The LRV on the lunar surface - proving the authenticity

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Aug 19, 2022.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here for any sane person is visual proof that man set foot on the lunar surface. These were filmed on the Moon and developed on Earth after each mission:





    After NASA had achieved the goal of going to the Moon, they supposedly faked a further 5 landing missions, that got ever more complex. The LRV footage was filmed by a DAC 16mm Movie camera (audio was added by the youtuber from actual audio during traverses).

    Why!? Why the hell does NASA seemingly over complicate matters, increase numbers needed to film this, produce it with all the possibilities it could go wrong? It makes no sense at all.

    There is no explanation for the following, that does not rely on made up crap and very ignorant claims or suggestions:

    • Explain the dark sky.
    • Explain evenly lit surface for several miles of travel.
    • Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
    • Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
    • Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's some more relevant stuff that should be considered when discussing the rover issue.

    Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue


    Air is making the flaps go up.



    This guy is an expert and he says the rover footage is fake.

    Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
     
    Descartes and Navy Corpsman like this.
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's something else.

    https://www.aulis.com/photostudy.htm
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Missing rover tracks are often found in the Apollo photographic record. In Figure 2, the lack of rover tracks is quite apparent.

    Rover tracks are not present either in front or behind the rear rover wheels, and more importantly, are not present under the chassis either. The astronauts' activities cannot be the explanation for the lack of tracks, as there is little to no marring of the lunar soil where the tracks should be.

    Especially free of potential marring by astronaut activity is the area on the left side of the rover, the rear and the front (red circles). There is no marring of the area, and still no rover tracks are visible.

    It is clear that the rover cannot have been driven into its position, either forward or reverse, instead it seems to have been lowered at the end of its trackless flight from the edge of the terrain-carpet’s edge.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Descartes and Navy Corpsman like this.
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The spammer alarm must have gone off! Notice as always he avoids the major issues relating to this subject.

    Nothing you have ever typed is relevant to the Lunar landings. You have completely avoided answering the actual OP and instead decided to re-spam the same crap previously responded to.

    A truly idiotic claim. If there was air strong enough to hold a flap up, it would be strong enough to disturb dust on the ground - clearly it doesn't. The effect is caused by a simple process whereby the wheels encounter a small trough in the ground and as the flap is starting its downwards oscillation it is pushed up by the small impact. You can even see this from the way the background suddenly moves in unison.

    No he isn't. He is a moron. Anyone who thinks the lunar rover footage is a model falls into the same category.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off topic spam once again avoiding the OP.

    One major issue why there are no tracks is that they get covered by the ejected dust. Another is where the terrain is a less dusty surface and more compacted with larger ejecta.

    [​IMG]
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    My favourite and the one they NEVER address is WTF did Tidbinbilla and Parkes track? Because they tracked something heading for the moon and that signal came from that direction
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As did Jodrell Bank.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was googling around and I came across this.

    Apollo Moon Hoax Proof Lunar Rover Footage
     
    Descartes and Navy Corpsman like this.
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Listen up. The OP has 3 videos showing a lunar rover on the Moon. So far we have 2 spam posts and some of your pathetic google fumblings that explain nothing. I thought you had retired from your lifelong online spam failure. You've been banned from over a hundred forums for posting the same identical crap. Surely you had managed to escape this obsession?

    Your stupid video shows parts of a documentary from NASA explaining how they worked through their simulation programs and some footage of google moon that uses the damn Apollo and LROC imagery amongst others! It answers not one single thing about the Lunar Rover and offers no clue as to how this faultless sequence was performed.

    Clue: it was shot in a vacuum, low gravity and lunar daylight.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, more of your dump crap on the wall and hope some sticks. Nowhere does any of that horseshit explain the faultless, crisp actual OP footage filmed on the lunar surface. The first video is a clueless nobody claiming that the rover dwarfs the "LEM". Clearly once more, we have another idiot in your referenced junk. The second "double speed" video is basically close to the actual gravitational adjustment of 2.45 speed. It explains nothing about the enormous rooster tails from such a slow moving electric vehicle.

    As for you suggesting there is "plenty of time to analyse it" - the internet has seen your uninformed crap for 2 decades and not once in all that time have you earned the right to describe your posts as "analysis"!
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It says here that NASA "lost" the blueprints for the lunar rover.

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/
    (excerpt)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Also allegedly lost are all the telemetry data, received and recorded to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship, as well as the astronauts’ heartbeat. Also lost are the blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    If this turns out to be true, it isn't proof of a hoax, but it's circumstantial evidence that points to a hoax.
     
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pathetic off-topic spam. Many times I have had the misfortune to encounter your appalling lack of integrity and dishonesty and here we go yet again. Instead of simply explaining how footage was filmed, you divert, obfuscate and post ignorant crap and erroneous claims. The entire record of the Apollo equipment is safely held at the Marshall Space Flight Centre. In addition NASA publicly links to numerous documents related to them. they even sell copies of them on ebay!

    SATURN V F-1 Engine Blueprint from NASA Documents Apollo Rocket to the Moon £14.94 - PicClick UK
    Virtual AGC Links Page (ibiblio.org)
    19750063889.pdf (nasa.gov)
    Apollo Operations Handbook BK-II, Volume 1 (nasa.gov)

    Bullshit! The equipment was made by external companies. So either they made equipment fit for purpose or were part of this ridiculous and impossible hoax.

    Clavius: Conspiracy - the problem of scale


    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 documents, 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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
    bigfella likes this.
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not taking a very serious look at the issue. Here's a serious look that has some actual substance and makes sense.

    Apollo for Dummys:
    Scale Mannequins and Miniatures in Apollo Imagery

    https://www.aulis.com/miniatures.htm
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Over the years online forums dedicated to discussing the Apollo missions have hosted messages proposing that rather than featuring real astronauts, some lunar surface photographs used miniatures. But as these opinions were usually expressed by non-professionals, they were largely ignored. The situation changed however in August 2012 when the Apollo 16 lunar rover action footage was analysed and discussed in a video with a specialist cinematographer, Vsevolod Yakubovich.

    Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography in the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He is an Associate Professor of the Russian State University of Cinematography, and teaches the technology of the Cinematograph process. V. Yakubovich is well known for his work on many famous Soviet movies including the first domestic disaster movie Air Crew (1979), as well as The Diamond Arm (1969), The Very Same Munchhausen (1979), Gardes-Marines, Ahead! (1988), Aybolit-66 (1967).

    The short presentation of the Apollo 16 Rover footage by Vsevolod Yakubovich generated quite a furore among viewing audiences. This professional cinematographer, acclaimed for his special effects photographic expertise in more than 80 movies, determined that the sequence was in fact a miniature mannequin seated on a radio-controlled model lunar rover (LRV) in this Apollo film, Lunar Rover on the Moon: Was it an RC model? (extended version).

    The LRV travels a circular route. But despite the very uneven surface, as the LRV moves away from the camera and returns again, the driver never moves any part of his body – not a foot, not a hand. The driver’s left arm, initially hovering ‘in the air’ and then held in a horizontal position isn’t lowered until the very end of the run (Figure 1).

    This raised arm is clearly is not realistic in such a situation. Imagine you are driving a car with your right hand in control, holding the steering wheel. You then stretch your left hand forward so that the forearm, wrist and hand are parallel to the ground. Could you drive two laps in this position, back and forth, twice, making turns – continually ensuring that your left arm never moves?

    No, not in reality. A person would instinctively lower his/her hand to the knee if it wasn’t holding the wheel. Compare the above LRV film sequence with the Apollo 16 astronauts’ actions on the training ground at Cinder Lake crater fields, east of Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. The left arm of the driver, sitting closer to the camera, always rests near his hip or knee. And not only when the rover is stationary, but also when they simulate riding about, with the front wheels rotating (Figures 2-4).

    The driver’s left hand is always lowered, regardless of whether or not he is wearing a spacesuit. Keeping an arm horizontal is uncomfortable. But a mannequin can keep its arm outstretched for as long as is required.

    In addition, V.Yakubovich has noted (as have others) the line separating the foreground lunar soil and the background. The lower and upper parts of the frame mismatch both in color and texture – as has been discussed elsewhere. This credible finding is unambiguous: the boundary line indicates an artificial set up, such as film studio. The lower working area is composed of ‘lunar’ dust on the horizontal plane and the upper part is a separate backdrop component.

    What do we see during panning? The camera, following the rover, makes turns of more than 120°. At the same time, throughout the entire ride, the boundary line remains approximately at the same distance from the shooting position, in other words, it travels in circle of a small radius (Figure 5).
    ---------------------------------------------------------
     
    Descartes likes this.
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seriously!? You post off-topic spam horseshit that was addressed and spammed 5 years ago and AVOID COMPLETELY the content in the OP!

    Aulis is a website run by snake-oil salesman making money from the clueless and gullible. I am not surprised it is attractive to you. I wonder how much money they offered the old foolish non-expert. As I said, it takes a colossal moron to look at that footage and think it is a model. From previous experience with your spamming and evasion, I could cite every single film expert in history and go into full detail why your "expert" is a buffoon and you would simply ignore the whole thing.

    Why are you afraid to respond to the actual OP, instead choosing to spam and obfuscate your horseshit?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Cosmo, which one is it, "The Huge Conspiracy" or the "Absolute Minimum"? Of course you won't answer.
     
  17. Navy Corpsman

    Navy Corpsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Yes they "tracked" the Apollo command module floating around in LEO. That's why the CIA had to tell the Astro'NOTS when to speak to mimic the 4 second delay in the radio transmission. (which was exposed when Bart Sibrel was sent some film with audio inadvertently or maybe not where you can hear a third person telling them when to "talk")
     
  18. Navy Corpsman

    Navy Corpsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Excellent video of the EXPERTS debunking the whole Moon landing FRAUD.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Troll noise and you have avoided the rebuttal supplied to you. Sibrel lied to you and like a sucker you bought it.

    Sibrel the liar said they were at the back of the cabin, filming through a round window to pretend it was the Earth. This video shows they were AT the rectangle window and the Earth zooms out and disappears to the side.

     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at the hoax-trolls evading the actual OP. Every thread I have ever made on this forum has the same result. Cowardice and no integrity.

    We now have the "Navy" troll posting off-topic crap in this thread and worshipping the liar Sibrel, who deliberately failed to include the middle TV transmission showing the Earth being zoomed out, just like this:

    [​IMG]

    Owned.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Call it whatever you want. There's a mountain of proof that Apollo was a hoax and there's zero proof that Apollo was real.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-18

    A16 Audio Analysis Summary
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-18

    Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW

    (40:13 time mark) SOUND ON THE MOON
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cowardly avoided. You really are afraid to answer aren't you! Then you dump your already answered off-topic spam on yet another thread you have no response to!

    Moronic. There is zero hoax-nut evidence that stands up to scrutiny and proof that goes way beyond reasonable doubt that they landed. You are a serial forum spammer who unfortunately has been unable to get a life away from their obsession.

    Notwithstanding the OP, which on its own proves they landed on the Moon, there are 842lbs of peer reviewed samples that even with your idiotic go-to spam website - debunked here - Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) they prove the missions' authenticity, there are dozens and dozens of gravitational examples that cannot be faked (they can be denied with those without integrity!), there is a 100% consistency between the evidence presented across all missions, data from dozens of ALSEP experiments left on the Moon by Apollo, there is LROC and third party confirmations - Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia : There are so many documents that confirm the landings that you have never even read. There are websites where the actual photography has been cross-checked for its authenticity and it passes in every case - Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com).
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bottom line is that without a sample of proven-to-be-authentic moon rocks to which we can compare NASA's moon rocks, we can't be sure if NASA's rocks are bogus or real so the rocks can't be used as proof.
    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    If the link goes dead, do a Google search on a sentence from the excerpt between quotation marks.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This guy says it pretty well. There's no link to this. I just have the text.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Letters to the Editor


    Dear sirs:

    There can be many levels to an issue, and, unless you look at all of them, you cannot necessarily be said completely to understand it.

    With the upcoming anniversary of the purported landing on the moon, it is understandable that there would be significant attention to that story, with replays of news broadcasts from that time and descriptions of improvements in space travel since then. But, in the way that handling of an event can be characteristic of its time, or perhaps should be approached so, discussion of the supposed landing of Apollo 11 today also includes reference to the wide-spread perception that it never took place.

    Indeed, what is termed "The Moon Hoax" is a major topic on the internet, the "conspiracy theory" that the "moon landing" actually was staged. References to explanations by "conspiracy theorists" include items like the danger of traveling through the Van Allen radiation belts; the lack of stars in the sky in the photographs; the oddly intersecting or diverging shadows on the moon, suggesting mutliple light sources; and the "flapping" of the American flag set up there. Unfortunately, some "theorists" go too far afield, providing details, such as that the moon landing was filmed at Area 51, and those can and often are used to undermine the legitimacy of the inquiry.

    And, to be sure, the standard points can be countered, if not definitively then at least somewhat convincingly. Actually, the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts is not so strong it can't be countered by adequate shielding. Cameras that were calibrated to expose only long enough to collect significant light sources could fail to obtain simultaneous images of dim stars in the background. The lunar surface was evidently irregular enough that fraction of an inch long shadows in a picture could appear to intersect when they were really parallel. And even when they erected it, the astronauts described the flag as having a cross bar so the pennant could stand out from the pole and, if jostled for any reason, even in a vacuum, a suspended cloth can flap if disturbed.

    Those whose job it is to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" would declare from this case closed, but, in fact, it opens the issue.

    Because it is a truism that, if you can control the essence of an argument, the meaning of terms, the items to be mentioned, the way things are to be approached, you can make anything say anything. And, in fact, "debunkers" have relied very heavily on this technique to deceive the public.

    In articles strewn with references to "conspiracy theorists' as "loonies" or "idiots" or "crackpots", the "debunkers" have repeatedly trotted out the standard points, sprinkling in details such as the claim about being filmed at Area 51, to "convince" the naive and dull that the "conspiracy theory" about the untruthfulness of the moon landing doesn't hold water. All predictably the same. In the article "Could the moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", by Brandon Griggs, journalistic ethic is tossed by referring to Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker who has challenged the claims about landing on the moon, as "crazy" and describing those who doubt the landing as a "cult". Phil Plait, an astronomer and contributor to Discover magazine's web site terms refusing to believe that man landed on the moon "lunacy".

    The fact is, such loaded language is an historic proof of an insincere agenda, promoting an illegitimate claim. A decent individual could opine the fact that craven connivers in government have made so many so distrustful that they don't place stock in anything government says. Those who are liars and criminals simply call those who refuse to be pushed around "crackpots"!

    But these always approach the issue from the one direction, the standard points. Which suggests that that is the only way a presentation "debunking" the "conspiracy theory" can be made. As if approaching from any other angle would expose the inherent weaknesses of the claim the moon was reached. It can be helpful, then, to examine the claim of a moon landing from other approaches, as well. The verifiable is the same viewed from any angle, not just from one specific direction.

    And there is a particularly significant direction to view the issue of the "moon landing".

    Rather than deal with the standard arguments provided against the possibility of the "moon landing" being real, the question can be asked just how uncontestable is the "evidence" that a landing did take place?

    The fact is, there is absolutely no "evidence" of a moon landing that is incontrovertible or unquestionable!

    The convincingness of any "evidence" of a moon landing depends solely on the effective gullibility of the person listening! And the craven acceptance of many in the American public of the unproved claim of a "moon landing" display methods often used to swindle the dull and demonstrate the lackluster dim-wittedness of so many in the America population that has permitted equally pernicious frauds to be perpetrated!

    Someone, for example, steps up to a podium and says, "We landed on the moon". If that person has enough media provided imprimatur and "official" backing, there are those in the public who will buy unquestioning, at face value, absolutely everything that person says! But Clinton stood up and said he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. George W. Bush said Iraq had massive banned weapon systems. George H.W. Bush said Iraqi soldiers pulled Kuwaiti infants from incubators and dropped them on the floor to die. Jimmy Carter said he was a nuclear engineer. Ronald Reagan said "trickle down" economics would benefit the "rank and file". If someone said they had talked to space aliens, "debunkers' would declare that just saying so doesn't make it true, but they are the first to insist that, just because someone in govenment said we reached the moon, you have no choice but to believe it! Just like they insist that al Qaeda and not the White House was behind the events of September 11, just because a White House authorized "translation" of an Osama bin Laden tape supposedly took credit for the attacks! The fact that nothing anyone is govenrment says can be trusted may inform the judgments of some regarding future events, but tragically few seem to have had the insight to apply this newfound realization retroactively, passing judgment on whether they were lied to in the past or not, as well!


    ...continued on page 2. The part about the rocks is there.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2022

Share This Page