CCCP. wrote:
The real conspiracy isn't that about Neil Armstrong, it's about the COVERUP of Soviet cosmonauts GETTING THERE FIRST, but of course USA media propaganda never covers this.
Russian basketball players have never claimed this about Russian cosmonauts
The tide has definitely turned. The NASA defenders can no longer just name call, ridicule or make jokes anymore. They actually have to do research, employ critical thinking and guess what, some are converting over to my side. My army on LR continues to grow.
OneGiantLie
Not just the Russians wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
Suppose Russians for sure knew the signals weren't coming from the moon, and could prove it . . .
(a thing about a guy with a radio)
For most people this means believing something they never actually examined critically, and they hate having that pointed out to them.
Don't hate me.
I was critically examining the assumption that Russians in possession of proof of an Apollo fake would publicize it, not stating a belief. But nice try.
As for your story, let's not assume
1) the author of the blog is being honest and accurate
2) the guy with the radio is honest and accurate
3) getting a better signal from the direction of the moon proves the signal originated ON the moon.
4) the alleged recording of the signal isn't just copied from the tv broadcast. (It's a dead link on the blog, so we can't investigate that)
5) Or the "moon transmission" could simply be a relay from its Earth origin, double-backed at new frequency to ensure listening Soviets + Kentuckians believe it's fair dinkum.
The official story and accompanying TV show have enough holes in them to sink a battleship. Amazing that people still believe to this day!
Sinking Battleship wrote:
The official story and accompanying TV show have enough holes in them to sink a battleship. Amazing that people still believe to this day!
The number of times the "official story" changes is already a red herring.
And why does science need a propaganda TV show to bolster forthwith?
Maybe by 2069, when man still has not "returned" to moon after an entire 100 years (century), the anti-hoax believers will still be arguing here on LRC (with yellow+blue color scheme still intact).
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Not just the Russians wrote:
(a thing about a guy with a radio)
Don't hate me.
I was critically examining the assumption that Russians in possession of proof of an Apollo fake would publicize it, not stating a belief. But nice try.
As for your story, let's not assume
1) the author of the blog is being honest and accurate
2) the guy with the radio is honest and accurate
3) getting a better signal from the direction of the moon proves the signal originated ON the moon.
4) the alleged recording of the signal isn't just copied from the tv broadcast. (It's a dead link on the blog, so we can't investigate that)
My post was intended directed at your assertion that a hoax of this magnitude could be pulled off by a relatively small number of people. There are independent radio and optical observations of the missions that would literally be no less difficult to fake than a manned moon mission which wasn't done by a small number of people.
Most people lack the capacity to critically examine technical evidence. Conspiracy theorists are no different in this regard except for the illusory superiority of their own competence.
Trust in experts and expertise is not infallible but it has far better track record that argument from ignorance.
tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
Hint: posts 156, 185 wrote:
tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
TV shows can look very realistic though, even in black and white. Mass hysteria and groupthink are real things and a section of people will always be malleable and open to suggestions, no matter what the topic. The fact that NASA itself has the most preposterous anti-scientific retorts to valid queries about the Apollo missions, indicates that something isn't right. Attempting to redirect queries with elementary "whatabouteries" is a symptom of deception.
tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Here is my answer. I fully endorse & support this response from another poster on page 10 of this thread. The change I would make is to correct the spelling from "boffins" to "buffoobu."
Let's go thru the non-"evidence" of Wikipedia (the only evidence that exists, it seems by LRC boffins) one by one. Clearly they don't understand how to make a logical argument. My comments in italics.
SELENE photographs.,
" On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. "
"The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres. "
Poor resolution, and the "reconstruction" method is open to debate.
Chandrayaan-1,
"Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site"
Same as above. Also, the "Apollo 15 site" could just be where an *unmanned* space probe landed (timed to coincidence with Hollywood's A-15 of course). The evidential value of this (or above) as proof of *man on moon* is essentially zero.
Chang'e 2
"It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified"
This doesn't even qualify as anything?!
Observers of all missions
All of these fail to "observe" whether the missions were actually *manned* ... duh!
Independent research consistent with NASA claims
Consistency doesn't imply actuality, but I'll humor you.
Existence and age of Moon rocks
"The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme."
Indeed, so independent that it didn't even need to be *manned*! Why didn't USA think of that, and save the cost and risk factors?
Retroreflectors
Just as before, famed Soviet Luna program (unmanned) did these too... Net evidential value for *manned* moon landing, evidently zero (0.00).
Photographs (of artifacts/debris left)
Again, there's zero reason these couldn't be from *unmanned* moon probe mission, which everyone admits have occurred
Ultraviolet photographs
Becoming a broken record, no reason for the UV camera of "Apollo 16" to be *manned*
Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel (Observers of all missions)
Isn't this category redundant with the above?
Plans
"As new research facilities such as orbiters and telescopes are built, the question arises whether they can see Apollo artifacts on the Moon."
As above, "Apollo artifacts" could just be from *unmanned* space probes
" In 2002, astronomers suggested using the Very Large Telescope to search for the landing sites."
Sixteen years later, they still haven't obliged this... not that it would prove a *manned* mission(s) anyway...
Hint: posts 156, 185 wrote:
tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
I was speaking to LQ, as you have at least admitted we landed equipment on the moon (a start) - something LQ does not admit.
tratlyre wrote:
Hint: posts 156, 185 wrote:
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
I was speaking to LQ, as you have at least admitted we landed equipment on the moon (a start) - something LQ does not admit.
This seems quite a vicarious disposition - now we are getting somewhere...
Hint: posts 156, 185 wrote:
tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
It's hard to determine which is more egregious. Not noticing their fallacies had been debunked in LRC thread, or whether considering Wikipedia's minions to give "evidence" (of man-on-moon) in a first place.
Q 4 U wrote:
m!ndweak wrote:
EPO doesn’t work
So, nobody has any ideas?
Anyone? Anyone?
Explained it like you were five wrote:
Hint: posts 156, 185 wrote:
Not our faults if you missed the multiple times it was.
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers *want* to look stoopid.
It's hard to determine which is more egregious. Not noticing their fallacies had been debunked in LRC thread, or whether considering Wikipedia's minions to give "evidence" (of man-on-moon) in a first place.
Even the categorical delineation as "third party confirmation evidence" belies their purpose...
This is evidently a rhetorical trick to pompously acclaim its import. Calling this as three groups?
#1 NASA
#2 NASA debunkers
#3 NASA believers ("confirmers")
Obviously, anyone who points out the apparent NASA flaws, ends up in group #2 proper, rather than in putative group #4 "NASA debunker confirmers" (eg, like those with expertise on van Allen radiation effects on humans). So the original tactic of "surrounding" group #2 (double-teaming as it were) is IMO not valid.
Explained it like you were five wrote:
Not noticing their fallacies had been debunked in LRC thread, or whether considering Wikipedia's minions to give "evidence" (of man-on-moon) in a first place.
Haha, the hypocrisy is still as rich as the first time you posted this.
How not to make an argument wrote:
Explained it like you were five wrote:
It's hard to determine which is more egregious. Not noticing their fallacies had been debunked in LRC thread, or whether considering Wikipedia's minions to give "evidence" (of man-on-moon) in a first place.
Even the categorical delineation as "third party confirmation evidence" belies their purpose...
This is evidently a rhetorical trick to pompously acclaim its import. Calling this as three groups?
#1 NASA
#2 NASA debunkers
#3 NASA believers ("confirmers")
Obviously, anyone who points out the apparent NASA flaws, ends up in group #2 proper, rather than in putative group #4 "NASA debunker confirmers" (eg, like those with expertise on van Allen radiation effects on humans). So the original tactic of "surrounding" group #2 (double-teaming as it were) is IMO not valid.
The problem is that Science does not back up NASA's claims that their astronauts are immune from deadly cosmic radiation and solar wind charged particles - not even onboard electronics are immune unless they are previously radiation-hardened. That humans could venture beyond the safety of the Earth's magnetosphere without severe reaction as they traversed a cauldron of turbulent hazardous energy, is preposterous and inconceivable. The literature is contradictory and deliberately finite when discussing this matter, and NASA's biological references are sparse and nonsensical.
In 1959, the question voiced by host Earl Herald was one of the key scientific mysteries at the start of the Space Race: "what [are these radiation belts] going to mean for the first person to take off from the earth as a space traveller?"
Herald interviewed three researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (then known as the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at UC Berkeley). Dr. R. Stephen White (Leader of the Nuclear Effects Group), Dr. Stanley Freden (Senior Staff Physicist), and Dr. Hal Oliver (Head of Processing Department), explained LLNL's method of radiation testing in the Van Allen belts: mounting an emulsion stack on a rocket, which was then launched into the region of the radiation belts using a rockoon (a rocket suspended from a high-altitude balloon), recovered upon returning to Earth, and processed to test for radiation intensity.
van Allen (1959): “Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 REM per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 REM would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight.” (NASA currently has a guideline of 3% increased cancer risk over lifetime)
http://americanmoon.org/VanAllen/SciAm1959March/VanAllenSciAm1959MarchP47_.jpg
