Thanks folks.
I found this audio clip posted by the BBC from 1999 that has all the comm. channels 'open' and recorded during Apollo 11's T1 decision. It can be downloaded in the upper right-hand corner of the webpage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...00/1552367.stm

hoax?!?

Matt

The "crux" of their belief, when I was
living in the culturally isolated town
of Grand Rapids, MI, was that the
government could not be trusted to
take on such a project, so had to "fake"
it.

They didn't trust NASA to go to the moon, so they trusted NASA to fake going to the moon? Did I jump a tooth or something?

Jay,

That's a great response. I'll have to use if I ever run into a HB.

I was one that seen that HBO show, "Did we land on the Moon?".

I agree the US didn't... let me tell you why.

1st, there were 2 engineers who actively took part in the NASA moon landing project who themselves disputed the facts of the landing Vs 2 young NASA enginneers who didn't seem to explain well the faults that were discussed.

2nd, the US government has been historically involved in devious acts of the past and those acts continue right up to today.

3rd, Yesterday is just like today... USA's technology of today doesn't measure up to how high they seem to boast of it. Example is the US knowledge of Bin Laden's whereabouts.

I may not have taken physics classes or read the papers of what NASA has publicly released of its work, but I do have common sense. Some of you may call me names such as hillbilly or uneducated as what you call those that don't hold the same position as you. But to the "educated" ones who did post, you are not highly-educated enough to solidly convince me otherwise.

One of us will be proven wrong one day and be called narrow-minded, but I will not be thought of as guliable today nor tomorrow.

"So to the stars I seek the answers and not to the ones that have them all?

What specifically causes you not to believe that the moon landings occurred? Is it photos, so-called experts, waving flags or something else.

Four engineers fighting over some facts, should not convince anyone of anything. It happens everyday here at work.

I agree that the US government has and probably still does commit devious acts, but that doesn't mean that everything that the government does is devious.

So the US can't find Bin Laden. I don't know of any technology that can pinpoint one individual who really wants to hide themselves and has a lot of help. Does that mean that all rocket technology doesn't work?

For me the simplest argument for the moon landings is that thousands and thousands of people worked directly on the moon landings and not one has come out and said they were involved in a hoax. I just can't believe that no one, even on their deathbed, has made a confession that they were involved in a moon hoax.

Also, several thousands geologists have looked at these moon rocks that were returned and not one of them has said these rocks were fakes. Here's one good example,

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/...ototheMoon.htm

BTW, many people would consider my mother a hillbilly, since she was born in the Appalachians mountains, on a farm, and in a house with no indoor plumbing, but that doesn't mean she's uneducated or stupid. Some of the most sucessful people I know, never even finished high school. What is important is that you look at the facts and then make a decision based on those facts.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-04-26 20:24 ]</font>

I haven't seen the HBO show in question, not having HBO. But I've seen enough of the general style to figure that it was a matter of give the HBs time to spew erroneous statements, then give the opposing side only enough time to give a sound bite for a rebuttal. Most of these topics can not be adequately covered in a sound bite, so the opposing looks foolish.

Irrelevant. I do not dispute that the U.S. government has been involved in none too friendly and downright unethical acts. But the fact that the US lied in incident "A" is not relevant to the question of did they lie in incident "B".

I'm not sure I get this. Are you saying that since we haven't found Bin Laden, therefore our technology today isn't all that you think it should be, so therefore we didn't have the technology in the '60s to go to the Moon?

I seems to me that the entire point was that we didn't, so we engineered the solutions to the problems so we WOULD have the technology in the end.

And I'm completely at a loss as to what technology you think we have that should be able to pinpoint someone like Bin Laden at the drop of a hat.

I don't think you'll find that we are going to call you names. As long as you're civil, we're civil. We all like a happy, polite board, and strive to keep it that way.

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

That's cool. That's all that's required.

Don't look at the details -- the photos, the blast craters, the waving flag -- but, instead, look at the big picture. How could anyone, no matter how big or powerful, pull off such a hoax... And why?

If I was interested in increasing my own power, I wouldn't fake a moon landing. I'd fake an alien attack.

What is there to be gained from a fake moon landing?

But a fake alien attack: that's great! It makes people completely forget about Vietnam. It brings black and white American together better than any civil rights program ever could.

Ask yourself: why?

If it was fake, why fake a failed mission (Apollo 13?) Why fake moon rocks? If the rocks are fake, there isn't anything we can learn from them.

How many people would it take to keep a secret this big?

Why didn't the Russians denounce the fraud?

What was the point? What was the purpose?

If you have common sense, you'll realize that the absurdity of a moon-landing hoax is VASTLY more difficult to swallow than the simple and honest fact: we did it. We spent a few hundred million dollars, and built a few rockets, and sent men there and back again.

Common sense? Every time I see a 747 take off from the airport, I gasp in disbelief. How can something that big, that massive, that heavy... fly? Every time I see a thirty story skyscraper, I swoon in amazement: it took me all summer to build a barbecue pit in my back yard; how can we put up such miraculous structures? I'm typing this on a computer that has a microchip that is cycling at several million times per second; that's a violation of common sense, isn't it?

Skepticism is good! Dubiety is good! When someone makes a claim that you doubt, ask them to show their proof. But balance everything in your own mind, and take into account all that you know.

Every time I see the moon, I am shocked to the root of my soul: We've BEEN there! It's inconceivable...and it's true.

Silas

I was one that seen that HBO show, "Did we land on the Moon?".

Do you mean the Fox program by that name?

1st, there were 2 engineers who actively took part in the NASA moon landing project who themselves disputed the facts of the landing

First, Bill Kaysing is not an engineer. He is a librarian who goes around calling himself an engineer. He never worked for NASA, and he was only briefly involved with the Apollo program. Second, Jan Lundberg is an engineer, but was not being asked questions that pertained to his field of expertise. He has never worked for NASA and worked only with designing the cameras.

Vs 2 young NASA enginneers who didn't seem to explain well the faults that were discussed.

... in a program edited by hoax believers. Go figure.

There are answers, even if the producers of the program didn't search very hard for them.

2nd, the US government has been historically involved in devious acts of the past and those acts continue right up to today.

Irrelevant. You must provide proof that the U.S. government acted deviously in this particular case. If you were accused of running over someone with your car, would you agree to being convicted simply because you had a bad driving record even if there were no evidence linking you to that specific incident?

USA's technology of today doesn't measure up to how high they seem to boast of it.

Again, general trends are irrelevant as proof. Can you show that NASA specifically lacked the technology to actually travel to the moon?

I may not have taken physics classes or read the papers of what NASA has publicly released of its work

It is not my intent to call you names or belittle you for any lack of education in your case. But since the evidence on both sides of this debate is highly technical, you should keep in mind that you may not be able to immediately understand what's right or wrong with it.

I do have common sense.

Well then you should realize that if someone tells you a whopper of a story like all that Apollo evidence was faked, you should expect they have some pretty serious proof for it, not just a few photos and a few old guys pretending to be something they're not.

But you need to be aware that common sense will sometimes work against you. Not all principles of science and engineering are intuitive. The conspiracy theorists base their arguments on the average layman's understanding of rocket science and other technical fields. But the layman's knowledge, and what he's able to determine through common sense, isn't always the right answer.

I will not be thought of as guliable today nor tomorrow.

Unfortunately you have been taken in by people whose intent is to deceive. That may or may not make you a gullible person. We'll provide the facts, and do so free of charge.

Jay makes one the best points I've ever heard about the whole moon hoax myth.

The people who believe the moon landings were fake are making a lot of money selling videos, TV shows, etc. Those on the other side of the fence donate their time and resources for free.

Makes one think

I always feel compelled to point out that these authors are not living on the French Riviera and driving Porsches. This can't be a very lucrative living for them. In fact, as I've often said, I would be surprised if they were doing more than breaking even. I imagine they have to personally front the money for each production run of their books or videos.

But since the acceptance of their argument is connected with material gain, this poses a problem for their motives in making the arguments they do. Even if they truly believe they are on the right track, they have to contend with the appearance of being mercenary.

Now an author normally has the right to be paid for his work. But at the same time the author is expected to be responsible for his findings. Hoax authors generally proceed from poor and selective research, insufficient understanding of the relevant sciences, and carefully chosen "experts" who generally can't be cross-examined. Then they ignore all criticism and contrary evidence, and in some cases act to suppress it.

These are not the actions of honorable authors. And this deepens the concern over motive. We are therefore less congenial about claims that these authors genuinely earn the incomes they seek, whether bountiful or paltry. If they act as if the acceptance of their idea is more important than the full understanding of their topic, then we are justified in questioning their ultimate motive.

Caveat emptor, certainly, but even if the buyer is the ultimate judge of value versus price, the seller is still responsible for the quality of his product. To knowingly offer for sale something of questionable quality is unethical, regardless of whether anyone buys it.

<a name="20020427.3"> page 20020427.3 aka My B.Li
On 2002-04-26 15:08, temporary40 wrote:
The "crux" of their belief, when I was
living in the culturally isolated town
of Grand Rapids, MI, was that the
government could not be trusted

3:27 A.M.PST HUb'.. the basis of my Li3:27
was that Li's are far more profitable than
truth. & that that has always be so & will be so always. &so I expect MORE lies {Jes I do}

<a name="20020427.3:33"> page 20020427.3:33 aka L# 3:33
On 2002-04-27 07:31, HUb' wrote: To: 3:33 A.M. PST
AND: 20130708.JPG was compared to the picture
of "Aldrin plants asolar wind collector for new
information on the sun".. picture section prior
to page 157 from "_WE REACH THE MOON_"
------------------------------------------------
yes? of course it the shadow lengths of the rocks
around the flag pole {in the book} and the lenght
of the shadows cast by those same rocks in the above
================================================== ===
about all i'll say about the length of shadows
Woopsi out of lines [ to be continued somewhere else ]

Let me revised my statement a little bit. These hoax folks are taking in a lot of money and one could say that their chosen profession is promoting the moon hoax myth.

RAGZ:

The following two quotes will serve you well as you investigate the Apollo Hoax phenomenon on this site and other places:

I’ll add to Geo3gh’s statement – The vast majority of the regular contributors to this BB will gladly take the time to explain things to you if you hit a stumbling block so don’t be afraid to ask questions – even if you think its already been covered – your question might spark someone into looking at an issue in a completely different light – and then we all will benefit!

Also, I have found JayUtah’s site - a great source of info.

The redzero site is also good.

[fixed links - I'll get it right someday!]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-04-27 10:10 ]</font>