When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 2:42pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to had been telling perfectly consistent lies without a single leak for decades, the US doesn't exactly have the best track record of this, that's a lot of deathbed confessions

Not really - Technicians in NASA have said that simulations vrs the real thing are almost indistinguishable.
The number of people who would of known the truth could have been a lot less than you think.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As pointed out earlier in the thread the video footage would have been next to impossible to fake from a technical perspective

From a technical perspective why would this of been near impossible to fake?
It was a transmission.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The role of the Russians can't be diminished, watching every movement, they tracked the mission from earth to the moon and back again (not to mention the use of first set reflective mirrors that suddenly appeared on the moon on 21st July 1969)

We are talking about a manned mission, if we are talking about putting things on the moon the Russians managed that before the Americans albeit it was a crash.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were dozens of missions to the moon by both sides; orbiters, impacters, fly-by's, landers. Before Apollo 11, there were two successful missions, one in May, and one in December the year before, which both went to the moon, orbited it, and returned safely to earth. The second successful mission to land on the moon took place just 4 months after Apollo 11. Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 also landed. That's a lot of successful missions. We do know someone landed on the moon because we have the tech to see it now.

We do not have the tech to see anything on the moon where did you get that?

Dohnjoe · 17-09-2015 2:46pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.

Which is arguing a hypothetical with no tangible evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence

The counter-argument is not hypothetical by nature and has a vast amount of evidence, therefore is far stronger

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 2:50pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is arguing a hypothetical with no tangible evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence

The counter-argument is not hypothetical by nature and has a vast amount of evidence, therefore is far stronger

And this is where you too are making the mistake.

My argument is not that it did not happen or we didn't land on the moon there appears to me a lot of information showing we did.

My argument is around could it be faked?
You have provided no argument around the idea that it would be impossible to fake.

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 2:53pm

Actually my argument goes a little further.
I would go as far to say if they didn't make it they would of faked it..
I think they would have had too.

Dohnjoe · 17-09-2015 2:59pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not really - Technicians in NASA have said that simulations vrs the real thing are almost indistinguishable.
The number of people who would of known the truth could have been a lot less than you think.

Are these the same technicians that could be lying about the moon landing?

From a technical perspective why would this of been near impossible to fake?
It was a transmission.

The Americans knew that the forth N1 Russian rocket blew up before the Kremlin did, both sides kept very close taps on each other on many levels

We are talking about a manned mission, if we are talking about putting things on the moon the Russians managed that before the Americans albeit it was a crash.

True, but we are discussing hypotheticals.

Hypothetically with no evidence, you are saying another unmanned mission could have planted that mirror

Hypothetically with evidence, the Apollo 11 mission placed that mirror

The latter is stronger

We do not have the tech to see anything on the moon where did you get that?

There are images of the landing sites taken from orbiters.

Dohnjoe · 17-09-2015 3:08pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My argument is around could it be faked?

You are arguing a hypothetical.

If the event happened, then it wasn't faked. Likewise if it was faked, then it the event didn't happen. It's an either/or situation (unless you believe it could have happened AND been faked)

So all someone has to do is provide evidence that a) it happened. There's then no recourse for it being faked (unless stronger counter-evidence is provided) do you follow?

If that can't be countered, then there's no argument

It's logic more than anything

It's the same with any other argument of a similar nature, if I say that aliens could have built the pyramids, someone can counter that the Egyptians built them and provide evidence.. if I can't provide evidence to the contrary, then the argument is over

King Mob · 17-09-2015 3:17pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Maybe maybe not but already stated tracking the transmission does not prove the put a man on the moon.
To go back to your earlier statement that the Russians would know, I will ask you again, how would the Russians know?

Again amoung many other reasons, one way is that they were tracking the missions and listening in on the radio transmissions.
They would be able to hear things like that rumored instruction you pointed to.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Is this a serious question? Because they realised they could not achieve it perhaps?? Maybe they never intended on landing on the moon in the first place but thought it was a good way to raised money?? Maybe they felt they needed to have something to show after blowing 23 billion dollars.

Take your pick.

But why would they not be able to achieve it?
Why if they were intending to fake it from the start for some reason, why develop all the technology to actually land on the moon, fly people out there, but then not do it?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You work for NASA in 1960s? What do you know about the engineering doubt, I already posted on how after the failure of Apollo 1 and the death of astronauts that it was deemed unsafe and not fit for purpose.

Again, the people at NASA were working on the technology. They knew they were way ahead of the Russians.
And even then, they fixed the issues that lead to the Apollo 1 disaster.

There's no reason at all to think they had doubts.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

How many other nations have had a manned mission that has actually left the earths orbit?

Your argument makes no sense. This is not about making decisions, it is very possible it became apparent the logistics of landing on the moon and having a craft get off it again where beyond what they could achieve at that time. It perhaps was just a step too far.

So again, which parts of the logistics where beyond what they could achieve at the time specifically?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.
I say you know about as much as me on this... Not a lot.
I've listen to scientists say it would be mild to moderate radiation and other say it could be or would deadly.

No, there is no debate. The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts was and is known and it's a non-issue for the time the Apollo astronaut were going to spend in them.

If this is not the case, then please give exact numbers for the level of radiation the Apollo astronauts would have experienced and the level of radiation that is a lethal dose.

Conspiracy theorists often claim this, but they can't ever produce any numbers or evidence for it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The mars mission Orion are to send a unmanned probe 36000 miles above earth to measure the level of radiation for two reasons.
1. To measure the amount of radiation and 2. To test the shielding in Orion.

I find it somewhat strange they are only looking at this now and still do not know if it is safe, if we went to the moon would be not know already?

Again, what's suspicious here?
They are measuring the amount of radiation in different orbits at different times over long periods. None of which were needed for the Apollo missions, but are needed for future missions which will be in different areas of space for much longer times in different levels of radiation.

And they are testing the radiation shielding on the new capsule, because that's what you should do with new space craft.

So lets think of the alternative here. That they don't know the levels of radiation in the van Allen belts or that they are covering up the fact they are lethal.
I guess that means that all physicists are in on it too now as well?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK - Sure man on the moon 23 billion, Oh we lost the tapes!
There could be many reason, and yes losing over 200 tapes could of happened.

Or perhaps they just don't want anyone to look at them.

Keeping and storing thousands of reels of film for 50 years is expensive. They take a lot of space and resources to maintain. So it's likely that some higher up decided to get rid of them without thinking about how they were getting rid of the Apollo tapes along with the thousands of other, less exciting tapes.

Is this possible or less likely than the ridiculous conspiracy that you would need to imagine? (A conspiracy that for some reason involves NASA themselves announcing that they got rid of the tapes...)

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.

A hard core CT fanatic will flat out say it is a fake.
On the flip side of that coin you are saying there is no way it could of been faked.

I would consider that type of thinking the same.

So why don't you believe the conspiracy when it's so possible and reasonable?

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 3:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Are these the same technicians that could be lying about the moon landing?

Could be what difference does it make?
You made assertions 100s maybe 1000s of people would need be in on it with no foundation... Yet you want to question the validity of someone stating it difficult to distinguish between simulation and reality?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Americans knew that the forth N1 Russian rocket blew up before the Kremlin did, both sides kept very close taps on each other on many levels

And? I asked the question how would the Russians be able to tell that Apollo 11’s lunar lander hand anyone in it?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

True, but we are discussing hypotheticals.
Hypothetically with no evidence, you are saying another unmanned mission could have planted that mirror

Again people want to nullify the possibility of some truth and some miss-truth Apollo 11 could of planted the mirror does not necessarily prove it was a manned mission.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hypothetically with evidence, the Apollo 11 mission placed that mirror

Agreed but you are ruling out the possibility that Apollo 11 landed an unmanned lunar craft

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are images of the landing sites taken from orbiters.

Best phots taken I think it was Orion back in 2012 by NASA.
But let’s be clear on this, if NASA did fake it they are hardly going to release a photo showing nothing…..

Dohnjoe · 17-09-2015 4:05pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Could be what difference does it make?
You made assertions 100s maybe 1000s of people would need be in on it with no foundation

My foundation is that if the whole thing was faked, then the engineers/technicians and many of the workers on the program would have to be in on it, as well as all of those involved in the fakery, and would have had to keep complete silence all these years

That concerns the difficulty to fake such an enterprise

If you have a specific hypothetical situation, like everything was real, but at the last moment astronauts slid down a chute into a radio room and the rest was faked from a studio requiring less people, or something along those lines

Even then my point still stands even that would not be easy to fake due to the fact that the very least amount of people to pull that off is still a large amount.. and the US track record on keeping people quiet is not the best

And? I asked the question how would the Russians be able to tell that Apollo 11’s lunar lander hand anyone in it?

Because it would make it make the whole enterprise more difficult and more complex, not "easy" as you were pointing out

Again people want to nullify the possibility of some truth and some miss-truth Apollo 11 could of planted the mirror does not necessarily prove it was a manned mission.

It's another piece of evidence. Again, upping the difficulty of fakery when used in conjunction with further evidence

Agreed but you are ruling out the possibility that Apollo 11 landed an unmanned lunar craft

We are discussing the ease of fakery here. Not the impossibility of, which is a common debate trap along the lines of e.g. "you can't 100% prove that the aliens didn't build the pyramids"

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 4:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again amoung many other reasons, one way is that they were tracking the missions and listening in on the radio transmissions.
They would be able to hear things like that rumored instruction you pointed to.

Among other reasons, you keep doing this, you intimate reasons and give none, all you have done is say "Ah well if there was some dodgy broadcast they would have picked up on it...." I will ask again... How would the Russians know??? If you don't know just say you don't know.

King Mob wrote: »

But why would they not be able to achieve it?
Why if they were intending to fake it from the start for some reason, why develop all the technology to actually land on the moon, fly people out there, but then not do it?

Why would they not be able to achieve it?? Is this a real question? Maybe because it was difficult, it is so difficult no other nation has been able to do it, its been 40 years since America done it, fake or real this is a silly question.

I doubt they intended to fake it from the start but like any mission I am sure someone sat down and said, what if we cannot do it?

Lets be real here, landing on the moon has held no significance for our planet none whatsoever it was a thing to do just to say we done it. The moon does not hold any benefit for us.
Rockets and satellites however have a functional role on how our planet operates today.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the people at NASA were working on the technology. They knew they were way ahead of the Russians.
And even then, they fixed the issues that lead to the Apollo 1 disaster.

This makes no sense - putting a rocket into syncopation orbit with the earth was no easy task, blowing rockets up with people inside them I am sure was enough of an insensitive to create the "technology".

King Mob wrote: »

There's no reason at all to think they had doubts.

Doubts is why people check, double check and check again, without doubts there would be no progress.

King Mob wrote: »

No, there is no debate. The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts was and is known and it's a non-issue for the time the Apollo astronaut were going to spend in them.

If this is not the case, then please give exact numbers for the level of radiation the Apollo astronauts would have experienced and the level of radiation that is a lethal dose.

Again I have said there is no debate on this, but you appear to think you know it all so you tell me, how much radiation would an astronaut experience in the Van Allen belt? How much radiation could an astronaut withstand?
Oh if you don't know please just say you don't know, will save us sometime.

King Mob wrote: »

Keeping and storing thousands of reels of film for 50 years is expensive. They take a lot of space and resources to maintain. So it's likely that some higher up decided to get rid of them without thinking about how they were getting rid of the Apollo tapes along with the thousands of other, less exciting tapes.

So someone higher up probably got rid of them.... I see.
Space and resources, it was 200 tapes not really that many.
I probably have more than 200 home moves of my family on my pc at home...

King Mob wrote: »

So why don't you believe the conspiracy when it's so possible and reasonable?

Because I think it was achievable and I think they achieved it.
I think NASA and the US Government have been deliberately secretive around the moon landings, maybe there is some truth in some things like pocketing some of the 23 Billion who knows.

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 4:16pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

My foundation is that if the whole thing was faked

My first post on this thread was exactly about this.
Someone asks the question could the moon landing of been fake, and they do what you are doing now.

How could the whole thing be a fake, people watched the rocket go up.....

Was any of it faked? Could any of it been faked?

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 4:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because it would make it make the whole enterprise more difficult and more complex, not "easy" as you were pointing out

So this is how the Russians knew?
I am asking the question how would the Russians have known, I will say the same to you, if you don't know, just say you don't know.. I don't

ShowMeTheCash · 17-09-2015 4:35pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We are discussing the ease of fakery here. Not the impossibility of, which is a common debate trap along the lines of e.g. "you can't 100% prove that the aliens didn't build the pyramids"

True... And maybe not you, but another poster did say.
1. It would be impossible to fake.
2. There would be no motivation to fake it, if they did not make it.

I am contending more so with these ideas.

King Mob · 17-09-2015 4:39pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Among other reasons, you keep doing this, you intimate reasons and give none, all you have done is say "Ah well if there was some dodgy broadcast they would have picked up on it...." I will ask again... How would the Russians know??? If you don't know just say you don't know.

I gave several methods as did DohnJoe.
Them picking up on a dodgy broadcast is one method.

Would such transmissions not clue them in?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Why would they not be able to achieve it?? Is this a real question? Maybe because it was difficult, it is so difficult no other nation has been able to do it, its been 40 years since America done it, fake or real this is a silly question.

What's silly about it. I'm asking you what obstacle they could have run into when they had already developed all of the technology to get to and land on the moon and get back.

Can you point to what they might have been missing?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again I have said there is no debate on this,

No you said:

Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

but you appear to think you know it all so you tell me, how much radiation would an astronaut experience in the Van Allen belt? How much radiation could an astronaut withstand?
Oh if you don't know please just say you don't know, will save us sometime.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

The Apollo astronauts got around 2 rem per mission on average, which is much lower than the legal safe level for radiation workers per year. (5 rem)

A lethal dose is around 700 rem.

And for an extra bonus, here's what James van Allen had to say on this aspect on the conspiracy:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So someone higher up probably got rid of them.... I see.
Space and resources, it was 200 tapes not really that many.
I probably have more than 200 home moves of my family on my pc at home...

They weren't tapes. they were film reels. And it wasn't just 200 from the Apollo missions, it was thousands from all other missions as well as tests flights etc..

NASA still has all of the footage stored on other media and all of it is publicly available.
What they are referring to is the original film prints.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Because I think it was achievable and I think they achieved it.
I think NASA and the US Government have been deliberately secretive around the moon landings, maybe there is some truth in some things like pocketing some of the 23 Billion who knows.

What have they been secretive about?

Dohnjoe · 17-09-2015 5:33pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

True... And maybe not you, but another poster did say.
1. It would be impossible to fake.
2. There would be no motivation to fake it, if they did not make it.

I am contending more so with these ideas.

I noticed but you seemed to also contend it would have been relatively easy to fake (based on the fact that they got to the moon)

Without going into too much depth, I was showing that it would have been very complex and difficult to fake

It would have thrown up a different set of challenges, many of which wouldn't have been relevant to the technical capabilities of getting to the moon, e.g. keeping the requisite people silent/adhering to the lie for decades, through many different administrations and the end of the Cold War

The problem is that your side of the argument has the broadest possible goalposts, which can be shifted at any time to accommodate doubt, speculation, assumptions and so on, e.g. evidence and explanations have to be provided to you, and not vice-versa (a bit like a kid going "but why, but why, but why")

It's far easier to sit on the fence and cast doubt on something, than it is to constantly support something with substantiated evidence, proof and facts (especially when it's focused on one person who can subjective dismiss it all)

The best support of a hypothetical situation - is a theory. Your view (that it was possible to fake the moon landings) doesn't have this theory (a set of actions)

If it does, put it forward, we can see how it stands up

ShowMeTheCash · 18-09-2015 12:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

I gave several methods as did DohnJoe.
Them picking up on a dodgy broadcast is one method.

Would such transmissions not clue them in?

Hmm no you didn't I gave the dodgy broadcast example as CT, you have and still have provided nothing other than they watched them closely hardly anything specific.

Also, again even if the Russians did pick up on America trying to falsify data or events why do you think we would find out?

King Mob wrote: »

What's silly about it. I'm asking you what obstacle they could have run into when they had already developed all of the technology to get to and land on the moon and get back.

Can you point to what they might have been missing?

They developed all the technology, you keep saying this, they had never achieved it before so how can you say they developed all the technology.
I could go buy all the "technology" required to climb Everest does not mean I will achieve it.

That's why it is a silly statement... Unless you are an engineer that worked on the Apollo mission who from an educated perspective tell me something I cannot google then it is moot point.

King Mob wrote: »

No you said:

That was a typo, I am saying there is some debate.

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

This is probably the first useful thing you have posted gives some good information around radiation and the Van Allen belts.

The Apollo astronauts got around 2 rem per mission on average, which is much lower than the legal safe level for radiation workers per year. (5 rem)

A lethal dose is around 700 rem.

This is where the debate comes in.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf

This documents says 300 Rads in hour would be a lethal dosage.
It calculates the dosage or radiation through different sections of the belts.

Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads

Total 11.4 Rads per mission.

Granted not a lethal dosage but it seems to be a little inconsistent.
Almost 6 times the mount of radiation the other doc suggests and a lethal dosage being more than half the amount previously stated.

The inconsistency is what makes the debate.

King Mob wrote: »

They weren't tapes. they were film reels. And it wasn't just 200 from the Apollo missions, it was thousands from all other missions as well as tests flights etc..

NASA still has all of the footage stored on other media and all of it is publicly available.
What they are referring to is the original film prints.

What have they been secretive about?

I am talking specifically about the 200 that where destroyed or lost you can go on whatever tangent you want.
Losing those reals/tapes is a massive loss, you can spin it whatever way you want, that data ultimately cost 23 billion US dollars losing it is nothing short of shocking...
That is of course if they have lost it. The US government and NASA even if the mission was 100% and they had nothing to hide as far as the moon landings go would still not hand those tapes over.... Understandably back in the 60s it may have given intel to Russian on America's capabilities with regards defense or a military attack but not so much now.

So are you suggesting NASA and the US government are not secretive?

King Mob · 18-09-2015 2:10pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Hmm no you didn't I gave the dodgy broadcast example as CT, you have and still have provided nothing other than they watched them closely hardly anything specific.

Also, again even if the Russians did pick up on America trying to falsify data or events why do you think we would find out?

Yes, you gave the example, I explained how it would lead to the Russians finding out.
And I can't give anything specific because you are remaining vague.

Please suggest what you think the Americans specifically might have faked and how they did so, then I might be able to explain in detail how the Russians would know.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They developed all the technology, you keep saying this, they had never achieved it before so how can you say they developed all the technology.
I could go buy all the "technology" required to climb Everest does not mean I will achieve it.

Are you now saying it's not an issue of technology at all, but rather the skill and training of the astronauts?
Or was it the technology?
If they were worried about the astronauts not being good enough to land the craft, why couldn't they have just made the lander automatic?

Could you please be more specific about what the supposed failing was?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That was a typo, I am saying there is some debate.

This is where the debate comes in.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf

This documents says 300 Rads in hour would be a lethal dosage.
It calculates the dosage or radiation through different sections of the belts.

Granted not a lethal dosage but it seems to be a little inconsistent.
Almost 6 times the mount of radiation the other doc suggests and a lethal dosage being more than half the amount previously stated.

The inconsistency is what makes the debate.

So the debate comes from a children's math problem?

One that says:

Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return
was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88
hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below
the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless.

Where is the debate exactly?

Why does this inconsistency exist in the contexts of a possible conspiracy?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am talking specifically about the 200 that where destroyed or lost you can go on whatever tangent you want.
Losing those reals/tapes is a massive loss, you can spin it whatever way you want, that data ultimately cost 23 billion US dollars losing it is nothing short of shocking...

But the data isn't lost. All of the information and footage is stored in other media. It's simply the originals that are gone.

It's not shocking that a bureaucrat would get rid of something like that unthinkingly in the effort to save money. Either the important tapes where simply lost and lumped in with the thousands of less exciting tapes, or they didn't think of trying to preserve them.

Nothing implausible about this, unlike the conspiracy explanation, which you have failed to provide.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is of course if they have lost it. The US government and NASA even if the mission was 100% and they had nothing to hide as far as the moon landings go would still not hand those tapes over.... Understandably back in the 60s it may have given intel to Russian on America's capabilities with regards defense or a military attack but not so much now.

Source for this? Who would they be handing it over to? It was freely available. All the footage still is on the NASA website...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So are you suggesting NASA and the US government are not secretive?

Not NASA and not in this regard.

ShowMeTheCash · 21-09-2015 4:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you gave the example, I explained how it would lead to the Russians finding out.
And I can't give anything specific because you are remaining vague.

This is going in circles.

Point of fact.

What did the Russians find out? What do the Russians know?
We know neither... You keep saying the "Russians would find out..."

If the USA faked this, you are making the assumption that Russia would be able to tell without a shadow of a doubt. You then make the assumption if they had a doubt they could actually prove it, lastly you go further to suggest if they had compelling evidence they would go public with it.

What I am suggesting is a hypothetical, but your response to this hypothetical scenario is that you would be certain the Russians would find out and go public with this information. (Or would have went public)
If you are certain of this, the burden is on you to prove why you think this.

King Mob wrote: »

Please suggest what you think the Americans specifically might have faked and how they did so, then I might be able to explain in detail how the Russians would know.

Again I am not suggesting they faked anything, I am suggesting they could fake something.

But let's go with the obvious one.
The actual footage of the moon walk....

Let me give a scenario, let's say NASA said listen guys we are going to send you to the moon, this mission needs to be a success but as a precaution we are going to manufacture some footage of a moon walk etc...
In the event we cannot land you on the moon we may make the decision to broadcast the manufactured footage.

Being I am sure the actual moon landing and launching from the moon surface would have posed a significant challenge.

So my question is this, how would the Russians know the footage from the manned landing was indeed authentic?

King Mob wrote: »

Are you now saying it's not an issue of technology at all, but rather the skill and training of the astronauts?
Or was it the technology?
If they were worried about the astronauts not being good enough to land the craft, why couldn't they have just made the lander automatic?

Could you please be more specific about what the supposed failing was?

I am saying you do not know what you are talking about, you keep using the work technology in a very broad a term, saying we had the technology in 1969 is a completely empty statement.

Tell me about the Apollo guidance computer, how did the code work? How many lines of code did it take to complete, what language was it written in, how did it work?

Oh try and answer this without google, I can google it myself.

Point I am making, you are basing the idea of "technology" on what you can google, short of being a software engineer on guidance systems, a mechanical engineer on the mechanics of the craft, a rocket scientist on the physics of getting to the moon.

I try not get into the argument of "technology" in 1969 as:
1. I was not there.
2. Apart from the software engineer end, I could not tell you much on the others.

All I can comment on is the technology today, even today it appears to be so difficult no one has attempted it in 40 years.

King Mob wrote: »

So the debate comes from a children's math problem?

Where is the debate exactly?

Why does this inconsistency exist in the contexts of a possible conspiracy?

Because it is inconstant.
As for the shielding on the Apollo 11, there is no significant shielding the only thing that shielded well against radiation was lead which is not the easiest thing to try and catapult into space again some debate around this. The main focus on the mission was to try and reduce the amount of time an Astronaut would be exposed that's they could do.

It was conceded with regards the shielding that any significant solar flare activity could be extremely dangerous to astronauts.

The mission was by no means safe with regards radiation as you are trying to make out, we didn't have the technology to really deal with it and we still kind of don't.

I think though I might be wrong, the biggest thing holding back a manned mission to mars in the length of time man would need to be in space exposed to different kinds of radiation with no real way to protect against it successfully.

King Mob wrote: »

But the data isn't lost. All of the information and footage is stored in other media. It's simply the originals that are gone.

It's not shocking that a bureaucrat would get rid of something like that unthinkingly in the effort to save money. Either the important tapes where simply lost and lumped in with the thousands of less exciting tapes, or they didn't think of trying to preserve them.

Nothing implausible about this, unlike the conspiracy explanation, which you have failed to provide.

You seem to make excuses when met with a reasonable question.
I am not suggesting this quantifies every CT going about the moon landing.
I am saying it is strange almost hard to believe they would do this.... You make excuses about bureaucrat and saving money when you know nothing to what actually happened... Was it a mistake... was a decision actually made to get rid of them?? NASA never really explained it.

King Mob wrote: »

Source for this? Who would they be handing it over to? It was freely available. All the footage still is on the NASA website...

Again you say all the footage is on the website? How do you know it's all the footage?

You are making a statement here you cannot prove.

King Mob wrote: »

Not NASA and not in this regard.

OK if you say so :rolleyes:

King Mob · 21-09-2015 5:19pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What I am suggesting is a hypothetical, but your response to this hypothetical scenario is that you would be certain the Russians would find out and go public with this information. (Or would have went public)
If you are certain of this, the burden is on you to prove why you think this.

And I've explained this several times. I've given you several methods by which the Russians would have found out, including, but not limited to:

Spotting the mistakes in the footage.
Spotting physical inconsistencies in the footage because they weren't filming on the Moon.
Testing the samples returned by the mission
Tracking the missions via radar and noticing that the craft aren't were they are supposed to be or not acting consistently with the reported mission.
Monitoring the radio transmissions for clues of fakery or inconsistencies.
Engineers being able to tell if the Apollo craft did something impossible for current technology.
Experts in film and photography being able to notice tricks or edits in the released footage and pictures.
Generally being able to notice when the US are launching secret missions to the moon they aren't telling others about (if they were sending unmanned missions to collect samples or plant retroreflectors.)
And then lots and lots of spies.

If you are going to say the conspiracy somehow can counter all of these, then it's plain old impossible on the face of it, and adds another problem in that it would require thousands of people to run.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Let me give a scenario, let's say NASA said listen guys we are going to send you to the moon, this mission needs to be a success but as a precaution we are going to manufacture some footage of a moon walk etc...
In the event we cannot land you on the moon we may make the decision to broadcast the manufactured footage.

For this specifically, they would have to transmit a message saying that they had made such a decision. As well as the astronauts reporting whatever problems they ran into that prevented them from landing.
The Russians would have heard this.

Then NASA would have to somehow get a signal out to the craft and bounce it back or whatever they needed to do to make it seem like the transmission was coming from Apollo, all without the Russians noticing this.
And then during all of this, the real astronauts would have to remain totally radio silent so as not to interfere with the fake transmissions, which is very dangerous in space. (Especially if they are dealing with some problem that prevented them from attempting the landing.)
And then also act all the way back to Earth as if they did do the landing.

Then the footage would have had to be perfect, which is not likely since they would have had to have filmed it on Earth.

And then the Russian spies would have noticed the large filming and covering up of the filming.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So my question is this, how would the Russians know the footage from the manned landing was indeed authentic?

Because there was no mistakes and it was all consistent with the other evidence and there's no plausible, sane alternative explanation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am saying you do not know what you are talking about, you keep using the work technology in a very broad a term, saying we had the technology in 1969 is a completely empty statement.

You are misunderstanding my point, possibly because you have moved the goal posts so much at this stage.
I am pointing out how no conspiracy theorists have been able to point out what about the Apollo craft or their development is impossible.
None can. Hence people "feeling" it was too fast based on nothing but their gumption is not a good argument, never mine a reasonable basis for a conspiracy theorist.

So you are surprised by how fast they developed the technology. So what is your point?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Because it is inconstant.

Not really. First they explain it quite clearly. And second it's a child's math problem.
Do you think that this is an authoritative thing? Do you really have nothing better?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for the shielding on the Apollo 11, there is no significant shielding the only thing that shielded well against radiation was lead which is not the easiest thing to try and catapult into space again some debate around this. The main focus on the mission was to try and reduce the amount of time an Astronaut would be exposed that's they could do.

The hull and internal components of Apollo acted as some shielding. The fuel and water tanks also offered a bit more shielding. Wasn't perfect, but it offered more protection than just being outside the ship with nothing.

And lead, even if you could get it up into space is a comparatively terrible material for a radiation shield. Unless it's very very thick, it can actually result in more radiation inside the vessel.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You seem to make excuses when met with a reasonable question.
I am not suggesting this quantifies every CT going about the moon landing.
I am saying it is strange almost hard to believe they would do this.... You make excuses about bureaucrat and saving money when you know nothing to what actually happened... Was it a mistake... was a decision actually made to get rid of them?? NASA never really explained it.

You say it's hard to believe, but I offer a reasonable explanation that doesn't result in a conspiracy and isn't impossible or unlikely.
So please explain what is hard to believe about my explanation and what is the better alternative?
Edit: You can read NASA explanation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK if you say so :rolleyes:

Again, what specifically is NASA being secretive about?
The missing film, which they announced they had lost to the public themselves?

Overheal · 21-09-2015 5:29pm

This whole lead mention sounds erroneous, as Gold was/is the primary shielding element on spacecraft, rolled into stupid-thin sheeting and at least 1 layer of the stuff is between each point of the cabin and exterior bar the windows, its dense material structure blocks out. And used tons of other places on the craft as well, including ICs which seems excessive to me but they can't tolerate failures up there (from static and corrosion apparently)

http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-does-nasa-use-so-much-gold-foil-1568610/

King Mob · 21-09-2015 6:09pm

Overheal wrote: »

This whole lead mention sounds erroneous, as Gold was/is the primary shielding element on spacecraft, rolled into stupid-thin sheeting and at least 1 layer of the stuff is between each point of the cabin and exterior bar the windows, its dense material structure blocks out. And used tons of other places on the craft as well, including ICs which seems excessive to me but they can't tolerate failures up there (from static and corrosion apparently)

http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-does-nasa-use-so-much-gold-foil-1568610/

The gold is mostly for infra-red and Ultra-violet radiation rather than the high energy particles in the Van Allen belts.

ShowMeTheCash · 23-09-2015 1:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

And I've explained this several times. I've given you several methods by which the Russians would have found out, including, but not limited to:
Spotting the mistakes in the footage.

Spotting physical inconsistencies in the footage because they weren't filming on the Moon.

Testing the samples returned by the mission

Tracking the missions via radar and noticing that the craft aren't were they are supposed to be or not acting consistently with the reported mission.

Monitoring the radio transmissions for clues of fakery or inconsistencies.

Engineers being able to tell if the Apollo craft did something impossible for current technology.

Experts in film and photography being able to notice tricks or edits in the released footage and pictures.

Generally being able to notice when the US are launching secret missions to the moon they aren't telling others about (if they were sending unmanned missions to collect samples or plant retroreflectors.)

And then lots and lots of spies.

If you are going to say the conspiracy somehow can counter all of these, then it's plain old impossible on the face of it, and adds another problem in that it would require thousands of people to run.

I am going in circles with this.
But let's be clear.

You have not given any methods to how the Russian would find out.

I think you need to really read what you are saying, the logic does not stand up nor does the use of English.

To say the use of radar would have been a tool where the Russians would know if the Americans landed a man on the moon is not correct.

All it provides is an object took the desired flight path.

To say their use of spy's and intelligence gathering suggest's they would find out if the Americans landed on the moon is also not correct. I think you should perhaps think of using the word could indicating it is possible opposed to would which is indicating certainty.

There is nothing of significance here just ideas and conjecture which has as about much weight as a man on the moon!

As for the list you provide it has no substance.

Spotting mistake or problems with the footage - This is simply a weird statement, it's vague nothing specific. Like saying if I fake something you could tell...... OK how could you tell? What specifically would someone be looking for?

Tracking the vessel - We have been though this, we are talking about the manned moon landing portion specifically, radar would not have been able to prove their was a manned moon landing, only the flight path of an object.

Radio transmission - The Americans would have had to have been pretty stupid if this was faked to allow a transmission to be broadcast that would give up them up!

Experts, other missions.... this is all waffle and does not answer anything and is off point, why another mission to collect samples and plant the mirror?
They could of done that as part of the Apollo 11 mission without a manned landing - this point has no relevance... You are trying to suggest another mission would have needed to be launched to bring back samples and land the mirror.... No it doesn't!

Also if NASA wanted to fake it I am sure experts would have been called in to make sure the fake looked authentic, what... you think they would of just winged it?

As for the "lot's and lot's of spies" you may have just said lot's and lot's of stuff......

What's inside an atom? Lot's and lot's of stuff......

A point needs to actually have a point of significance otherwise is random thought with nothing to back it up.....

King Mob · 23-09-2015 2:46pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am going in circles with this.
But let's be clear.
You have not given any methods to how the Russian would find out.

I gave several specific examples to counter the example you gave.
The rest are non-specific because they are referring to the non-specific conspiracy claims.
I can't be specific and give details for things we are not discussing.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To say the use of radar would have been a tool where the Russians would know if the Americans landed a man on the moon is not correct.

All it provides is an object took the desired flight path.

If the Apollo missions didn't land something on the moon and take off again, then the radar would have shown this.
If they could land and return something from the Moon, then there's no reason to fake it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To say their use of spy's and intelligence gathering suggest's they would find out if the Americans landed on the moon is also not correct. I think you should perhaps think of using the word could indicating it is possible opposed to would which is indicating certainty.

No I mean would. Any conspiracy of this level would require a high level of involvement from a lot of departments and a lot of manpower and resources.
It is not possible for Russian Intelligence to miss it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Spotting mistake or problems with the footage - This is simply a weird statement, it's vague nothing specific. Like saying if I fake something you could tell...... OK how could you tell? What specifically would someone be looking for?

For example, the "mistakes" the conspiracy theorists constantly point out.
If they faked something on Earth it is not possible for them to make it mistake free.

Also there are several effects that are impossible to fake on Earth with 60's technology, for example the parabolic trajectory of dust kicked up by astronauts. On Earth the dust would cloud and be blown around by air currents and cloud up. On the Moon they fall only by the effects of gravity.
This is impossible to fake with 60's technology. If it was missing or if the dust did not behave correctly, it would alert the Russians.
This is only one way off the top of my head.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Radio transmission - The Americans would have had to have been pretty stupid if this was faked to allow a transmission to be broadcast that would give up them up!

In the scenario you gave, the Astronauts would have to indicate that there was some issue that prevented them from landing and the decision would have to be made to fake it.
How else could they communicate this without using the radio?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Experts, other missions.... this is all waffle and does not answer anything and is off point, why another mission to collect samples and plant the mirror?
They could of done that as part of the Apollo 11 mission without a manned landing - this point has no relevance... You are trying to suggest another mission would have needed to be launched to bring back samples and land the mirror.... No it doesn't!

No they could not have. The technology for returning that much lunar sample simply did not exist.
For it to exist there would have had to have been a very large robotic development program that was totally secret and is to this day, yet they never use this technology ever again.

Further if they did somehow have an emergency back up unmanned probe to retrieve the samples (impossible to have on the ship as well as the stuff they would need for the actual landings), then the Russians would notice the ships behaving very differently to how the should be as well as the transmissions from Houston or the ship controlling the robot probe.

All of this is "possible" in the strictest sense of the word.
Just like it's "possible" that they used a mind ray to mind control everyone to believe in the Moon landings.

Neither of these scenarios are likely and are so unlikely that they are for all practical purposes impossible.

ShowMeTheCash · 25-09-2015 8:51am

King Mob wrote: »

No I mean would. Any conspiracy of this level would require a high level of involvement from a lot of departments and a lot of manpower and resources.
It is not possible for Russian Intelligence to miss it.

Look I am not trying to be mean.
This type of attitude say in an academic forum would have you laughed at.
I am by no means an expert on the moon landings and all the evidence may suggest the moon landings where authentic, but making the above claim is literally a killer blow to any scientific argument.

To claim certainty on any scientific paper would make the author look very foolish.

King Mob · 25-09-2015 10:40am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look I am not trying to be mean.
This type of attitude say in an academic forum would have you laughed at.
I am by no means an expert on the moon landings and all the evidence may suggest the moon landings where authentic, but making the above claim is literally a killer blow to any scientific argument.

To claim certainty on any scientific paper would make the author look very foolish.

But I'm not writing a scientific paper...

Again, I said that it is possible on the strictest sense of the word.
Just as mind rays are technically possible as well.

My point is that that both of these explanations are on the same level:
Unlikely to the point of being impossible on the practical level.

So no, it's not possible that Russian spies would miss such a large and vital operation.
In the possibility you suggested they would need to hide a huge amount:

First they would have to hide the actual filming which would involve a huge amount of specialised equipment beyond the normal things they would need for filming. (Not to mention the things they would need to simulate the lunar environment and lower gravity.)
They would need a huge team of top level experts to develop the techniques to fake the footage. And they would have to work tirelessly and at the top og their game if they were to beat the top level experts in Russia.
They would need to hide how they got Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as well various mission control guys to record the footage and audio for the faked transmissions.
They would also have to hide the secret robot probe program they would need to get the samples supposedly recovered by Apollo 11 (which would also require a bunch of top level experts who aren't already working on the actual Apollo missions.)
Then they would need a team to keep all of this conspiracy straight and enforced with precise detail and maintain it for decades.
And then their would be the vast amounts of money this would all cost. Hush money, assassin fees, paying for secret robot research, director fees....

Unless you can propose how they did all of this in total secret, then I am confident that it is impossible for the Russian spies not to have noticed.

Overheal · 25-09-2015 5:59pm

I'm inclined to agree, the USSR and USA had both been developing ICBMs extensively after WWII, along with mutually assured destruction they both had the capabilities to detect when the other was initiating a launch. Among that, if you had a very high profile lunar-bound launch (especially your eleventh one) they would surely have developed the tracking capabilities for it.

Dohnjoe · 25-09-2015 9:45pm

King Mob wrote: »

First they would have to hide the actual filming which would involve a huge amount of specialised equipment beyond the normal things they would need for filming. (Not to mention the things they would need to simulate the lunar environment and lower gravity.)

They would need a huge team of top level experts to develop the techniques to fake the footage. And they would have to work tirelessly and at the top og their game if they were to beat the top level experts in Russia.

They would need to hide how they got Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as well various mission control guys to record the footage and audio for the faked transmissions.

They would also have to hide the secret robot probe program they would need to get the samples supposedly recovered by Apollo 11 (which would also require a bunch of top level experts who aren't already working on the actual Apollo missions.)

Then they would need a team to keep all of this conspiracy straight and enforced with precise detail and maintain it for decades.

And then their would be the vast amounts of money this would all cost. Hush money, assassin fees, paying for secret robot research, director fees....

Not to mention they would have had to pull it all off flawlessly just a few months later.. and then four more subsequent times

Unless of course the first was a perfect hoax, but the next five landings were real.. which opens an even bigger can of worms regarding all the experts, designers, scientists and engineers that worked closely on all the missions

It involves having to step into some very surreal territory

This from the administration that couldn't break into a hotel-office building

NIMAN · 27-09-2015 2:20pm

There are some people who wouldn't believe man went to the moon if NASA put them on a spacecraft and flew them there tomorrow.

They'd claim they were hypnotised and imagined they were on the moon.

weisses · 27-09-2015 3:13pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This from the administration that couldn't break into a hotel-office building

Using that example means they could not make it to the moon either

Dohnjoe · 27-09-2015 6:43pm

Getting to the moon was more a technical accomplishment, faking it would have required the ability to keep things perfectly watertight, not something that administration or subsequent ones demonstrated they were very good at, or politicians in general, as we know full well

ShowMeTheCash · 28-09-2015 10:09am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Getting to the moon was more a technical accomplishment, faking it would have required the ability to keep things perfectly watertight, not something that administration or subsequent ones demonstrated they were very good at, or politicians in general, as we know full well

No it wouldn't this is the beauty of the "conspiracy theory".
Let's say you worked at NASA and let's say you are one of a few people that knew it was faked.

You step forward and tell the world like others have done "It was a fake" people laugh at you and you are branded a nut job!

My argument on this page is really around this idea.
You question the norm and you become categorised and thus not taken seriously even if the question you ask is a credible one.

People seem to think everything about the moon landing is known and in the public domain.... I don't

I do not think the footage was faked but I think it possible it could of been and perhaps they even had plan B where fake footage was engineered.
I think NASA and the US Government had to keep elements of the mission a secret, at end of the day information is power and they where stepping into the unknown.

Neil Armstrong in I think in his last public forum not that he spoke that much came out with something that people would call weird. Talking to the young people of today he said "there are great ideas undiscovered breakthroughs available too those who can remove one of truths protective layers.."

So the truth is out there...

Some CT will claim this was a submission that all was not as it seems, some go as far to suggest it was an indication that it was fake, other think that more was discovered on the moon than NASA and the US government wanted to make public. From putting Nuclear Warheads on the moon too finding Alien artifacts on the surface of the moon.

People choose to ignore what they don't believe it is simple as that.
Buzz Aldrin said the Apollo 11 was followed by UFO's most people just choose to ignore that or now think he is a bit of a nut job also.
He said when they reported it they where told to ignore it....

Now you could argue that the "Russians" had some probe up following them, but that would have been some pretty awesome technology considering they did not achieve it themselves..

Oh Buzz also think's there is an Alien space craft behind a moon on mars but I think again people just jump on the "Ahh crazy old Buzz is at it again" bandwagon....

People can have crazy ideas, does not mean all their ideas are crazy.

King Mob · 28-09-2015 10:24am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People seem to think everything about the moon landing is known and in the public domain.... I don't

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not think the footage was faked but I think it possible it could of been and perhaps they even had plan B where fake footage was engineered.
I think NASA and the US Government had to keep elements of the mission a secret, at end of the day information is power and they where stepping into the unknown.

Which elements of the mission were kept secret and why?
And how do you know they were kept secret?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People choose to ignore what they don't believe it is simple as that.
Buzz Aldrin said the Apollo 11 was followed by UFO's most people just choose to ignore that or now think he is a bit of a nut job also.
He said when they reported it they where told to ignore it....

This is simply not true.
This is the result of a conspiracyish tv show talking what Buzz Aldrin out of context and deliberately and dishonestly editing an interview with him to make it appear as if he was saying there were aliens.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Oh Buzz also think's there is an Alien space craft behind a moon on mars but I think again people just jump on the "Ahh crazy old Buzz is at it again" bandwagon....

And this is a plain fabrication.

ShowMeTheCash · 28-09-2015 11:55am

King Mob wrote: »

Which elements of the mission were kept secret and why?
And how do you know they were kept secret?

Is this a serious question? What parts of the mission did they keep a secret and why?
If I knew it would hardly be a secret now would it?

Let me ask you a question as again you choose to ignore parts of what I posted.... What do you think Neil Armstrong meant when he said "remove one of truths protective layers."

King Mob wrote: »

This is simply not true.
This is the result of a conspiracyish tv show talking what Buzz Aldrin out of context and deliberately and dishonestly editing an interview with him to make it appear as if he was saying there were aliens.

I think the axe you have to grind is completely blinding you to what I have said, who said anything about Aliens? I said Buzz Aldrin claims he saw a UFO, which he did, was it Russian probe? Was it one of their own rockets they detached from? He does say he reported it to mission control but cannot be sure what it was and was told to ingnore it.

What part of this is untrue?

King Mob wrote: »

And this is a plain fabrication.

This in relation to the monolith photo on Phobos what buzz said was

"There’s a monolith there – a very unusual structure on this little potato shaped object that goes around Mars once every seven hours.
‘When people find out about that they are going to say, “Who put that there? Who put that there?” Well the universe put it there, or if you choose God put it there."

King Mob · 28-09-2015 12:22pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Is this a serious question? What parts of the mission did they keep a secret and why?
If I knew it would hardly be a secret now would it?

Then what leads you to believe that they are keeping secrets?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What do you think Neil Armstrong meant when he said "remove one of truths protective layers."

An eloquent way of saying that you need to dig a little to make discoveries.
This is made clear by the full context of the speech this is from.
(Which is also not close to his last public appearance.)

Do you think he was admitting to some great cover up here?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think the axe you have to grind is completely blinding you to what I have said, who said anything about Aliens? I said Buzz Aldrin claims he saw a UFO, which he did, was it Russian probe? Was it one of their own rockets they detached from?

Again, you mentioned Aliens.
It was panel from the rocket. Aldrin said so himself.
The only mystery about it is manufactured by people looking for a conspiracy.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

He does say he reported it to mission control but cannot be sure what it was and was told to ingnore it.

What part of this is untrue?

He didn't report it and he was not told to ignore it.
Where are you getting that from?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This in relation to the monolith photo on Phobos what buzz said was

"There’s a monolith there – a very unusual structure on this little potato shaped object that goes around Mars once every seven hours.
‘When people find out about that they are going to say, “Who put that there? Who put that there?” Well the universe put it there, or if you choose God put it there."

You said:

Oh Buzz also think's there is an Alien space craft behind a moon on mars.

None of that bares any resemblance to that quote. Nothing about aliens or an alien craft.
What makes you think that he believes there is an alien craft behind a moon around Mars?

ShowMeTheCash · 28-09-2015 1:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then what leads you to believe that they are keeping secrets?

An eloquent way of saying that you need to dig a little to make discoveries.
This is made clear by the full context of the speech this is from.
(Which is also not close to his last public appearance.)

I recommend you crack out the dictionary.
Yes I agree he is saying people should dig a little deeper but he is also passing comment on the "truth" and it's "protetive layers"....
I think this means people are told a "truth" to protect them, but in order to move forward we need to remove this protective layer.
I've no idea what he is getting at but he does appear to be getting at something.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think he was admitting to some great cover up here?

No, I try to think in colour not black and white, I think it suggests there is a lot more to what we are told and pioneers and people who will shape the future need to see beyond what is being fed to them.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you mentioned Aliens.
It was panel from the rocket. Aldrin said so himself.
The only mystery about it is manufactured by people looking for a conspiracy.

I said UFO... You said Aliens!
Aldrin said later he was pretty sure it was one of the panels as what else could it be... but he does not know which one, it is him who actually says technically it is an UFO.

The S-IVB they detached from was 2 days before, Aldrin says at the time when the saw it they where not sure what it was so they asked mission control where the S-IVB was with regards them, mission control responded 6000 miles from them. Aldrin says what they where looking at they did not look to be 6000 miles away.

King Mob wrote: »

He didn't report it and he was not told to ignore it.
Where are you getting that from?

You are correct, I was recalling this from memory on something I watched a while back, they did not report it to mission control the crew made the decision to ask mission control about the S-IVB then to ignore it as they did not want to say over comm's what they could see. Did not want to cause a stir as they knew others where listening in.

King Mob wrote: »

None of that bares any resemblance to that quote. Nothing about aliens or an alien craft.
What makes you think that he believes there is an alien craft behind a moon around Mars?

This is like pulling teeth!

Please try and read this in the context in which it was written

"Oh Buzz also think's there is an Alien space craft behind a moon on mars but I think again people just jump on the "Ahh crazy old Buzz is at it again" bandwagon...."

I am showing how when Buzz made the comments:

"There’s a monolith there – a very unusual structure on this little potato shaped object that goes around Mars once every seven hours.
‘When people find out about that they are going to say, “Who put that there? Who put that there?” Well the universe put it there, or if you choose God put it there."

That people jump to make out like he is nut. Oh that dude believes in Aliens he is crazy.

It's like this.
We found an object that does not appear to be natural but manufactured, its on a planet we have never been too...

Right away people shout "What aliens done it, you think there are aliens on Phobos...." and before anyone can actually look at the data, gather the evidence a campaign has already began making fun of these people.

My original comment was showing how people get discredited even ones as credible a Buzz Aldrin.

Buzz is pretty exciting about this object why? Because it has no significance? That it is nothing more than an odly shaped rock? (which it could be)
Buzz seems to think it is something of significance, he even goes on to say things like "Who put that there..." Suggesting it was put it there....

This is going down the route of a completely different CT....

Let me ask a question, based on what Buzz has said about it, could you hazzard a guess why he thinks it is significant?

King Mob · 28-09-2015 2:05pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this means people are told a "truth" to protect them, but in order to move forward we need to remove this protective layer.
I've no idea what he is getting at but he does appear to be getting at something.

No, I try to think in colour not black and white, I think it suggests there is a lot more to what we are told and pioneers and people who will shape the future need to see beyond what is being fed to them.

So you don't know what he's getting at, but he must be hinting at some kind of secret and no other interpretation is possible?
Yet I am the one thinking in black and white?

Also, could you please explain what leads you to believe that Nasa is hiding details of the missions even though you don't actually know what or why?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I said UFO... You said Aliens!
Aldrin said later he was pretty sure it was one of the panels as what else could it be... but he does not know which one, it is him who actually says technically it is an UFO.

The S-IVB they detached from was 2 days before, Aldrin says at the time when the saw it they where not sure what it was so they asked mission control where the S-IVB was with regards them, mission control responded 6000 miles from them. Aldrin says what they where looking at they did not look to be 6000 miles away.

You are correct, I was recalling this from memory on something I watched a while back, they did not report it to mission control the crew made the decision to ask mission control about the S-IVB then to ignore it as they did not want to say over comm's what they could see. Did not want to cause a stir as they knew others where listening in.

So what's the point you are trying to make exactly?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That people jump to make out like he is nut. Oh that dude believes in Aliens he is crazy.

My original comment was showing how people get discredited even ones as credible a Buzz Aldrin.

Who has done this exactly?

The only people who make any significance of this are conspiracy theorists who are trying to make out that he is saying it's aliens.

He is very clearly not saying that and noone has jump on him for saying what he did say.

Why do you think that Buzz Aldrin has been discredited?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Buzz is pretty exciting about this object why? Because it has no significance? That it is nothing more than an odly shaped rock? (which it could be)
Buzz seems to think it is something of significance, he even goes on to say things like "Who put that there..." Suggesting it was put it there....

He states what he thinks very clearly:

Well the universe put it there, or if you choose God put it there.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Let me ask a question, based on what Buzz has said about it, could you hazzard a guess why he thinks it is significant?

Because it's an odd object that we don't know enough about to be able to guess at it's exact origins. And that's a good enough reason to learn more about it and other things. So basically the driving force of space exploration.

What do you think he meant, exactly?

ShowMeTheCash · 28-09-2015 2:54pm

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't know what he's getting at, but he must be hinting at some kind of secret and no other interpretation is possible?
Yet I am the one thinking in black and white?

He is clearly talking about the Truth.... Why do I think that? Because he uses the word truth....

Look I am not saying what it is, you are trying to tell me what it isn't... Black and white!

King Mob wrote: »

Also, could you please explain what leads you to believe that Nasa is hiding details of the missions even though you don't actually know what or why?

Again like pulling teeth, "remove truths protetive layer" if you have to remove a layer to get to the truth what can you disern? That something was or is hiden.

King Mob wrote: »

So what's the point you are trying to make exactly?

Earlier you said it was not true but you where wrong.
My original comment was around the idea of keeping a fake water-tight which another poster talked about, I said this is the beauty of a CT you don't need too, if someone comes out with a bold claim you make them out to be a CTist... Automatically they become a joke! In some cases I can see why as their claims are a little nutty even for me, but I have looked at other CT's and looked at the questions asked I do not see a CTist I see relavent questions where people are being purposfully discredited simply for asking the question.

King Mob wrote: »

Who has done this exactly?

The only people who make any significance of this are conspiracy theorists who are trying to make out that he is saying it's aliens.

He is very clearly not saying that and noone has jump on him for saying what he did say.

Why do you think that Buzz Aldrin has been discredited?

Do you actually follow what I am saying?
CT's would only use it to get traction with their own argument as a credible argument.
People trying to make out Buzz has lost the plot does not serve the CT, it dilutes his view as to nullify a position.

For me there are apposing sides to make a CT.

In order for a CT to really be a CT it needs a strong opposing position, otherwise it would just be a theory... It appears the best way to oppose is to play down the credibility of an individual, I think this to some extent has been done to Buzz.
Neil Armstong I think was a smart guy, he did not do many interviews he did not say a lot... Walt Disney based Buzz lightyear on Buzz Adlrin, do you think people now take him more seriosuly or less?

King Mob wrote: »

Because it's an odd object that we don't know enough about to be able to guess at it's exact origins. And that's a good enough reason to learn more about it and other things. So basically the driving force of space exploration.

What do you think he meant, exactly?

I think Buzz does not rule out anything, but for the reasons mentioned above Buzz needs to be careful to what he says...

King Mob · 28-09-2015 3:09pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

He is clearly talking about the Truth.... Why do I think that? Because he uses the word truth....

Look I am not saying what it is, you are trying to tell me what it isn't... Black and white!

Again like pulling teeth, "remove truths protetive layer" if you have to remove a layer to get to the truth what can you disern? That something was or is hiden.

And again, you are saying it's not black and white, but only your narrow interpretation is valid.

It could (and give the context from the speech this quote is from probably does) mean removing truth's protective layer of natural scientific mystery.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People trying to make out Buzz has lost the plot does not serve the CT, it dilutes his view as to nullify a position.

For me there are apposing sides to make a CT.

In order for a CT to really be a CT it needs a strong opposing position, otherwise it would just be a theory... It appears the best way to oppose is to play down the credibility of an individual, I think this to some extent has been done to Buzz.
Neil Armstong I think was a smart guy, he did not do many interviews he did not say a lot... Walt Disney based Buzz lightyear on Buzz Adlrin, do you think people now take him more seriosuly or less?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Can you please point out how and where Buzz Aldrin has been discredited.
He still is a highly respected figure.
Pixar affectionately naming a character after him is not a good example of this.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think Buzz does not rule out anything, but for the reasons mentioned above Buzz needs to be careful to what he says...

No, Buzz quite clearly states what he meant:

Well the universe put it there, or if you choose God put it there.

I don't know how else you can interpret that but to mean it's a natural object.

So any chance you can go back and actually answer my question now?

What leads you to believe that NASA is withholding information given that you do not know what this information is or why they are withholding it?

Overheal · 28-09-2015 4:12pm

Hey baby I hear the blues a callin', tossed salad and scrambled eggs..Oh My...Mercy...

Overheal · 28-09-2015 4:19pm

I don't know how else you can interpret that but to mean it's a natural object.

Unless you're a creationist or have watched 2001 Space Odyssey lately

ShowMeTheCash · 28-09-2015 4:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you are saying it's not black and white, but only your narrow interpretation is valid.

It could (and give the context from the speech this quote is from probably does) mean removing truth's protective layer of natural scientific mystery.

I am not trying to give an explanation, you are the one that is coming out with what you think, Oh it means :

King Mob wrote: »

natural scientific mystery

or an

King Mob wrote: »

eloquent way of saying that you need to dig a little to make discoveries

Then failing this argument you just jump to an extremem point of view by saying

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think he was admitting to some great cover up here?

This type of thinking is black and white and narrow, you have your own ideas and failing that just jump to a complete contrasting idea even though no-one is arguing the contrast.

All I have said is Armstrong made a somewhat cryptic statement around removing one of truths layers...

A lot of people have spoken about this saying it was cryptic... I do not pretend to know what it was in refernce too, but you want to try and explain it... You want to say there is no way NASA keeps secrets and it was nothing to do with NASA... Maybe it wasn't or maybe it was.

King Mob wrote: »

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Can you please point out how and where Buzz Aldrin has been discredited.
He still is a highly respected figure.
Pixar affectionately naming a character after him is not a good example of this.

I am not saying he has been discredited, I am saying this is how CT's work, Buzz talked about the Phobos object, people automatically jump to a conclusion like you do time and time again, looking at the comments on the youtube video of C-span when he talked about the object I see comments like "Buzz I bet has some tall tails"... I think the issue with Buzz is people do not take him seriosuly partly because Buzz has fallen into the publicity trap and is seen by sum as "publicity seeker" I think it somewhat Ironic he done dancing with the stars.

Whether or not this is fair certain publicity does not lend itself well to particular roles especially if you want people to take you seriosuly.

This does not discredit him, I am not even saying there was a campaign to discret him, I am just saying this is how CT's work.

King Mob wrote: »

No, Buzz quite clearly states what he meant:

I don't know how else you can interpret that but to mean it's a natural object.

The universe put it there... then you jump to your explaination "it's a natural object." The Universe could mean many things but you again look at it in a very narrow way...

King Mob wrote: »

So any chance you can go back and actually answer my question now?

Buzz in that interview starts with saying how interesting the object is, people will want to know what it is and who put it there....

If it is a natrual formation what is interesting about that?
I think Buzz likes the idea of the possibility that there could be evidence to show another civilization visited our solar system at some-point in it's 4/5 billion years....

King Mob wrote: »

What leads you to believe that NASA is withholding information given that you do not know what this information is or why they are withholding it?

Too me this is like saying, what leads you to believe the government is withholding information. NASA is funded by the state department and is inter twined with US military of course not everything will be for public domain you woudl need to be completely stupid to think NASA is completely transparent at the end of the day it is effectively a state body they will disclose what they are allowed to disclose.

King Mob · 28-09-2015 5:24pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not trying to give an explanation, you are the one that is coming out with what you think, Oh it means :

This type of thinking is black and white and narrow, you have your own ideas and failing that just jump to a complete contrasting idea even though no-one is arguing the contrast.

I gave the explanation you asked for. You're rejecting out of hand.
And for contrasting ideas you only offer completely nebulous and vague waffle.

You keep saying that you don't know what he's saying, then on the same breath insist that he's being cryptic or has some double meaning.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

All I have said is Armstrong made a somewhat cryptic statement around removing one of truths layers...

A lot of people have spoken about this saying it was cryptic... I do not pretend to know what it was in refernce too, but you want to try and explain it... You want to say there is no way NASA keeps secrets and it was nothing to do with NASA... Maybe it wasn't or maybe it was.

You're assuming it's cryptic when there is no reason at all to conclude that.
Aside from conspiracy theorists wanting to claim it is cryptic.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The universe put it there... then you jump to your explaination "it's a natural object." The Universe could mean many things but you again look at it in a very narrow way...

I think Buzz likes the idea of the possibility that there could be evidence to show another civilization visited our solar system at some-point in it's 4/5 billion years....

Again an assumption based on what conspiracy theorists want to believe, not the most reasonable and rational explanation.

When he says "The Universe" obviously he means an ancient alien civilisation. :rolleyes:

What other evidence are you using to conclude that Buzz might be referring to aliens?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If it is a natrual formation what is interesting about that?

What wouldn't be interesting about it?

It's an object for which we don't have an explanation for. Learning about it would tell us tons of stuff about the composition and formation and conditions of the Moons of Mars. Perhaps it could help solve the mystery of where the moons came from and how the interacted with Mars.

If you are saying it's only interesting if it's something built by aliens, and that is the only reason to be interested in it, then you don't get what space exploration is about.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Too me this is like saying, what leads you to believe the government is withholding information. NASA is funded by the state department and is inter twined with US military of course not everything will be for public domain you woudl need to be completely stupid to think NASA is completely transparent at the end of the day it is effectively a state body they will disclose what they are allowed to disclose.

It's completely stupid to not be suspicious, yet when you are pressed for any details you fail completely.
You can't suggest what they might be hiding or why. You can't point to any evidence or reasoning for it.
You can't address the myriad of issues I've brought up with the possible conspiracies you have suggested

All you have is your gut feeling and what conspiracy theorists claim, which is not particularly convincing or meaningful.
Unless you can point to something more solid than the waffle of "well they might possibly be up to something non-specific", then your suspicions are on the exact same level as the silly conspiracies about mind rays and alien moon bases.

Overheal · 28-09-2015 5:43pm

I think Buzz likes the idea of the possibility that there could be evidence to show another civilization visited our solar system at some-point in it's 4/5 billion years....

Which could evidence a confirmation bias on his part.

ShowMeTheCash · 29-09-2015 9:07am

King Mob wrote: »

I gave the explanation you asked for. You're rejecting out of hand.
And for contrasting ideas you only offer completely nebulous and vague waffle.

Opposed to uneducated guess?
You are not giving an explanation, you are giving an opinion there is a huge difference.

King Mob wrote: »

You keep saying that you don't know what he's saying, then on the same breath insist that he's being cryptic or has some double meaning.

You're assuming it's cryptic when there is no reason at all to conclude that.
Aside from conspiracy theorists wanting to claim it is cryptic.

This is not cryptic you are failing to comprehend basic english, he is saying we need to remove the layers of truth, I think it is fair to say he is saying in a nice way we need to move past the lies. The cryptic part is understanding what specifically is this in reference too.

King Mob wrote: »

Again an assumption based on what conspiracy theorists want to believe, not the most reasonable and rational explanation.

When he says "The Universe" obviously he means an ancient alien civilisation. :rolleyes:

This statement really shows how narrow minded you are, if Buzz wanted to be as narrow minded he would just of said we have a stange but natural rock formation on Phobos but not being narrow minded he does not make that distinction because he does not know what it is yet.

King Mob wrote: »

What other evidence are you using to conclude that Buzz might be referring to aliens?

Maybe because he started with question "who put it there....." he is definately considering at the possibility of it not being natural, that's not a conspiricy it's a plausible consideration.

King Mob wrote: »

What wouldn't be interesting about it?
It's an object for which we don't have an explanation for. Learning about it would tell us tons of stuff about the composition and formation and conditions of the Moons of Mars. Perhaps it could help solve the mystery of where the moons came from and how the interacted with Mars.

If you are saying it's only interesting if it's something built by aliens, and that is the only reason to be interested in it, then you don't get what space exploration is about.

I really think you are now grasping at straws, if it is a natural rock formation there is nothing interesting about it, no more so than any other rock formation on Phobos, the only interesting thing would be it's shape. At this momenet in time the only reason we are interested in it, is because it looks like it was put there, does not really fit in with the rest of the landscape and essentially looks like a stucture of design opposed to a formation of chance.

King Mob wrote: »

It's completely stupid to not be suspicious, yet when you are pressed for any details you fail completely.
You can't suggest what they might be hiding or why. You can't point to any evidence or reasoning for it.
You can't address the myriad of issues I've brought up with the possible conspiracies you have suggested

Myriad of issues? You mean by constantly stating "The Russians would know" and trying to pass this off as some kind of educated argument, or we had the technology without really understanding the technology and again trying to pass this off as a credible argument?

Neil Armstrong did talk about the desent to the moon and ability to take off again, what odds where given that they would be able to do it?

King Mob wrote: »

All you have is your gut feeling and what conspiracy theorists claim, which is not particularly convincing or meaningful.
Unless you can point to something more solid than the waffle of "well they might possibly be up to something non-specific", then your suspicions are on the exact same level as the silly conspiracies about mind rays and alien moon bases.

The world is full of sheep that accept everything at face value, they believe what they are told to believe.

You really do not want to consider anything.
I have stated this but I will state it again, I do not think the moon landing was faked but I accept it is possible it could of been staged.
I accepted there was definitely political pressure and a motive to do it. You do not even accept that which shows a complete lack of knowledge of the political climate and world history.
You want to accept that NASA is a completely transparent body that would not lie too anyone despite that they killed the first crew by cutting corners and despite Neil Armstrong saying he was fully aware that even if they reached the moon there was only a 50% chance they would be successful in landing on the moon and getting back off it...

King Mob · 29-09-2015 1:45pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Opposed to uneducated guess?
You are not giving an explanation, you are giving an opinion there is a huge difference.

This is not cryptic you are failing to comprehend basic english, he is saying we need to remove the layers of truth, I think it is fair to say he is saying in a nice way we need to move past the lies. The cryptic part is understanding what specifically is this in reference too.

You are moving the goalposts again.

You claimed he is being cryptic.
You are insisting that he is talking about lies.
Neither of these things are supported by anything beyond your assumptions.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This statement really shows how narrow minded you are, if Buzz wanted to be as narrow minded he would just of said we have a stange but natural rock formation on Phobos but not being narrow minded he does not make that distinction because he does not know what it is yet.

Maybe because he started with question "who put it there....." he is definately considering at the possibility of it not being natural, that's not a conspiricy it's a plausible consideration.

Again, assumptions out of nowhere that don't make any sense.

You claim you don't know what he's getting at, but then also claim that you have perfect knowledge of his motivations and meanings.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I really think you are now grasping at straws, if it is a natural rock formation there is nothing interesting about it,

Then you don't understand the nature of space exploration.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Myriad of issues? You mean by constantly stating "The Russians would know" and trying to pass this off as some kind of educated argument, or we had the technology without really understanding the technology and again trying to pass this off as a credible argument?

I pointed out a long list of reasons why and how the Russians would have found out. You ignored this because you are unable to address these issues.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The world is full of sheep that accept everything at face value, they believe what they are told to believe.

You really do not want to consider anything.
I have stated this but I will state it again, I do not think the moon landing was faked but I accept it is possible it could of been staged.
I accepted there was definitely political pressure and a motive to do it. You do not even accept that which shows a complete lack of knowledge of the political climate and world history.

But you have been unable to show how it's possible to fake.
You have been unable to show how they would have hidden it from the Russians.
And if they couldn't have hidden it from the Russian then there would be no political pressure to fake it.

Why would they be pressured to fake it when they would have been easily caught at faking it?
Wouldn't being caught at faking it result in the opposite of they wanted?

It's not possible that they could have gotten away with faking it, hence there is no motivation.
You've failed to show that it is possible to get away with.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You want to accept that NASA is a completely transparent body that would not lie too anyone despite that they killed the first crew by cutting corners and despite Neil Armstrong saying he was fully aware that even if they reached the moon there was only a 50% chance they would be successful in landing on the moon and getting back off it...

So again, what's NASA hiding?

ShowMeTheCash · 29-09-2015 4:02pm

King Mob wrote: »

You are moving the goalposts again.

You claimed he is being cryptic.
You are insisting that he is talking about lies.
Neither of these things are supported by anything beyond your assumptions.

Did you listen to what he said? It all made perfect sense to you?
"Remove truths protective layers" This is not cryptic?
What is a protective layer of the truth?
I think you are being deliberately obtuse now!

King Mob wrote: »

Then you don't understand the nature of space exploration.

You have failed to grasp some fairly basic comprehension or simply chosen to ignore it, shown a completely lack of knowledge of political events of the 1960s and an inability to think even remotely outside the box.
I like the way you post my comment leaving out the section where I say

"no more so than any other rock formation on Phobos, the only interesting thing would be it's shape."

Earlier you where on about these CT that edited Buzz Aldrin's statements to make it look like he was saying he thought there was aliens on mars.
You deliberately edit what I have said to try and make your point.

I am not saying examining rock on Phobos would not hold some significance and I saying if this is natural the monolith really hold little more significance than any other rock formation...

What I understand is that you know very little and are trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows more than they do!

King Mob wrote: »

I pointed out a long list of reasons why and how the Russians would have found out. You ignored this because you are unable to address these issues.

You made statement I would liken with a that of someone in national school.

You want me to give you a clear example so you can attempt to rebuff.
I say I think NASA is not giving all the full story - You want to know what I think they are hiding - If i knew they did not hide it too well.

You refuse to except any of the history and political arguments of the time.
How shady the US government is and there involvement.
m not saying it was faked, I am saying it could

King Mob wrote: »

But you have been unable to show how it's possible to fake.
You have been unable to show how they would have hidden it from the Russians.
And if they couldn't have hidden it from the Russian then there would be no political pressure to fake it.

This is literally a stupid argument!

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they be pressured to fake it when they would have been easily caught at faking it?
Wouldn't being caught at faking it result in the opposite of they wanted?

It's not possible that they could have gotten away with faking it, hence there is no motivation.
You've failed to show that it is possible to get away with.

So again, what's NASA hiding?

You literally are under estimating what the USA have done throughout history, what they have faked, what they have been caught faking which really only begs the question to what they have not been caught doing...

Google Red Flag attacks and JFK - Some interesting reading!

Dohnjoe · 29-09-2015 4:42pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Google Red Flag attacks and JFK - Some interesting reading!

Don't forget to search for the mountain of US political scandals, leaked memos, whistle-blowers, intelligence leaks to keep things in perspective

King Mob · 29-09-2015 5:13pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

"Remove truths protective layers" This is not cryptic?

So you are saying he is being cryptic now?

This is not cryptic you are failing to comprehend basic english,

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You want me to give you a clear example so you can attempt to rebuff.
I say I think NASA is not giving all the full story - You want to know what I think they are hiding - If i knew they did not hide it too well.

Yes I am asking you to give a clear example.
You tried to give one but it was shown to be impossible.

Any example you will give will run into the same problems because it is impossible for NASA to fake any part of the mission and get away with it.

If this isn't the case, put your money where your mouth is and give us an example of:
What they possibly could fake and why they possibly would need to.
How they possibly faked that.
How they possibly kept it secret from the Russians.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You refuse to except any of the history and political arguments of the time.
How shady the US government is and there involvement.
m not saying it was faked, I am saying it could

You're saying it but you're failing to show how t could or address how I've showed it's impossible.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You literally are under estimating what the USA have done throughout history, what they have faked, what they have been caught faking which really only begs the question to what they have not been caught doing...

Again, I'm not seeing you point here.
You don't trust the government. Good for you.

Why does this mean that NASA is up to no good?

Can't you even speculate what they are being dishonest about or is it a completely vague, and ultimately meaningless suspicion and distrust?

enno99 · 30-09-2015 12:37am

Just a thought
Could any of the Russian missions have been faked ?

Overheal · 30-09-2015 12:40am

This is literally a stupid argument!

Care to elaborate?

When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

Comments