The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

[RandomGuy]

[debunked video]

Hey mouse, do you have any phsyical evidence of this fakery other than debunked videos?

[debunked video]

The guy who put that video together came out and admitted it was a fabrication. Do you have anything else?

[debunked video]

Gee, that's interesting, but it doesn't really tell me how the rocks were faked well enough to fool tens of thousands of geologists.

jacket!!

Two seconds in a video is nice and all, but do you have any accounts from one of the thousands of conspirators?

jacket!!

Um, ok. That really isn't a first hand account, do you have anything that might tell us how the hundreds of pounds of rocks might be faked?

Robots!!

Uh-huh. 1960's-era Robotic probes didn't even have microprocessors and weren't really capable of snagging hundreds of pounds of rocks. They could manage, at best, a few ounces at a time. Do you have any blueprints or something that might show how this was done?

jacket!!

Oh. Gee, well if you don't have that, can you tell me how these probes got to the moon without the world noticing?

jacket!!

I sense a pattern here, but let's keep going. Do you have any leaked Russian do ents talking about the USSR's duplicity in not letting the cat out of the bag? When the USSR collapsed, hundreds of thousands of Cold War era do ents leaked, spies talked, and all sorts of things came out. Surely ONE person involved in the greatest cover-up of all time came forth?

Goon squads!!

Hmmm. That kind of compounds the problem of explaining why no one came forward, doesn't it? Because all you would then need is one enforcer to have a crisis of conscience and say "I threatened these people who might have told the truth..." You don't have any testimony from THIS group of people, either do you?

jacket!!

[debunked video]

Hmmm, Neither of you have really answered any of my questions.

So let me get this straight. Somehow, this conspiracy was so dumb as to release thousands of pictures, and hundreds of hours of video when they could have just severely limited either so as to limit their potential exposure, but smart and capable enough to intimidate and bury every single possible leak from the TENS OF THOUSANDS of people who could have, at any time, blown the whole thing wide open?

jacket!!

[debunked video]

[RandomGuy]

So let's construct our "moon hoax" conspiracy.

The OP at least pays some homage to the fact that there were moon missions beyond the first one.

So, in order to construct a plausible theory, we have to have some idea as to what it would really take to fake the multiple moon missions, and oh, by the way, all the other space missions we have ever done, since, you know, space has radiation and stuff.

Let's start with what it would take to fake the footage in a studio as the OP's author posits.

We would need the actors, in this case the "astronauts". 41 in total, with a few alternates. We would then need a film crew. Camera guy, film processor, editor, director, lighting technician, props guys, etc. Call it a crew of about 10 to make the movies.

Our rolling total comes to 51. You would have to get the evil conspirators who thought of the whole scheme, so that makes another, say 10 people to organize and plan the whole thing. 61 and counting.

Now, in order to actually fake the building and launching of the rockets, and the capsules going to the moon, etc, you need to either get all of the flight controllers for all the missions in on it, or enough techical people to run the computers and fake the controls. Now it would be very hard to dupe so many field staff, so let simply assume that all the people in mission control were in on it too.


Each one of those panels were pretty much occupied 24/7 while the missions were in progress. Say 50 people per 8 hour shift times 3... add 150 more per mission, althogh there is some overlap.

We also can't forget the moon missions that cirled the moon, but didn't land. A total of 9 missions. Given some overlap in personnel this means that roughly, say a thousand "controllers" were involved in faking the data to make it look like there were actual orbiters involved.

So we also have the fact that the Russians knew about it as well, call it at least a hundred people with probable direct knowledge that it was faked, from techinicians who studied the faked data to the generals to the decision makers who decided not to blab.

We are now at around 1200 people with direct, involved knowledge of the faked missions.

We have to add further the people, like a globe full of amateur astromers and radio buffs listening to the transmissions from the "moon mission" and watching the capsules speeding away from the earth.

There would then have to be a dedicated group of killers ready to kill anyone who blabbed or their family over the course of the intervening 40 years. This would take quite a few people, call it 50 to monitor people and another 20-40 musclemen who may not have known why they were threatening/killing people. We can conservatively leave the muscle out, but monitoring the words and statements of 1200+ people takes a good effort,even for an evil conspiracy.

At this juncture, I would point out that, as "evidence" of this conspiracy, the OP simply alleges that deathbed confessions would be weeded out by the "controlled media", while ignoring the fact that the "controlled media" hasn't been able to contain all the other conspiracy websites and his other links.

The OP cannot produce a deathbed, or for that matter any other confession from any one of the people supposedly involved in this.

We can continue to add people that must have been both involved and actively and sucessfully duped if you want.

This is where I will ask the most basic, simple question of the OP:

Please give me ONE account of someone who admits active involvement in this. Deathbed confessions of people who aren't intimidated by the musclemen would go a long way towards providing actual proof.

Post #264 of this thread.

[RandomGuy]

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...opic/51606/22/

Wow, that was timestamped from 2008.
Oct 19 2008, 04:25 PM

Holy . The jacket schtick was debunked then too, as was the Chinese spacewalk stuff.

How long have you been shovelling this bull , Cosmo?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...opic/51606/42/

. That thread is still getting bumped by ol' Cosmo/David C as late as August 2010.

42 pages long that was.

Same MO.

People repeatedly asked for evidence of Cosmo's assertions, he ignored them, and spammed the same bull .

Years this has been going on. And now it is here, like a giant flaming sack of left on your doorstep by some prankster.

[RandomGuy]

NASA apologists say there's no physical evidence for a conspiracy theory. There's plenty of evidence, such as the photo and video anomalies.
This reveals a fundamental flaw in the conspiracist understanding of the nature of hypothesis and proof.

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations. The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation (not the one being explained) which would would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

If you think this sounds a lot like the scientific method, you're right. The scientific method uses a carefully chosen experiment to test which of several hypotheses is the right one. The experiment tries to see by-products or effects that could only be caused by the hypothesis the scientists are testing.

But the problem comes when conspiracists want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following fanciful dialogue:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained. But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain. To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses. Perhaps some sort of moisture has leached out of the glass. Perhaps a nearby sprinkler doused the car. I have to find some way of choosing one hypothesis over the other. I can't just cite the wet windshield as evidence. I have to find evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the windshield itself, but has to do with the process I hypothesize.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

[*]My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained. [*]My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass. [*]My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.

All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens controlled by G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns. The resulting "proof" would be
[*]My windshield is wet, therefore G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on my brainwave patterns using alien technology.

Yes, that's supposed to sound absurd. It's supposed to show that a pattern of reasoning which can produce such absurd conclusions isn't a valid pattern of reasoning. Circular arguments are "tautological" meaning that they're always true. They're true not because they arrive at a good conclusion, they're true because they're structured to be true no matter what conclusion or premise is involved. That's why they aren't useful for proving anything.
Let's do an example that involves Apollo data.

Conspiracists observe that in certain Apollo photographs the "fiducials" or crosshairs seem to pass behind objects in the photo. They hypothesize that the photos were produced in a laboratory by cut and paste techniques. This hypothesis, if true, would explain the observation. If a photo lab technician pasted an object into a photo already containing fiducials, he might obscure a fiducial by overlaying his addition on top of it.

But how to go about proving it? Unfortunately most conspiracists simply use the circular argument. When asked to provide evidence that a photo lab pasted up the Apollo photos, they point back to the missing fiducials and say, "See? The fiducials are missing, therefore they were created in the lab."

But reasonable people are not convinced by the tautological argument, nor should they be. When we say there is no evidence for such hypotheses, we mean that there is no evidence which undeniably and unquestionably shows that a photo lab produced the photographs. The conspiracists need to provide secondary, unambiguous evidence that could only be explained by their hypothesis. For example, they could try to find increased activity at government-funded photo labs. They could try to do ent the purchase of equipment and supplies by NASA that would only be useful to a photo lab that was falsifying pictures instead of just developing them. They could even try to find some of the people who participated in this alleged falsification of photos.

The absence of the fiducial doesn't prove the existence of a previously unknown photo lab any more than the villagers' desire to burn a woman proves she's a witch.

[RandomGuy]

Bla bla bla, jacket, bla bla bla jacket bla bla bla

As for the videos:


Wake me up when you get someone directly involved in the hoax to come forward.

or

When you can adequately explain how NASA was able to fake 800+ pounds of moon rocks well enough to fool tens of thousands of geologists for 40 years.

Until then, the "I don't understand the video/photo footage" schtick got old, the first 999,999 times it got debunked.

The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

1-The photos are all faked.

and

2-The videos are all faked.

and

3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

and

4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

and

5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

and

6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

and

7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

and

8- Several people organized and coordinated these seperate processes and they kept secret.

and

9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspriracy.

and

10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

and

11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

and

12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-govermental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomolies, and/or kept quiet about it

and

13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

and

14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

and

15- The people assinged to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

and

16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

and

17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

and

18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

and

19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

and

20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

Therein lies the problem.

If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

and

22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

and

23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/coverup, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the video footage" youtube video is just another stone on the fail pile.

Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.

You have as of yet, Cosmored, not provided a shred of proof of most of these assertions.

I want to see the design for the "robotic probes". I want first-hand testimony of ANYBODY involved in the hoax or coverup.

[RandomGuy]

The moon rocks are often presented as proof the missions were real. There are plausible explanations that would explain them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A

Video summary:
"An australian news show remarked that the European Space Agency said that minerals found in one of the "lets crash this probe into the moon and see what pops up" missions was "different" than what the Apollo missions returned. Therefore the Apollo rock and soil samples must be faked."

As the video itself says:
"Am I speculating? Yes I am, and as we all know speculation is not proof."

Gee thanks.

Was the fact that thousands of geologists have poured over the Apollo samples addressed? No.

Was any specific chemical or physical property of the rock samples addressed? No.

Instead we are left with the remark from a journalist that the stuff thrown up by the impact was "different" than the Apollo surface samples.

Interesting word... "different".

Our conspiracy buddy takes that to be some accidental admission of guilt on the part of the vast conspiracy. A crack in the facade, if you will.

At this point, anybody with good critical thinking skills would ask: "what did the guy mean by "different"?

That same critical thinker might consider the whole quote, that starts on mark 6:18

"By punching a 10-meter hole on the surface, the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon walks."

A fair restatement adding a rather important word:

"By punching a 10-meter [deep] hole on the surface, the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon walks."

Now let's add some emphasis.

"By punching a 10-meter [deep] hole on the surface, the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon walks."


Hmm.

Yes or no, Cosmored, would one expect the minerals 10 meters below the surface of the moon to be different than those on the surface?

[RandomGuy]

There are several known mistakes that have been made by hoax-believers. One of them is correctly pointed out in this MythBusters video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcXBT-GZCo

Showing that to be a mistake doesn't disprove the hoax theory though as there's still the issue of whether the light source was a studio light, or the sun.

You people seem to be between a rock and a hard place with the issue of the Chinese space walk. This is very relevant to the Apollo issue as NASA's credibility is on the line. Only a disinfo agent would tap dance around this issue instead of addressing it.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222

There's really not much sense in my continuing here; all the evidence is in the first post of this thread and it's so clear that the only way you shills can sway public opinion is to keep people from seeing it. You've said some pretty lame things (such as post #369 on page 15) in this thread and nobody with any brains is going to take you seriously now. I'll check back from time to time to see if there are any serious posters.

Interesting set of statements.

Q. "Is there any part of the evidence presented by websites claiming that "the moon landings were faked" that you do NOT accept as true?"

A. There are several known mistakes that have been made by hoax-believers.

When moon hoax believers say things provably false, they are still to be believed.

"But look at the faked Chinese moon walk that NASA said was real."

When NASA says something allegedly false then their entire credibility must be questioned.

Note that I am in no way conceding that the Chinese space footage was faked. I am quite sure it is real, and that the Chinese are indeed taking their place among space-faring nations.

You cannot apply different sets of standards and retain credibility.

Lastly I would note that post #369 was not mine.

Let me then ask the next question:

"If beleivers of a moon landing hoax/coverup say/advance things that are provably wrong, should we then subject their claims to more or less scrutiny?"

[RandomGuy]

I think we had the horse into pulp a loooooong time ago.

Poor horse.

[The Reckoning]

take notes, es

[mouse]

.

And the beat goes on............

[mouse]

as opposed too ..............

[mouse]

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse, you should have inserted this stonehenge as it would still be intact if it was on the moon:

Stonehenge replica, Maryhill WA

[Cosmored]

I see the thread is filling up with trash posts by government-paid sophists. I think most objective viewers just skip their posts; that's what I do when I read threads in conspiracy theory sections of forums.

Anyway, I saw another moon thread at JREF so I made a post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...71#post8032171

It's number 57. Let's see if it gets deleted.

For those who just tuned in-

The FatFreddy88 who posts here registered with the same user name that I use at JREF and a few other places just to cause confusion.

[Cosmored]

I just started this thread at the James Randi Education Foundation forum.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=230521

It should be called the James Randi Propaganda and Brainwashing Foundation forum as most of the posters there are government shills who don't even believe their own arguments.

Jay Windley is the main one.
http://forum.davi e.com/showpost....66&postcount=8

[Blake]

lol government paid shills.

That pretty much cements my opinion that Fatfreddy88=Cosmored= super troll

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Where can I apply to be an online sophist for the government? I got the time on my hands to post here. It's about time I stop handing out these gems for free.

[manufan10]

Where can I apply to be an online sophist for the government? I got the time on my hands to post here. It's about time I stop handing out these gems for free.

Same here. Sign me up!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

And this seems like the perfect thread to remind everyone in The Club that for some reason my badge for having the top score in Space Invaders doesn't appear when I post in here, but I do in fact still have the top score. So if you could please adjust the amount of reverence you give my posts here to include this accomplishment that'd be great.

[Cosmored]

This thread I started at JREF got closed.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=230521

The moderator said to take it to the moderated moon thread. I tried to make a post on page #180 of the thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...16531&page=180

I asked Jay Windley to give us his analysis of the anomaly in post #1 of the closed thread.

A note came up that said the post would have to be approved by a moderator before it could appear. Let's see what happens.

I also got a personal message from the moderator who closed the thread. Here's the note.

You have received a warning at JREF Forum
Dear FatFreddy88,

This is an automated message generated by the Forum software, if the Moderating Team member issuing the infraction has personalised this message their comments will be in the "Additional Comment" section.

You have received a warning for the following post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8033032


Quote:
Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

It moves in the same manner that the corners of this guys' jacket move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4
(00:14 time mark)

The corner goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in gravity. There's no identifiable force making it go back down except for gravity.

The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

This footage in zero-G shows jacket corners moving quite differently from the way Collins' jacket corner moved.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

They obviously faked some of the footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts' being halfway to the moon. This closes the whole case by itself. They never went to the moon.

There's a lot more evidence that they faked Apollo besides that too. Here's a link to some of it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

When I make several posts in one sitting, the posts in which I made my main points usually get deleted so I'll only be making one post per day.


The infraction issued was: Breach of Rule 4 and Rule 6

Infractions are issued as a reminder of the Forum rules, which you agreed to follow. Breaches of your Membership Agreement can result in further action including suspension and even banning from the JREF Forum.

Membership Agreement
Membership Agreement FAQ

Additional Comment:

The reason given for the closing was that I'd broken rules #4 and #6.

Here's rule #4-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's rule #6-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------

They know that the stuff I post is too clear to obfuscate and that the disinfo agents that work that forum will just end up looking like horses' a---s if they try to obfuscate it. The only thing they can do is think up excuses to censor what I post.

I just made a post on this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229464&page=3

It's #116. Let's see if it gets deleted. It's so full of info they don't want people to see that they may ban me for it.

[Fatfreddy88]

This thread I started at JREF got closed.

Here's rule #6-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhuh. Spamming, got ya

They know that the stuff I post is repe ive e duplicated over hundreds of forums for 5 years. They know I am an imbecile and think I know more than qualified scientists, and they know I will never accept any answer, because I am a stupid

I just made a post on this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229464&page=3

It's #116. Let's see if it gets deleted. It's so full of info they don't want people to see that they may ban me for it.

It's full of , as are you.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

[mouse]

What they are doing to Cosmored at that site is immoral and Un-American.

The webmaster will hear from me.

[Fatfreddy88]

What they are doing to Cosmored at that site is immoral and Un-American.

The webmaster will hear from me.

[Cosmored]

Thanks for the moral support mouse.

Jay Windly refused to analyze the anomaly.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7200

I just made a post that will have to be approved by a moderator before it can appear. It would have been post #7225. Here it is.

So like Patrick1000 you want everyone to ignore the sheer mass of evidence in favour of the reality of Apollo because something 'doesn't look right' to you?

A jacket corner bouncing around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon doesn't look right to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)
Tell us why it moves in exactly the same manner in which these jacket corners move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4
(00:14 time mark)

Tell us why Collins' jacket corner has a tendency to go downward which looks just like it would in gravity and the straps in this video have no tendency to go downward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)
These jacket corners are also in a very different environment than Collins' jacket corner.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

If Collins' jacket corner is in zero-G, tell us how it would move in gravity. How would the movement be different?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2734

So what. For the most part, his legs are hitting the jacket and moving it back and forward. You equate gravity to the horizontal movements when it is simply the fabric being pulled by virtue of it being connected to his moving body.

Anyone who actully watches the footage can see that this isn't the case. The corner gets pulled upward but the fabric is too loose to be pushed back downward.

I'm sorry but this one anomaly closes the whole case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. They were probably faking this footage in a diving plane and got careless.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3389

FatFreddy88, this was discussed to death on ApolloHoax and here:

Somebody please link to that discussion.

post #7200

Too bad.

What can I say? They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for this response. Come on Jay. I want your opinion. Aren't you the main expert on these matters?

Let's see if it appears.

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse...

Here is something you may want...