Coincidence or not?

[Glom]

A short post for those do not believe the US gov't could operate in complete secrecy on large projects.

You are confusing secrecy with deception.  The ability to keep such a project secret does not equate to the ability to accomplish a large conspiracy of deceit.  If they built a lunar set at Area 51, they could keep it secret.  But if they start filming on it and releasing that film to the public, it is no longer secret, it is a deception.  Apollo has been scrutinised from top to bottom by people who actually know what they're talking about and they haven't seen anything wrong.  This seriously reduces the possibility of any deception remaining secret.

[DataCable]

A short post for those do not believe the US gov't could operate in complete secrecy on large projects.

But there is no evidence that this supposed "government relocation center" actually exists.  You just quoted something you read from some website and accepted that it was true.  Have you been there?

In short, you can't have it both ways.

[LunarOrbit]

Please explain how you know that every single moon sample came from where they claim it came. Do you believe they put landers on the moon prior to take samples? How do you these or other landers did not gather them? Clearly you don't. Unless you witenssed it yourself and I do not believe you were there to do so.

If robotic probes (built with 1960's technology) were capable of autonomously landing on the Moon and returning to Earth with lunar samples, then why would it be impossible for a human piloted spacecraft do it?

The basic flight procedures would have been the same, but a human pilot is better able to cope with unexpected problems (ie. a large crator or rock in the targeted landing zone) because they have something robots don't have: intuition.

A robot can land on other planets, but if even the smallest thing goes wrong they tend to fail because their programming doesn't know how to handle unexpected situations. Robots are only as good as their programming, so if the programming doesn't cover what to do when X happens then the robot fails. That is why it is still very difficult for probes to land on Mars today. So I find it much harder to believe that robots could return 800 pounds of moon rocks successfully.

And don't forget that these robot probes would have had to be designed, built, tested, launched, and recovered, all without the public (or the Russians) knowing... and that's in addition to the Apollo spacecrafts that were also designed, built, tested, launched, and recovered. Don't you see how that would have added to the complexity and the cost of the hoax?

So your theory that 800+ pounds of Moon rocks could have been returned to Earth using robots is just another example of how faking the Apollo program would have been more difficult that actually going to the Moon.

[MRuthless]

You are confusing secrecy with deception. The ability to keep such a project secret does not equate to the ability to accomplish a large conspiracy of deceit.

Secrecy and deception are vital military tactics very similar to cover and concealment to accomplish a mission. I am not confusing the two. If a mission called for deception to protect it from scrutiny it could be utilized. Given the importance of these missions, the great Kennedy's speech,and my prior military experience,  I myself, would have lean toward them using deception if they felt could they not make it by "the end of the decade".

Apollo has been scrutinised from top to bottom by people who actually know what they're talking about and they haven't seen anything wrong

And 29% of the people that answered the poll on this think its faked and another 12% are unsure. So clearly ther must be something wrong with evidence. Just as well, we wouldn't be having this forum if other people hadn't felt the same. Also, you don't even know if the "experts" that testify in favor of, don't have some sort of vested interest in doing so or are compensated to do so.

But there is no evidence that this supposed "government relocation center" actually exists. You just quoted something you read from some website and accepted that it was true. Have you been there?

True, I guess until I go take the tour you could try and argue that, but I am merely using resources that my opposition hold as the true, the US government.
The story was also run on Discovery, CNN website and other media outlets, which appear to me as other sources which seem to be held as credible.

In short, you can't have it both ways.

True, but by the same standard if you must therefore believe that every single piece of info that the US puts out there is true. Otherwise you are independently decding on what evidence you think is true, allowing you to have it both ways.

So I find it much harder to believe that robots could return 800 pounds of moon rocks successfully.

Without human wieght you can return more rocks at the cost of thrust needed to return the humans. I find it strange how you can believe that the probes sent to retrieve samples couldn't have been use to accomplish more. If they could do 100 pounds why not 800 pounds?


Also if it was easier to do manned flights then why use robots at all?

And for third time please answer to as how you would feel if it was proven to have been faked.
(Hypothetically of course for you)

[DataCable]

Secrecy and deception are vital military tactics...[/b]

Apollo wasn't military.


If a mission called for deception to protect it from scrutiny it could be utilized.

But Apollo wasn't protected from scrutiny.  It was, by it's very nature, subjected to scrutiny.


Given the importance of these missions, the great Kennedy's speech,and my prior military experience,  I myself, would have lean toward them using deception if they felt could they not make it by "the end of the decade".

You have made it clear that this is your speculative opinion, and you are entirely welcome to it.  Yet you have still not presented any basis for this speculation, only your belief that you have not been provided with enough evidence, and that the evidence you have been provided with could have conceivably been falsified, therefore it must be false.


And 29% of the people that answered the poll on this think its faked and another 12% are unsure.

Facts are not subject to public opinion.  The results of a poll about a historical event have no impact on the actuality of that event.


So clearly ther must be something wrong with evidence.

Or that the "evidence" presented to those taking the poll was incomplete, inaccurate, or unlikely to have been properly interpreted by the layman.


...I am merely using resources that my opposition hold as the true, the US government.

No, you're quoting a website which claims to have gotten the information from the government.  You don't know know that this website doesn't have some sort of vested interest in lying about it, or is compensated to do so.


The story was also run on Discovery, CNN website and other media outlets, which appear to me as other sources which seem to be held as credible.

All of which could have been lying about getting this information from the government.


True, but by the same standard if you must therefore believe that every single piece of info that the US puts out there is true. Otherwise you are independently decding on what evidence you think is true, allowing you to have it both ways.

"All or nothing" is a very easy position to take, simply believe everything or believe nothing.  Individually evaluating situations takes a bit of work and thought.


Also if it was easier to do manned flights then why use robots at all?

You confuse "preferable" with "easier."  A trained human observer is capable of searching for and retrieving specific samples desired by geologists for study.  A robotic probe is far less selective, capable of little more than randomly collecting samples, hence Glom's use of the term "pooper scooper" in reference to them.

However, robotic probes are easier and cheaper than manned missions since you don't have to provide a degree of reliability to which you are willing to entrust a human life (or two.)


And for third time please answer to as how you would feel if it was proven to have been faked.
(Hypothetically of course for you)

As much as you want to argue from the stance that the sole purpose of the Apollo program was to convince people that it happened, how we (or you, for that matter) would feel if this hypothetical event were to occur is irrelavent to the discussion of wether it was or wasn't faked.

Can you give an example of a historical event you believe happened which meets the burden of proof you have placed on Apollo?

[Glom]

Secrecy and deception are vital military tactics very similar to cover and concealment to accomplish a mission. I am not confusing the two.

You missed my point.  Keeping secret so that people don't know of its existance is one thing.  But to flaunt disinformation in front of them invites the kind of scrutiny that will expose it.

If a mission called for deception to protect it from scrutiny it could be utilized. Given the importance of these missions, the great Kennedy's speech,and my prior military experience,  I myself, would have lean toward them using deception if they felt could they not make it by "the end of the decade".

You have yet to justify why you think they couldn't do it.  Without a reason, all this is irrelevant.

And 29% of the people that answered the poll on this think its faked and another 12% are unsure. So clearly ther must be something wrong with evidence.

Appeal to popularity.  Fallacy of logic.  Besides, it's hardly the most scientifically admissable test.  95% of the world follow some religion.  Does that make them right?  Mass ignorance is still ignorance.

Just as well, we wouldn't be having this forum if other people hadn't felt the same. Also, you don't even know if the "experts" that testify in favor of, don't have some sort of vested interest in doing so or are compensated to do so.

Here we go.  When evidence comes that contradicts your stance, you try to accuse it of being disinformation.  Jack White did the same thing about Clavius.  I doubt the Soviet geologists who examined the selenogical samples have any interests in protecting NASA's dirty little secret.

True, I guess until I go take the tour you could try and argue that, but I am merely using resources that my opposition hold as the true, the US government.
The story was also run on Discovery, CNN website and other media outlets, which appear to me as other sources which seem to be held as credible.

Don't those sources also say Apollo is authentic?

True, but by the same standard if you must therefore believe that every single piece of info that the US puts out there is true. Otherwise you are independently decding on what evidence you think is true, allowing you to have it both ways.

We don't believe everything the US or any government says.  However, we have examined the evidence and nothing is flawed.  We just don't take a paranoid mentality where we look for deception everywhere.

Without human wieght you can return more rocks at the cost of thrust needed to return the humans. I find it strange how you can believe that the probes sent to retrieve samples couldn't have been use to accomplish more. If they could do 100 pounds why not 800 pounds?

Shows what you know about aerospace engineering.  By the way, what do you know about aerospace?  The issue is not load.  The issue is making it happen.  This is much easier manned.

Also if it was easier to do manned flights then why use robots at all?

Because it's cheaper to do certain things.  Collecting samples isn't one of them.  That's very difficult.  So far, only a hundred grams of undifferentiated material have been returned by unmanned probes.

And for third time please answer to as how you would feel if it was proven to have been faked.
(Hypothetically of course for you)

I've answered that.  But for the third time, please tell us your expertise.  And please get off the mind games.  You're still hung up on showing that any remote possibility that it could have been done is reason enough to be suspicious.  You're paranoid!  Yet, you still do not have the courtesy to actually describe a means by which it could be done.

[LunarOrbit]

MRuthless,

Cut the crap. You believe the evidence that supports the Apollo program could have been faked... but what evidence do you have that it actually WAS?

It's very easy to claim something was faked... but can you prove it? If not, why should I believe you?

You can't accuse people of crimes without evidence to back you up.

NASA has given us a mountain of evidence, all of which has been independently verified, but you have given us none. It's not enough to say "I don't believe the lunar module could land", you have to explain WHY it couldn't. One video of a LLTV crashing doesn't outweigh the videos of all of the other successful flights.

I also find it funny that you will believe CNN and Discovery about the secret bomb shelter, but not when they say the Moon landings really happened. That's very typical of conspiracy theorists... they believe the media when it can be used to support their beliefs, but not when it contradicts them.

[Simkid]

Just an interesting note, i actually voted no on the poll, I do agree that the reason for hte moon plans is China (not that Apollo was a fraud).

[rcable1]

I choose to believe. My reasons for believing do not matter, because I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone.

Just thought I would throw that in.

[Stylesjl]

I choose to believe. My reasons for believing do not matter, because I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone.

Just thought I would throw that in.

But you do if you want people to belive the same way you do


Edit: Mruthless (hope i spelled right) has been beaten up several times and is still holding for dear life

How long till he cracks?

[MRuthless]

Edit: Mruthless (hope i spelled right) has been beaten up several times and is still holding for dear life

I don't crack because its no big deal. Whether I do a good job explaining my case or whether anyone believes me doesn't really matter. Because when it comes down to it, what is proof? It is only one persons acceptance of evidence as fact. In this case the bottom line is, unless you were involved in the program you cannot honestly say you know what happened, because you do not and you can site mountains and mountains of evidence, but that still doesn't make it right. It may increase the probablity in your own sense, but never to 100% certainty. Do Armstrong and the others at that level know? I would say yes. The question though is are they forthcoming about it?


As far as me being right. Who knows and who cares?Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Maybe partially. But at least I am willing to conced that I cannot honestly say I know what happened, because the bottom line is if the US gov't doesn't want us to know they will go to great extents to decieve us and keep things secret. It doesn't have to always  be bribes and it doesn't have to always be death threats, but they have their ways.

What I do know is that I often have a fun time going into space and religious forums and making arguements out of my oppinions and watching these people get all crazy when you start to attack their personal beliefs.

What I find very strange though, is that in a space forums, when you argue that it the moon landing was or could have been faked, the strict opposition reacts in the exact same manner as the religious zealots in those forums. Its like they take offense to it. Somehow the same religious mentality takes over. Perhaps it is human nature and man invented religion to fill this void. Without religion maybe a void is created and people look for other ways to fill it. Maybe it's the moon landing, maybe Cydonia, perhaps crop circles, aliens or crystals or maybe even science itself. Who knows?  But it I do find it strange, that some people can be so high strung on the beliefs of others, no matter how silly they may sound.

Fortunately, I can tell by the lack of posts from others and the concentrated posts from just a few, that most people whether they believe or not don't really care to try and convince others of their beliefs.

[Glom]

Mruthless (hope i spelled right) has been beaten up several times and is still holding for dear life

How long till he cracks?

As long as he continues to ignore many of my points, he'll be fine.

What I find very strange though, is that in a space forums, when you argue that it the moon landing was or could have been faked, the strict opposition reacts in the exact same manner as the religious zealots in those forums.

You seem unable to comprehend the epistemology of your own arguments.  You have double standards when it comes to proof.  Arguments that support what you've chosen to believe are taken at face value while you say that only incontrovertible proof is adequate for arguments you like less.  What of your kids' Cheerios?

Fortunately, I can tell by the lack of posts from others and the concentrated posts from just a few, that most people whether they believe or not don't really care to try and convince others of their beliefs.

Namely me, I'm sure.  My efforts have been devoted to exposing the flaws in your logic.  If you have chosen to suspend judgement in light of insufficient evidence, that's fine.  But it's how you justify insufficient evidence that I consider flawed and this lies right at the heart of critical thinking.

Further, you assert that such fakery could easily have been done, which is factually incorrect.  I don't think it is a sign of overzealousness that we attempt to correct facts that are wrong.

You have also yet to justify why you have actually made a conclusion that Apollo went to the moon but didn't land.  That certainly isn't suspension of judgement.

Now, you are obviously here because you wish to discuss this, as do we.  It appears we both enjoy it.  So here is a list of things I would like you to give us so that we might continue:

• Your qualifications.
• A method for the fakery you say was easily possible.
• The standards of proof you require.[/list:u]

[Ottawan]

MRuthless,

You can interpret the lack of posts from other's any way you like.

I, for one, am tired of beating a dead horse. Hoax believers such as yourself are not new to any of us here, but they do share a common trait.

That is, a stubbornness of conviction that fails to give credence to evidence that refutes their beliefs.

Instead of automatically contradicting everyone, try following some of the links provided. The proof is there if you will only open your eyes.

And your mind.

[rcable1]

But you do if you want people to belive the same way you do

I cannot be concerned that there are some that do not believe as I do and do not feel that I need to convince them. I will however try to convince those that do believe that it was and still is money well spent so that they will support the effort

I am glad that we are allowed to express our opinions openly and will defend your right to do so, but do not want to try and force my beliefs on you.

So, as far as I care you can say that the Sun shinning is a hoax, because that would be your opinion. I do however reserve the right to express my opinion about yours, should I ever choose to do so.