A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

[ArcspacE]

Who refuted those examples? Some flimflam American TV show using a little set?


I never said they didn't land on later missions - was specifically referring to arguments surrounding the inital mission and its publicised material. Your Japanese link is from the 4th Apollo mission, btw

 

[THFC]

Well, playing devils advocate here, there would not have to be hundreds of ground staff involved, nor would the governments of other nations for a moon landing to be faked, neccessarily. A camera on the space shuttle would send pictures back to the control centre, it doesn't mean everyone looking at those pictures in the control room are in on it, they would (bearing in mind this is the 60's) effectively see the images believing this is what is happening.

I don't think it is unfeasible for it to have been faked, a space shuttle could quite easily go into space, and a compnent of said space shuttle then sent to the moon, thus tracking systems would pick up on an item going to the moon.

 

[ArcspacE]

Well, playing devils advocate here, there would not have to be hundreds of ground staff involved, nor would the governments of other nations for a moon landing to be faked, neccessarily. A camera on the space shuttle would send pictures back to the control centre, it doesn't mean everyone looking at those pictures in the control room are in on it, they would (bearing in mind this is the 60's) effectively see the images believing this is what is happening.

I don't think it is unfeasible for it to have been faked, a space shuttle could quite easily go into space, and a compnent of said space shuttle then sent to the moon, thus tracking systems would pick up on an item going to the moon.

Which is part of what I suggested earlier in a nutshell

 

[Gifter]

Quickly looked at those two wiki links, seems to support my point of view. Feel free to point me to the examples in there that aren't refuted in the very same article.

You're right to be sceptical of wiki links of course, however you don't seem to take what sources they use and list into account.

This link is from the document I linked to.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

This is from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency. This explains how they during their SELENE mission made 3D images of the surface of the moon, then showing how the images from the Apollo landing site looks pretty much exactly like in the photos in their 3D model.

This is of course absolute evidence that the moon landings happened. Unless you want to state that this is just part of the conspiracy, this then would again adds even more people to the list of conspirators.

Seeing as this is from 2008 that would not only invalidate your claim that that this was done because of the cold war and of course mean that your estimate of "20 people" would have to be added to, to say the least.

That was looking at the sources of just one of the points in that wiki article...

It absolutely does not prove anything, had there been unmanned missions first? Pictures taken on those also? Would they not have been able to use those as background composition in staging shots? Yes they would. You are going to need to use stronger points than that if you want to use your 'absolute proof' style statements.

 

[braineclipse]

The problem is - the latest counter-argument you were very quick to discover offers absolutely zero conclusive proof - at least not any more or less than the 'conspiracy' in Gifter's latest post. They simply offer 'alternative' answers to the theories and questions being raised, nothing more. You however obviously chose to accept that as 'truth' and the other one as a lie? How come - because someone with a weird English accent says 'it couldn't work' - isn't that as good as tin-foil?

I enjoy both sides of the argument on this one as it brings very interesting evidence and perspective into an extremely rich topic. Whereas you appear to react aggressively to the word 'conspiracy' alone and automatically assume a mission to discredit any opinion since in your vocabulary it clearly stands as a synonym for 'flimflam'. Forget about the 'conspiracy' for a second and look at the arguments being presented - both offer an interesting angle and both sides have massive agendas to fulfil.

What word would you like me to use instead of conspiracy theorist? The moon hoax believers? Moon landing deniers? Sersious question, I just use conspiracy theorist cause it seems to be the clearest, but I would be willing to use another term.

1. You have a NASA photo from the moon.

2. You have an explanation from a conspiracy theorist stating why this image is staged. In this case why this is shot using front screen projection.

3. The debunkers explain why point two isn't true. In this case explaining why this couldn't be shot using front screen projection like in 2001. This invalidates point 2.

What you are left with is only the uncontested point 1, unless someone can again bring an argument to invalidate point 3. This doesn't seem to happen very often though, instead a completely new point is brought up and the same thing is repeated.

Dude, you did exactly what you are claiming invalidates debate to begin with, I highlighted what looks to be staging of shots taken from one window (round) then to counter this you posted shots from a different window entirely as proof that the first shots weren't staged, that is not a counter at all, it is saying 'well this one is not fake so the other must not be as well' would that hold in scientific study, or a court of law? of course not. All it does is suggest (to those who are sceptical) that they got better at staging, or, switched to plan B (which may have been to use footage from unmanned missions which recorded data, there was no atomic date stamp on the film you posted).

This is a key to why these kind os debates almost always get heated, or one side looses interest, because there is an emotion involvement which distorts the mind (on both sides - cognitive dissonance).

No I didn't. I already stated why I don't think I did on page 1 and from what I can see you didn't answer that.

One point here is that the points in the video contained no actual evidence, just explanations to "how it was done". When other shots come up where this clearly isn't done I discarded their hand waving explanation. That leaves us back at square one. NASA had footage of the earth from space.

 

[braineclipse]

Who refuted those examples? Some flimflam American TV show using a little set?


I never said they didn't land on later missions - was specifically referring to arguments surrounding the inital mission and its publicised material. Your Japanese link is from the 4th Apollo mission, btw

So you're saying that you don't believe they landed in 69, but they did land in 72?

 

[braineclipse]

It absolutely does not prove anything, had there been unmanned missions first? Pictures taken on those also? Would they not have been able to use those as background composition in staging shots? Yes they would. You are going to need to use stronger points than that if you want to use your 'absolute proof' style statements.

Ok, so you're not one of those conspiracy theorists claiming that spacecraft never even made it to the moon at that time? You have no problems with the stories of unmanned craft not only making it to the moon, landing on the moon and sending pictures back?

 

[ArcspacE]

What word would you like me to use instead of conspiracy theorist? The moon hoax believers? Moon landing deniers? Sersious question, I just use conspiracy theorist cause it seems to be the clearest, but I would be willing to use another term.

1. You have a NASA photo from the moon.

2. You have an explanation from a conspiracy theorist stating why this image is staged. In this case why this is shot using front screen projection.

3. The debunkers explain why point two isn't true. In this case explaining why this couldn't be shot using front screen projection like in 2001. This invalidates point 2.

What you are left with is only the uncontested point 1, unless someone can again bring an argument to invalidate point 3. This doesn't seem to happen very often though, instead a completely new point is brought up and the same thing is repeated.

It doesn't invalidate anything simply because you choose to believe it does.

3. They don't explain anything - simply 'suggest' a projection screen couldn't be done on a larger scale and use a red-eyed cheetah to support that (the astronauts wore glass helmets btw).

I ask again - why are you so selective into which theories you choose to believe or not. You cannot offer any conclusive proof that it wasn't staged other than counter-conspiracy theories - which are exactly the same 'flimflam' fundamentally, are they not? The fact you choose to believe in your mind doesn't mean it's right. I'm merely playing devil's advocate here but counter- conspiracists such as yourself are often guilty of the very same 'disease' you seem to be condemning.

Sorry fella, but aren't you the guy who in a recent debate of similar sorts asked 'why would bookies fix games, etc.' (apologies if it wasn't you). Perhaps then there is little point in taking this further

 

[ArcspacE]

So you're saying that you don't believe they landed in 69, but they did land in 72?

I'm saying that the arguments (or flimflam conspiracies if you would prefer) presented against the first landing's footage are rather interesting and the resulting debates offer altenative perspectives

 

[Gifter]

No I didn't. I already stated why I don't think I did on page 1 and from what I can see you didn't answer that.

One point here is that the points in the video contained no actual evidence, just explanations to "how it was done". When other shots come up where this clearly isn't done I discarded their hand waving explanation. That leaves us back at square one. NASA had footage of the earth from space.

Sorry, but you are skitting all over the place, so you jump from showing a rectangular window as proof that a completely different shot is not staged, to then saying the argument is that they could only take the shot from the back of the craft, hence ANY shot near a window validates your argument, when clearly the shot is from a different time (which could have been an unmanned mission or any host of reasons and not one relevant to the original point at all), it means your point is mute, whether you accept that or not.

Find me a cogent counter to the first point = that you can see them staging something from the back of the craft. Otherwise you are conceding the point not vise-versa. Though that does feel a bit idiotic (of me) to say anyway, when we are talking about theories on both sides, this is not some scientific debate where there are a small host of controlled variables.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What is the motivation for faking it? Superiority over Russia in the cold war?

In which case, considering (I believe) the Russians were actively involved in the space-race, were they not the best placed to debunk any "hoax"? They would have had the ability for sure, as well as the motivation.

Instead the majority of people accept it to be true, across the planet.

 

[ArcspacE]

What is the motivation for faking it? Superiority over Russia in the cold war?

In which case, considering (I believe) the Russians were actively involved in the space-race, were they not the best placed to debunk any "hoax"? They would have had the ability for sure, as well as the motivation.

Instead the majority of people accept it to be true, across the planet.

According to statistics in many countries more than 1/4 beleive it never happened.

Many people accept many things as they are (attrocious wars, fuel price, economic inbalance, human rights injustice) - does not mean it's either right or true. Very odd analogy, must say

As to the Russians - posted my view earlier:

The Russians perhaps lacked all the intel to conclusively state 'it was impossible' and instead chose to avoid risking unnecessary confrontation during a tense period - after all they were the first into space. But even if they knew it was staged - how could they have proven it? Casually pop in at the desert and dig out the sets and bunkers while the Yanks sit and watch them? They were always going to sound like sour losers smearing dirt on their cold war capitalist opponents - no one in the West would have taken them seriously apart from the tin-foil hats. It's not what you know - it's what you can prove.

So they were possibly 3 ways to 'prove' it if it was a fake

- go to the moon themselves and check for the landing site (impossible assuming the Yanks couldn't do it)

- go to the States, dig into the desert and expose the sets assuming they still existed

- capture the men and torture them into submission


Perhaps they chose to rest on their earlier achievements with Sputnik and focused their funds on other aspects of the cold war

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

My point is not that the masses are right, my point is that if there was ANY doubt the Russians would have made damn sure the world knew. It was in their interest if you want to follow the Cold War line of thinking.

Also, according to your statistics nearly three quarters of people believe it did happen - prove anything?

Started watching that video as I find myself reading the thread. Two minutes in and its a crock of brick that doesnt look like it will ever get near to anything resembling a point.

 

[Gifter]

What is the motivation for faking it? Superiority over Russia in the cold war?

In which case, considering (I believe) the Russians were actively involved in the space-race, were they not the best placed to debunk any "hoax"? They would have had the ability for sure, as well as the motivation.

Instead the majority of people accept it to be true, across the planet.

Unless those really in control (of both sides) knew the 'cold war' was really a cover for 'lets make and sell a brickload of arms to gullible fools', but maybe that topic is for another thread.

To me most of this stuff is a pantomime being played out by puppets.

 

[ArcspacE]

To me most of this stuff is a pantomime being played out by puppets.

Still is in many ways

 

[braineclipse]

Well, playing devils advocate here, there would not have to be hundreds of ground staff involved, nor would the governments of other nations for a moon landing to be faked, neccessarily. A camera on the space shuttle would send pictures back to the control centre, it doesn't mean everyone looking at those pictures in the control room are in on it, they would (bearing in mind this is the 60's) effectively see the images believing this is what is happening.

I don't think it is unfeasible for it to have been faked, a space shuttle could quite easily go into space, and a compnent of said space shuttle then sent to the moon, thus tracking systems would pick up on an item going to the moon.

How many people did NASA use to control their unmanned crafts to the moon? I'm guessing there was a sizeable crew? Wouldn't you need that crew somewhere hidden away and in on it to control this unmanned craft? Or did they just have another mission with an unmanned craft by coincidence at a different department at NASA?

 

[ArcspacE]

My point is not that the masses are right, my point is that if there was ANY doubt the Russians would have made damn sure the world knew.

But what proof could they have presented against the 'footage'? Simply say - 'couldn't have happened'? Would have if anything lost credibility in the West as sour losers.

 

[ArcspacE]

Another interesting movie on the subject

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

But what proof could they have presented against the 'footage'? Simply say - 'couldn't have happened'? Would have if anything lost credibility in the West as sour losers.

I am struggling to get anywhere near the footage in question, 6 minutes into that video and its laughably bad.

Proof against USA landing on the moon? How about using their satellite to track the mission? How about using their Space efforts to view the face of the moon? Corroborate what the Americans did?

they had loads of potential to debunk the story, they didnt, my guess is they simply couldnt and its not because "It was the 60s and impossible"

Im walking away from this though, its ridiculous and I regret getting involved in the first place

 

[braineclipse]

It doesn't invalidate anything simply because you choose to believe it does.

3. They don't explain anything - simply 'suggest' a projection screen couldn't be done on a larger scale and use a red-eyed cheetah to support that (the astronauts wore glass helmets btw).

I ask again - why are you so selective into which theories you choose to believe or not. You cannot offer any conclusive proof that it wasn't staged other than counter-conspiracy theories - which are exactly the same 'flimflam' fundamentally, are they not? The fact you choose to believe in your mind doesn't mean it's right. I'm merely playing devil's advocate here but counter- conspiracists such as yourself are often guilty of the very same 'disease' you seem to be condemning.

Sorry fella, but aren't you the guy who in a recent debate of similar sorts asked 'why would bookies fix games, etc.' (apologies if it wasn't you). Perhaps then there is little point in taking this further

That was me, and if you didn't understand my points then you probably won't now either. Wasn't that when you used bookies and betting syndicates synonymously?

If there are conspiracy theory claims that haven't been countered I would like to see them. Honestly.

This is not a discussion between two equal sides that are in a serious debate. The two sides are not two sides of the same coin. There are fundamental differences in what types of points are brought forward, what evidence is used and trusted and of course in what way they think and present that evidence. There is a side based on skepticism here.