Reply With Quote
You assume no technological or problem solving advancements since he wrote that.
You are not only a lying sack of , you have been requested to show the evidence on a filmed example. Can't do it can you, ya useless spamming moron.
Here is rock solid proof that movement occurs only when very close, and in this case because the floor underneath the object stops normal airflow -
Bull you blind imbecile. The movement is one steady shift to the right, beginning at the moment he enters the frame.The movement you cite when he's four feet away is the tiny back and forth movement caused by slight drafts in the studio which can be seen in the above video.
Here's something I never noticed before, I have no ing brain -
You are just the worst kind of hoax , pure stupidity and blinkered. It's moving because he is carrying the damn thingAs is said in the above video, the flag also moves because of air when the astronaut is approaching the site where the lower part of the pole is already in the ground. Start watching it at the 00:08 time mark.
It's not doctored you head. Do it yourself. Oh, I forgot, you are too stupid to work out how to do it...only in this doctored gif of yours.
These are actual frame grabs from cosmoron's video. Being the complete tosser he is, he will a) never try this himself b) never accept it is genuine c) maintain it must be doctored because he has no argument.
So far, we have a video showing that there is movement as soon the astronaut enters the frame. We have a video showing that air only causes something to move when it is very close. We have a video that this toothless cu nt won't respond to, showing Jarrah e shooting himself in the foot by being unable to move the bedsheet when he walks past it, or jumping near it.
What does cosmoron have?
You assume no technological or problem solving advancements since he wrote that.
OK, I started watching it there. It's rare that I pull up one of these videos from you deniers/conspiracy theorist.
I am paused right now at the 30:17 mark. They try to say the using of pure oxygen should have never been used, then lie about the process. They talk about Gemini's 3 PSI cabin pressure. Now when you speak of PSI (pounds per square inch) it is important to know your zero reference point. 3 PSIG (guage) is standard for the pure oxygen. At sea level, 3 PSIG is 17.7 PSIA (absolute). Gemini operated no differently, but your video lies...
Searching for the complete text shown in the video, which I haven't found yet, I did find NASA's report on the incident.
link: Apollo 204 Review Board Final Report
In there, and if the person making this video had an ounce of integrity, the report questions alternate means, and says why they used pure oxygen. Each method had it's own drawbacks, and pure oxygen was the best, less complicated method. You don't want multiple complicated systems when you cant go to a repair station when something goes wrong.
I have been over this report page by page, about half through it, and haven't found the reference shown in the video. It appears to be someones re-write of the NASA report. Who knows, maybe it's fake.
Oh, guess what. The Apollo 1 capsule burst when the internal pressure reached somewhere around 34 PSIA, or 19.3 PSIG. It's maximum design was about 14 PSID (differential) and was intended to operate under 5 PSID To operate with a 20% oxygen mix would mean operating at about 14.7 PSID, requiring the structural integrity of the capsule for pressure containment to be three times greater.
Mass is a great concern for launching such missions.
The OCR didn't work real well from the scanned do ent, but this may be of interest. From pages D-9-26 to 28
MERCURY AND GEMINI FLIGHT ATMOSPHERES
The guideline for the selection of the atmosphere used in the MerCury Spacecraft was to employ
the least complex and lightest approach consistent with reasonable safety. The 5 psia, 100% oxygen
environment was selected as the best compromise to preclude anoxia and oxygen toxicity. Another
consideration was the selection of a pressure level which, in the event of a cabin decompression, would
result in a minimum decrease to the suit pressure, and therefore, the least incidence of dysbarism
[bends!. It should be noted that prior to the inception of the Mercury Program, aviators flying highperformance
aircraft were breathing 100% oxygen. This aircraft experience was the natural predecessor
to the Mercury environment; in effect it cons uted the "state of the art" w.ithin.the aerospace
medical community.
Early in the Mercury Program, a NASA Life Sciences Committee, chaired by Dr.. W. R.. Love,
lace, II, reviewed the medical requirements and approved the approach taken by the prog!;am.
As a part of the development of the Mercury Environmental Control System _ECS) manned al ude
chamber tests were conducted in a boilerplate spacecraft. The first of these manned tests was
conducted at McDonnell Aircraft Corporation on April 21, 1960, with Mr. G. B. North, a McDonnell
test pilot, as the test crewman.
Mr. North was prepared for the test by pre-breathing oxygen before ingress to the test vessel.
The pressure suit circuit had already been purged with oxygen. After the ingress operation was completed,
the suit circuit was again purged with oxygen for a time period and rate previously determined
to assure an essentially pure oxygen environment in the suit circuit. The .hatch was closed and
sealed. No oxygen purge of the cabin was conducted, since the space suit was isolated and the Environmental
Control System design provided an 80% cabin purge during .spacecraft ascent by adding
oxygen to the cabin as the cabin relief valve permitted total pressure to reduce from one atmosphere
to space operating level.
The al ude chamber was evacuated to 27,000 feet equivalent al ude, and the Environmental
Control System operation during the chamber pump down (simulating launch ascent) was as planned.
After approximately forty (40) minutes of operation at 5 psia, the test was aborted because Mr.
North became unconscious. This condition was attributed to hypoxia t(lack of sufficient oxygen).
Subsequent inves.tigations revealed that leakage of nitorgen from the spacecraft air into the pressure
suit circuit .had gradually decreased the partial pressure of oxygen below physiologically acceptable
limits. This decrease in oxygen partial pressure could occur since certain portions of the suit
circuit were at negative pressures relative to the cabin pressure.
Three additional manned tests were conducted on June 2, 2, and 6, 1960. All three tests were
aborted because of rapid decreases in the suit circuit oxygen levels.
As a result of these incidents, the prelaunch procedure for all Mercury spacecraft, both astronaut
and chimpanzee, was changed to require that the cabin be purged with oxygen prior to launch..This
change eliminated The possibility o[ nitrogen concentration in the suit circuit.
The requirement for purging the cabin with pure oxygen at approximately 15 psia during the
prelaunch period of several hour_ has been continued for all manned spacecraft launched in this country.
This same procedure has been uged also on all manned spacecraft vacuum chamber tests in the
hlercury, Gemini and Apollo Programs.
The Gemini spacecraft atmosphere was selected to be the same as Mercury (5 psia, 100% oxygen).
This selection allowed the Gemini progt'am to develop an environmental control system largely based
on the Mercury design, and to benefit from the years of previous experience in procedures, specifications,
and Standards. The Gemini system proved extremely reliable, and performed successfully
in I0 manned flights, and in a large number of manned and unmanned al ude chamber tests and
preiaunch operations.
APOLLO FLIGHT ATMOSPHERE
Early studi_s based on NASA's own research and also on a large body of other experimentation
on artificial atmospheres, e.g., aircraft and submarine, resulted in a recommendation for a 7 psia oxygen-
niu'ogen atmosphere for Apollo. This first recommendation was in 1961. The primary reason
for this .recommendation was concern by physiologists that two-week Apollo missions in a 5 psia 100% ...........
oxygen environment (used in the Mercury Proga'am) could cause pulmonm T atelectasis (collapse of
lung tissue). This condition had been observed after extended inhalation of pure oxygen prior to that
time. However, a counter-balancing physiological question concerned dysbarism (bends) in the recommended
two-gas system if a rapid cabin decompression should occur.
An extensive test program was, therefore, initiated to resolve these physiological questions for both
the Apollo and Gemini atmosphere selections. (5 psia, 100% oxygen) atmosphere was planned, for the
Gemini spacecraft). The tests showed that a preoxygenation period of at least three hours was required .
to prevent bends in the event of cabin decompression during, or immediately following launch. Testing
in the 5 psia 100% oxygen atmosphere indicated that atelectasis would not be a problem in the twoweek
Apollo or Gemini afissions. (Satisfactory crew performance has not been demonstrated for 30-
day periods in 5 psia 100% oxygen atmosphere, including dynamic and static conditions). Based on
the results of this test program, NASA decided in 1962 that the Apollo spacecraft would also use the
5 psia 100% oxygen atmosphere used in the Mercury and Gemini Programs. This sele,'tion of cabin
atmosphere in space has enabled:
I. Continuation of the Mercury and Gemini experience.
2. :\voidance of potential dysbarism problems in avrious modes of space operation.
3. Relatively simple environmental control system hardware with attendant high reliability.
4. A "'shirt-sleeve'" cabin environment which has enhanced crew comfor.t and e.ffectix, cncss.
5. Minimum operational restraints to EVA initiation.
6. Maximum crew mobility within the constraints of present space Suit design by utilizing lowest
practical absolute pressure.
FLLGlrI" AT.MOSPI IERE FOR TI iE -\POI,I,O APPLICATION PROGRAM
The -\polio Applications Program (AAP) prt,_cntl.v plans to use a 5 psia two-gas atmosphere (60%
oxygen; 31% nitorgcn) only in the airlock module (S-IVBspcnt stage workshop)for planned mission
durations in excess of 30 days. The 5 psia pressure level selected for the long duration missions was
dictated by present Apollo pressure vessel capahilit.v and system compatibility considerations.
Present program plans continue the utilization of the standard :\pollo pure oxygen environment
in the (Iommand Service Module and Lunar Modules, which may be associated with A.XP missions.
'_Vhilc the airlock module will have the capability for a two-gas system on the first A..\P mission.
present plans arc to utilize the two-gas system for the second mission (45 days). Pure oxygen atmosphere
woukt be tLsed on the fir,_t mksion (311 davs'h
The primary consideration in utilization of the two-gas system for long duration missions is a
degire to.avoid ph.vsiological uncertainties and the possibility of atclectasis.
FIRE HAZARDS IN THE SPACECRAFT ATMOSPHERE
The possibility that fire could occur in any atmosphere capable of life support has been understood
throughout the program. In general, neither iguition temperature nor combustion rate is a *trong
function of oxygen partial pressure in the range from 3.5 psia to perhaps 7 psia. Mixed gas systems
operating with a minimum of 3.5 psia oxygen partial pressure apparently do not have significantly
different fire hazard potentiat,s as compared to a pure oxygen atmosphere at the_same pressure.
Limited zero_G aircraft testing has indicated that there is a tendency for combustion in a lowpressure
pure-oxygen environment at zero-G to be self-limiting. This may occur because of the lack
of natural convection to remove products of con',busti, m which no longer contain oxygen from the viciity
of the flame source, ttowever, forced convection in the cabin could nullify this effect.
In orbit, fire on board the ._pacec:aft could be extinguished by venting the cabin to space. This
mode of operation would require the crew to be suited prior to the decompression period because
physiological constraints dictate that a miniinum body pressure of 3.5 psia be maintained, Suit-donning
times are on the order of 10-15 minutes. Since the probability of fire was considered sufficiently remote,
this mode was not given strong consideration because crew comfort and crew effectiveness in
long,duration missions require that the suits be off for extended periods.
Attempts to design fire extinguishers for cabin deluge systems have not been particulary successful.
The "fire pockets" between instrument panels and structures complicate the design of any effective
fire-extinguishing system for spacecraft use. In addition, there is the potential interaction with
crew safety, e.g., toxic fumes. The difficulty of timely detection of a fire and reliable operation of
an extinguishing system must be carefully weighed against the potential dangers when.considering
such a system for spacecraft use.
SUMMARY REMARKS
In summary, the selection of a 100% oxygen atmosphere for manned spacecraft has resulted from
the careful consideration of all factors relating to crew safety andmission success. This choice has
been based on extensive research, which has included single and multi-gas atmospheres with their attendant
advantages and disadvantages.
The 100% oxygen atmosphere has been used successfully in all U.S. manned flights to date, and
is considered suitable for missions of 30 days or less.
I see you shills are still trying to bury the part of the debate in which you destroyed your credibility. I can thwart you by reposting it.
(post #4169)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6446644
All of the viewers who take the time to look at that info will know you pro-Apollo people are a bunch of shills who know Apollo was a hoax as well as the hoax-believers do. Your rhetoric is only going to sway a few of the viewers who don't take the time to look at the info.
My God.
You are seriously re ed.
Why are you avoiding my previous post Cosmo?
Last edited by MLewis; 08-11-2013 at 03:16 PM.
This article is obviously way over the heads of you conspiracy s, but anyway...
Moon Landing Faked!!!—Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...SA_DD_20130430
Any objective article on or discussion of the moon hoax theory will show the evidence in question. That article shows none of it. That article is a work of sophistry intended to sway people who haven't see the hoax evidence. They didn't show any of it because they know that, once they do, their sophistry will be rendered ineffective.
I registerer there and posted this in the comment section of the article.
(post #28)The proof that the Apollo moon missions were faked is crushing. Here's a link to some of the proof.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Let's see if it stays.
Also boutons_deux, what's your position on the Chinese spacewalk?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012
(post #3957)
Do you maintain that is was faked, or real?
Last edited by Cosmored; 04-30-2013 at 03:11 PM.
Chinese science, history are just a as credible as Russian Pravda, Repug, and "Christian" science, history, cosmology.
This isn't the answer to my question. After looking at this evidence of fakery, do you maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real, or faked?Chinese science, history are just a as credible as Russian Pravda, Repug, and "Christian" science, history, cosmology.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012
Also, do you think that in articles that are meant to persuade such as this one...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...SA_DD_20130430
... that the evidence in question should be shown and discussed? The evidence of fakery is the most relevant aspect of the issue and the evidence in question wasn't even shown in the article.
I was debating with the guy who made these videos in the comment sections and I had him cornered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKFyPGGPppk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domtyECeabA
His response was to delete all of my posts and block me.
POTW easy.
Cosmored 9
FruadFreddy88 9
the next 10 pages will really count.
those of you with your free mind ask, why no other country has even been to the moon?
Maybe they didn't have the studio Unions Paramount pictures has.
America had the film and the technology to make sure it would happen and it did.
Thanks Mouse
Here's one of the posts that got deleted from a YouTube video.
Here's the video.MythBusters was discredited a long time ago.
/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE
/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
aulis (dot) com/mythbusters (dot) htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domtyECeabA
I tried to post it again from another YouTube account but he's blocked that one too. Somebody else try it and tell us what happens.
edit 5-11-13
--------------------
Here are the hot links corresponding to the above links so that you don't have to copy and paste them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
http://aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
Last edited by Cosmored; 05-11-2013 at 03:26 PM.
Here's another video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V9Q9wx-awQ
I'm mainly posting this to bump the thread before it disappears.
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.
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.
You still need someone to fake the data streams well enough to fool ALL of those people. That would have taken some serious human/computer power. Do you have any testimony from someone involved in faking those mountains of data?
CONSPIRACYWhere would that money go today? You must know how government contractors operate. look at your local contractors. over charging the city on hwy projects the money goes in everyone's pockets.
That has to be a loaded question. remember Houston was known for ENRON also.
Besides JFK promised the world America will have a man on the moon before 1970 you think money was a concern? take the Lunar rover for example.
It had about two to three million dollars worth of equipment, around 20 million in today's money. The original budget was $19 million for four rovers. Cost overruns — in a government program? I’m shocked, doubled the final price tag to $38 mil (worth about $200 million in today’s cash).
Not to mention the George Lucas overpriced Hollywood set complete with mountain backdrops.
the problem of scale
In fact almost all that money went to the contractors who built the equipment. NASA itself doesn't build spaceships. It hires companies to build spaceships for it.
But this division of labor presents a problem for conspiracy theorists. We start with the premise that NASA wanted the public to believe it actually succeeded in landing astronauts on the moon. This is common to all conspiracy theories. Also common to nearly all theories is the assertion that no such landing took place.
The most foolproof way of convincing somebody that you did something is to actually do it. Nothing is more convincing than the truth. So if NASA had to falsify the landings, that implies that (for whatever reasons) it was impossible to actually do it. So all conspiracy theories asserting that no lunar landing took place must argue that falsifying the lunar landing was easier than actually accomplishing it.
But how to deal with those pesky contractors? I see three basic scenarios: the Huge Conspiracy Scenario, the Absolute Minimum Scenario, and the Need-To-Know Scenario.
THE HUGE CONSPIRACY SCENARIO
This variant presumes that relatively many people knew about the conspiracy, be they NASA employees or employees of the prime contractors. The advantage of this scenario to the conspiracy theory is that no actual spaceworthy hardware, aside from a rocket that went up and a command module that came down, need have been constructed. If the conspiracist contends that technological limitations prevented an actual lunar landing, this is the scenario of choice.
In short, you bring the contractor in on the scam, pay him a whole lot of money and say, "Just pretend to make some hardware, we don't care if it actually works." The well-paid contractor accepts payment for services not rendered and agrees to keep silent on the matter. It makes a public announcement to say it's been awarded a major government contract to build space hardware. (You have to do that in order to keep your stockholders happy.) And then it calls a private meeting for its employees and says, "Everybody is getting a huge bonus. I know you heard us say we're making space hardware, but that's not really what's happening. If you go along with it, you'll all be set for life."
This assumes everyone can be bought. For those employees who aren't coin-operated, threats would be in order. Employees get called into their managers' offices one-by-one and are confronted by stern-faced NASA employees who spell out what will happen to the employee and his family if he should ever tell what happened.
There are several obvious problems with this scenario.
The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.
Disgruntled employees. Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.
No evidence of reward. The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are scattered across the country now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive.
No evidence of threat. Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.
No posthumous revelations. Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or do ents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.
No Boy Scouts. Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.
Clearly the idea of keeping half a million or so people quiet for thirty years and counting is a very tall order.
THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO
At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.
This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.
The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.
These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work.
In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.
THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO
By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in.
It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.
Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.
It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.
In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.
That's a nice fairy tale, but that's absolutely not how it worked. NASA relied on experts from the industries that built its spacecraft to provide on-site advice and procedures.
The moral: if you want to perpetrate a hoax, don't have it catered.
--------------------------------
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/scale.html
The most fun I have debunking this stuff, is actually filling in what conspiracy theorists don't about their own theories.
Ask them to flesh stuff out, and they invariably refuse. They don't want to commit themselves to something that can be proven wrong, because they would then have to admit to themselves that their dogma really is dogma.
Couple this with the rather, um, erratic, nature of the average CT'er, and it is left to the skeptics to really put together a coherent spiel. Invariably when one actually puts toegether all the craptastic assertions and assumptions required, it proves to be a scenario that borders on the fantastic, akin to thinking that purple unicorns were responsible.
Here is your theory mouse, in all its warts.
Here we go again. The pro Apollo people discredited themselves a long time ago and they try to bury that part of the debate to reduce the number of people who see it. Here's a link to some of it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6446644
(post #4157)
I have to keep reposting it on every page to thwart them. The pro-Apollo posters on this thread know the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. They work for the government.
Uh-huh.
Unfortunately for your theory, the more people you make "in on it", the less likely it is to be true.
That you don't understand that, and still add more and more people to your stupid theory, is hilarious.
That assumes you actually have a theory, which you don't, do you?
Pssssst! RandomLie if your going to quote at least paste the link to the page so others can see I already addressed your cute pictures of empty chairs and members only blazers hanging in the background, face it your dream job is just that a dream.... Dude let it go.. I gave trying to be a city Bus Driver you can surely give up your dreams of NASA.
post the links to the responses you received back then, unless you don't want to think back to bad memories and relive the pain you endured.
I doubt that these shills actually feel the pain.relive the pain you endured.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
(excerpts)
---------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.
---------------------------------
It's just a job,
---------------------------------
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
---------------------------------
I think the only thing they care about is whether they get paid. They don't care if they're winning or losing. Some of them might feel actual guilt and the fact that they're losing probably assuages their guilt.
http://aquariusparadigm.com/2012/09/...mation-poster/
(excerpt)
---------------------------------
I quit this job in the latter part of 2011, because I became disgusted with it, and with myself. I realized I couldn’t look myself in the mirror anymore.
---------------------------------
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
