but again the single is very weak.
But I guess people will believe what they want to believe.
Some even think the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and LBJ were all involved in JFK's murder.:D

[razark]

Nah, a real robot doesn't have a temper to loose like that.
Must have been programmed to act that way.

Yes, Surveyor was unmanned, but didn't carry a reflector.
Well, that's the official story, anyway.

I see, now. You must be in on it, too. How much are they paying y'all to hush it up?!?


Some even think the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and LBJ were all involved in JFK's murder.
Now why would the Roswell Greys get them folks involved?
(Although, one of the guys I've seen had "Official Alien Contact Team" on his badge...)

[August]

Must have been programmed to act that way.

Only a robot would say that. When did they get to you man? :hmmm:

[Dowly]

Mitchell & Webb - Moon landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw