So the moon landing was faked!

timbob said:
Just watched video number 9, and I can't find anything wrong with any of the audio recordings.

There are many cases of Capcom asking a long winded question, and the astronauts replying to the first part. You can quite clearly make out the pause in the 1st example when the astronaut realises Capcom is still talking, he shuts up, waits to hear the finished question, and then answers with the expected time delay - it's as plain as day.

If conspiracy theorists can only pull a handful of examples of Houston and the astronauts talking over each other out of the best part of A THOUSAND HOURS of recordings, then again, just how many straws are they clutching at.

More to the point, Apollo is taught on astrophysics and "rocket science" university courses the world over. Surely SOMEONE might have realised they were fake by now if even a tiny shred of evidence pointed to an inconsistency somewhere along the line... But nope!
Click to expand...

Any normal person would take that stance, the conspiracy theorists see it as "they slipped up". Which is a shame.
 
gillywibble said:
The following as far as I’m concerned have not been successfully debunked. If any of them have been, then please link to the research because I have not seen it.

.....
21. Unusual – no memory!
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the video (no sound in work) but if it's claiming the Apollo computer had no memory then that is untrue. See here for a detailed analysis of the Block I Apollo Guidance Computer, including instructions of how to build one if you fancy a new project :)

http://klabs.org/history/build_agc/

You may want specifically look at Part 4 - MEM Module [6.8 MB]: Design and construction of the memory module.


[edit] And thinking about it, why would they have bothered spending so much money on designing a computer (which does work and was rebuilt by someone in 2004 from the original MIT design plans) if they knew they were never going to use it?
 
Last edited:
Same arguments over and over. Not joking at least each of the common arguments has been asked five or six times in this thread. At this point it is just repeating the same answers.

I do laugh though at the angle of argument that it would be easier to go to the moon that fake it. hahaha. Also funny was the argument that they didn't have the technology to fake it but they had the technology to go to the moon. haha.

Now a point is brought up that there is not sufficient delay in the audio. But then we just have people make up convoluted excuses for this. Same with every argument, they just make up convoluted answers that attempt to put the burden of evidence on to the moon hoax arguer. This is always the case and often the burden is put on the the person in such a way that they could never prove it wrong. Like the use of batteries to power everything. The Apollo fanatics just make up an excuse and then put the burden on to the hoaxer by saying that you can't prove they didn't use batteries.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim in question, that apollo went to the moon. There is just not sufficient evidence that they went there. All the sample evidence is bogus, all the video and image and audio is bogus. There is no evidence but an old tin foil artefact sitting in a muesum. Which does not prove a thing.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
Same arguments over and over. Not joking at least each of the common arguments has been asked five or six times in this thread. At this point it is just repeating the same answers.
Click to expand...

Yep, think we'd all be in agreement with that.

groen said:
I do laugh though at the angle of argument that it would be easier to go to the moon that fake it. hahaha. Also funny was the argument that they didn't have the technology to fake it but they had the technology to go to the moon. haha.
Click to expand...

Hnnnng.
 
groen said:
Inscrutable babbling
Click to expand...


WveNUqg.gif
 
groen said:
Now a point is brought up that there is not sufficient delay in the audio. But then we just have people make up convoluted excuses for this.
Click to expand...

What convoluted excuses?

groen said:
Same with every argument, they just make up convoluted answers that attempt to put the burden of evidence on to the moon hoax arguer. This is always the case and often the burden is put on the the person in such a way that they could never prove it wrong. Like the use of batteries to power everything. The Apollo fanatics just make up an excuse and then put the burden on to the hoaxer by saying that you can't prove they didn't use batteries.
Click to expand...

Oh Lordy, again with the battery thing? What is it with you and that?

I believe I already told you how they powered the Apollo craft, so I don't feel the need to rehash that. Especially since it's clear that you won't accept, understand or otherwise take on board anything I explain to you.
 
groen said:
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim in question, that apollo went to the moon. There is just not sufficient evidence that they went there. All the sample evidence is bogus, all the video and image and audio is bogus. There is no evidence but an old tin foil artefact sitting in a muesum. Which does not prove a thing.
Click to expand...

You've got it the wrong way round. The Apollo landings are not a claim - they are a matter of historical record accepted by basically the whole world. It's the CT people who are making a claim that the historical record is a big conspiracy. The burden of proof is on them. It's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The CT people provide youtube videos of long debunked nonsense that show nothing more than ignorance of the science/engineering, deliberate editing/taking out of context of sources, and so on and so on. It's tiresome.
 
groen said:
Same arguments over and over. Not joking at least each of the common arguments has been asked five or six times in this thread. At this point it is just repeating the same answers.

I do laugh though at the angle of argument that it would be easier to go to the moon that fake it. hahaha. Also funny was the argument that they didn't have the technology to fake it but they had the technology to go to the moon. haha.

Now a point is brought up that there is not sufficient delay in the audio. But then we just have people make up convoluted excuses for this. Same with every argument, they just make up convoluted answers that attempt to put the burden of evidence on to the moon hoax arguer. This is always the case and often the burden is put on the the person in such a way that they could never prove it wrong. Like the use of batteries to power everything. The Apollo fanatics just make up an excuse and then put the burden on to the hoaxer by saying that you can't prove they didn't use batteries.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim in question, that apollo went to the moon. There is just not sufficient evidence that they went there. All the sample evidence is bogus, all the video and image and audio is bogus. There is no evidence but an old tin foil artefact sitting in a muesum. Which does not prove a thing.
Click to expand...

you lack the ability to even understand basic evidence and logical reasoning - you are the dictionary definition of a fool - not an insult, a fact based on the available evidence presented in this thread.
 
aardvark said:
you lack the ability to even understand basic evidence and logical reasoning - you are the dictionary definition of a fool - not an insult, a fact based on the available evidence presented in this thread.
Click to expand...

Dictionary definition:

1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion
3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous

Yup.
 
groen said:
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim in question, that apollo went to the moon. There is just not sufficient evidence that they went there. All the sample evidence is bogus, all the video and image and audio is bogus. There is no evidence but an old tin foil artefact sitting in a muesum. Which does not prove a thing.
Click to expand...

Evidence:

1. Many independent amateurs tracked Apollo all the way to the moon using radio. They heard the audio several seconds before they were broadcast on tv.

2. The landing sites have been photographed by the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. The Japanese SELENE probe, the Indian charlatans-1, and the Chinese Chang'e 2 have also found evidence of the landings.

3. All the equipment they used is still around in museums to inspect

4. Over 400,000 people worked on Apollo and no one has blown the whistle

5. The Soviets made no denial of the moon landing, which would have been a massive political victory for them

7. 382kg of moon rocks was brought back. Unmanned missions have gathered far smaller quantities.

8. The reflectors that were left there are still working today. The one on Apollo 14 was observed from earth the day it was set up

9. The thousands of hours of video which you reject show objects behaving exactly as you'd expect in a 1/6 G vacuum

10. The Saturn V launch was tracked by radar in many countries

11. Apollo 12 brought back parts of surveyor 3 which show evidence of exposure to lunar conditions

13. Apollo 13 was observed by Chabot Observatory to help nasa work out how to do the final rocket burn for 're-entry

14. Apollo 16 took a long exposure photo of the earth using a UV camera. It shows the earth with the correct background of stars

15. The technology needed for post processing video to the level needed fir a convincing fake did not exist. Everything was still on film, and even convincing slow motion was problematic, never mind faking the right physics for lunar conditions. A moon shot on the other hand requires a computer which only has to do a few specific calculations.

That's not an exhaustive list but the best I can do off the top of my head. For you to convince me there's a possibility it was faked all you have to do is explain how to fake film of dust movement in a 1/6G vacuum using the video technology of the time.
 
Blue160 said:
Evidence:

1. Many independent amateurs tracked Apollo all the way to the moon using radio. They heard the audio several seconds before they were broadcast on tv.

Wrong

2. The landing sites have been photographed by the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. The Japanese SELENE probe, the Indian charlatans-1, and the Chinese Chang'e 2 have also found evidence of the landings.

Wrong

3. All the equipment they used is still around in museums to inspect

Wrong

4. Over 400,000 people worked on Apollo and no one has blown the whistle

Wrong

5. The Soviets made no denial of the moon landing, which would have been a massive political victory for them

Means nothing

7. 382kg of moon rocks was brought back. Unmanned missions have gathered far smaller quantities.

Fake

8. The reflectors that were left there are still working today. The one on Apollo 14 was observed from earth the day it was set up

Means nothing

9. The thousands of hours of video which you reject show objects behaving exactly as you'd expect in a 1/6 G vacuum

Wrong

10. The Saturn V launch was tracked by radar in many countries

All the way to the moon? radar ?

11. Apollo 12 brought back parts of surveyor 3 which show evidence of exposure to lunar conditions

Means Nothing

13. Apollo 13 was observed by Chabot Observatory to help nasa work out how to do the final rocket burn for 're-entry

Wrong

14. Apollo 16 took a long exposure photo of the earth using a UV camera. It shows the earth with the correct background of stars

Show me the image?

15. The technology needed for post processing video to the level needed fir a convincing fake did not exist. Everything was still on film, and even convincing slow motion was problematic, never mind faking the right physics for lunar conditions. A moon shot on the other hand requires a computer which only has to do a few specific calculations.

Wrong

That's not an exhaustive list but the best I can do off the top of my head. For you to convince me there's a possibility it was faked all you have to do is explain how to fake film of dust movement in a 1/6G vacuum using the video technology of the time.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom