HI!

I'm new here but have been following the moon hoax debate at the JFK research forum. After a few months of no posts they are discussing it again. The admin there recently made some good points for a hoax. Has anone here ever read the works posted on JFK/

Here are some recent quotes from some of the JFK members. I think they have some merit.

“I don't know whether or not we went to the moon. I do believe that the photographic record, which supposedly recorded those alleged events, has been altered for reasons to which I am not privy. This leads to the obvious speculation that the record was altered for purposes of concealment and/or limiting the dissemination of the truth.
The "fact" that the photographic records are altered has been demonstrated. However, the answer to the question, "Why were the records altered..." has not.’


“The evidence of photos being altered vis the moon landings proves one thing IMO: the
photos have been tampered with. Why?? We don't know for sure. I can think of several
bona fide reasons which fall far short of the conclusion that the lunar missions were faked.
Perhaps Top Secret sensitive items were excised. What type of items?? I don't know but
they could have included various type of monitoring equipment, communications equipment,
classified experiments.
Perhaps the photos were edited to remove items of a technological nature which NASA
didn't want displayed to the Soviets in true Cold War style.
IMO it is rather rudimentary and something of a quantum leap to say that the photos were
altered for one reason: to cover-up the fact that all the lunar missions were faked.
Although that is a possibility.
However, Jack certainly is correct that the JFK assassination was the "smoke test" -- it
proved that those responsibile could get away with murder and also lie to the public
shamelessly and irresponsibly. Our Constitutional processes could be reversed with a
bullet. And those in government endowed with the public trust could display no concern
for uncovering the truth lest they indict themselves. If they could lie about one thing, and
get away with it, they can, and do, lie about other things.
I am reasonably doubtful that Apollo 11 was real, not because of photo fakery, but because
of the internal NASA film which I have described several times in the past. Apollo 11
was the only lunar mission which had a de facto deadline of the end of the decade. The
U.S. perhaps did not want to suffer a loss of face. Perhaps.
If NASA faked Apollo 11, does that automatically mean they faked the rest? No, not
necessarily. But it's possible.
Those that have never set foot on the moon cannot convince me that others did. As with
the assassination, I know 100% that I did not shoot JFK, I also know that I never walked
on the moon. All other possibilities need to be evaluated and considered if only briefly.
The problem with liars is that you never know when it is safe to believe them.
NASA received substantial funding during the 1960's. Congress placed little resistance to
their requests. The Congress was also funding a war in South East Asia (SEA). And in
both cases, the MIC was making money hand over fist. Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, Hughes
helicopters, Brown & Root, General Dynamics, etc. ad nauseum were raking in billions of
dollars in profits. ******* LBJ saw to it that his cronies and supporters received the
contracts to build the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and other projects like dredging
Cam Rahn Bay in Viet Nam. And if ol' Lyndon didn't receive some baksheesh
from those projects, then he wasn't living up to his reputation.
When the "doves" in Congress began to resist repeated requests for additional funding
for the war, it is reasonable to consider that perhaps funding for the space program may
have been re-funneled to financing the war. Could have happened. Perhaps. I wouldn't
put it past LBJ. But of course, the space program would have suffered from reduced
funding. So, maybe one or more of the moon missions would have been faked. Maybe.
When the public's interest in the moon landings began to wane to indifference, maybe
NASA resuscitated their interest by staging the Apollo 13 crisis. It actually had mixed
results: funding for Apollo 14 thru 17 was assured, but Apollo 18 thru 20 were cancelled.
"Houston, we have a problem -- we're running out of money".
I'm still amazed and a bit amused when various researchers defend NASA re: the moon
landings, yet NASA does not exert much energy to defend themselves.
Like Dennis Miller says, that's just my opinion -- I may be wrong”


“The REALITY about the Apollo Moon Hoax is:
1. The government claims that astronauts went to the moon.
2. Abundant photo evidence proves they did not.
3. Since the government clearly is not telling the truth, I
want to know what the truth is. THAT IS THE REALITY ABOUT THE MOON HOAX”

False. Completely and totally false. No one has ever even demonstrated the photos are out of the ordinary. Normal HB arguments lack understanding of perspective, lighting, etc. These are certainly not proof of any "fact"

And this proves? They had a tight deadline that they couldn't miss. I have deadlines all the time. Do I make it close? Almost always! Doesn't prove my work is fake though.
I would say, yes, if you fake one, you gotta fake em all. There is identical photo evidence between all the missions. Fake one, and you have to fake them all to stay consistent. But why fake 5 more when you've already won?
Then what about the hours of testimony of those who did? Are they all liars?
And he is.

yes
Wrong. Plenty of photo evidence proves they DID go.
But the truth has been told countless times, some people are more interested in fantasy. Its fun to believe the gov't is pulling one over on the American people, but they couldn't fool you! There is no conspiracy, there is no fake moon set, only thousands and thousands of dedicated people who worked towards a lofty goal and some empty moon bases. Oh and a bunch of left over food wrappers and discarded gear.

I see it differently. There is just way too much evidence of photo fakery. Given the US governments willingness to lie to it own people why should this case be any different.

Given that the U.S. government also tells the truth to it's own people on occasion, why should this be any different?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Photos/Evidence please.

[quote]
On 2002-07-20 15:14, hokey pokey wrote:
There is just way too much evidence of photo fakery. [quote]

Where? There is hardly any evidence of photo fakery if you understand physics, optics, and perspective.

Which is completely irrelevant since proving they has lied on other occasions doesn't mean they had lied in this particular case.
I think maybe you should take a trip to BA's list of debunking sites here before you come back here.

__________________
~AstroMike

Hokey Pokey, if you could direct us to some photos that you think show evidence of manipulation, then I'm sure some knowledgable members here will be more than willing to discuss those photos with you.
In the meantime you could read this section of the Clavius.org website: Photo Analysis

It's also a good idea to read the whole site, it completely destroys almost all "evidence" for a moon hoax conspiracy.

I wish I had saved the many examples of photo fakery that the researcher posted on the JFK forum. They were very compelling to say the least! Many have tried to debunk these proofs at JFK, some whom even mentioned this forum. None was able to disprove this research. As to the clavius site I have visited it and it looks to ne to be a front for NASA/CIA/NSA. Sorry...it the government spreading more disinformation. You need to spend some time with the works of Percy, Rene, Kaysing and Sibriel if you want the real truth.

The Clavius.org website is most assuredly NOT a US government website. In fact, the webmaster is a member and frequent poster at this forum. That was remark was notably laughable, even with the standards of the arguments of most JFK Research posters.

Read the website before dismissing it as US government propoganda.

"I had the evidence right here, but I lost it"

Not a very good way to get a conviction Mr. Prosecutor.

So, you dismiss out of hand the best and most concise source of clear information refuting your claims. And why? Because it looks like a government-controlled site. How convenient. If anything could possibly counter you all you have to do is say it's part of the conspiracy and all opposition vanishes. Never mind that you could easily verify all the information contained there.

And on top of that, you laud the works of Kaysing, Sibrel, and Rene, people whose research has been called into question and whose motivations are decidedly biased.

Unless you have some real smoking-gun evidence that hasn't already been thoroughly dissected before, you should just return to the JFK forum, because you are obviously someone whose mind is made up and no amount of rational discourse is going to convince you otherwise.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(made a minor addition)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-20 16:51 ]</font>

This I doubt very much. I don't doubt that all this "incredible" evidence you speak of is just the same tired drivel spouted by Kaysing, et. al. Stuff that has all been very thoroughly debunked and the true workings explained in very minute detail, often with much more detail and factual analysis than the original claimants made in the first place.

No, what the debunkers really failed to do was to make a dent in the impenetrable wall of anti-government distrust that is the root of the belief in a hoax. Any time someone tries to present good, factual information that can be easily researched it is quickly dismissed with hardly even the most cursory of inspections. Contrarily, even the flimsiest of pro-hoax arguments is latched onto as if it were the word of god.

This irrational paranoia is not subject to logic or factual evidence, and therefore nothing we say or do can have any effect.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

False. Bob Braeunig has a good rebuttal to it here: http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax1.html

Also the Clavius webmaster had an e-mail conversion with Percy and can bear witness to his duplicity, along with John Witts and others here.

__________________
~AstroMike

Hokey Pokey,

I have read all the works of the people you have mentioned (Percy, Rene, Kaysing and Sibriel), except Ralph Rene. I'm not going to shell out that kind of money. I've also read Dark Moon by Percy and Bennett. I have never seen a thing that convinces in the slightest that the moon landings were a hoax. In fact, I'm more convinced than ever that the moon landings happened.

As most regular posters know (and I'm sure many trolls do to), I have about 20 years of experience in heat transfer, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics and not as some manager, but as a researcher, designer and analyst. Any moon hoax argument I have ever read, or seen related to anyone of these topics (blast crater, space suits, etc) has shown me that these authors no nothing about heat transfer, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. In some cases, the stuff that they present violates well established laws (200 years, well before the moon landing) of thermodynamics, like the first law of thermodynamics. I find impossible to believe that some like David Percy who does not have any sort of scientific or technical background, could rewrite thermodynamics as we know it.

I also depise Bill Kaysing. Here is a man who states that the Challenger was destroyed by NASA to keep Christa McAuliffe from saying that she could see stars from space. Since I live in Houston, I've attended several public events to welcome back the Space Shuttle crews. At almost everyone of these events, some child asks "What do the stars look like from space or can you see stars from space" Each time the answer is the same, yes you can see stars from space, but they don't twinkle. These events are usually well attended, a couple of thousands people and since it's very local news, it is attended by all the news crews, which inturn broadcast to the city of Houston which is several millions. Sometimes these events are broadcast nationwide and worldwide on CNN and Foxnews, so the potential viewing audience is millions. NASA has never been afraid to say "You can see stars from space" Read some the Apollo era astronauts autobiographies and they even state they can see stars.

So you got a HB saying NASA killed people to keep someone quite for saying "You can see stars from space," but you got numerous NASA astronauts saying "You can see stars from space"

I give you this challenge, provide me a thermal analysis of the formation of the blast crater or something a bit easier, the thermal analysis of the Hassalblad camera (the HB claim is that it gets too hot or too cold and damages the film) that proves NASA is lying. A link to a website is fine too. The last two HBs to post here never could do it and totally avoid this topic. If you can, I'll publically apolgize to you and the moon hoax community and join your cause.

P.S. I don't just want some hand waving argument, I want numbers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-07-20 17:08 ]</font>

Hi, and welcome, hokey pokey.

I urge you to provide us with one or more specific examples of photographic evidence that shows signs of "tampering". First, they may have already been pointed out by other hoax believers, and subsequently "debunked". Second, if not, there are a number of people on this forum who have the skills required to examine any claim about photographic anomalies and determine the validity of the claim.

As far as I know, at this time, there are no such claims of photographic tampering that have not been adequately addressed. But if you know of any new ones, we'd be very pleased to see them!

By the way, when you talk about "tampering", what specifically do you mean? Are you claiming the photos are out-and-out fakes, made in a studio? That they contain unexplained anomalies that would not be expected under the conditions on the actual Moon? That they have been "touched up" in some way? (Of course, there are numerous known cases where photos have been altered for various reasons, such as to create a 360 degree panorama or a snazzy publicity photo. But these are acknowledged to be altered, and therefore are not primary sources.)

The bottom line is, unless you provide some specific examples, you're not going to be satisfied with any of our explanations -- it'll just be a lot of handwaving, assertions, and counter-assertions. That won't get us anywhere!

Clavius, a front for the NSA??? Let suppose for a minute it was (which it isnt, but run with me for a minute) That site debunks the hoax theory using physics and knowledge of photographic analysis. Neither of which are the product of any secret organisation. If the source of the debunking is a government front i guess every physics textbook writer,physics lecturer and student must be in on it too.

There is nothing on Clavius that cannot be verified by anyone. Jay has been very careful to provide everyday examples that anyone can check. You don't even really need to know physics. You just have to use your eyes and your brain together to see the bigger picture. I managed to debunk the main body of HB arguments with no formal training and just an eye for what's going on in the photos. Looking at a single photo in isolation is no good, you have to look at entire rolls of film to get a true picture of what the terrain, shadows, equipment and astronaut placements are doing in that environment. Ever see the 3D images from Mars Pathfinder? The seemingly flat desert floor with a few rocks on it is actually rolling up and down as it recedes into the distance, something you cannot see with a single 2D image. These effects are the main cause of the anomolies in the Apollo photos.

I wish I had saved the many examples of photo fakery that the researcher posted on the JFK forum. They were very compelling to say the least!

Well I did save the photos, and they are most certainly not compelling. They are, essentially, the most ignorant tripe ever assembled under the masquerade of "image analysis". The people "analyzing" them, in general, have no idea what they're looking at and no idea what physical laws govern those observations. It is not too strong a wording to say they are fantasy.

Many have tried to debunk these proofs at JFK, some whom even mentioned this forum. None was able to disprove this research.

You can't debunk them at JFK. JFK Research is not an open forum. It is a forum intended to provide a basically unchallenged platform for Jack White and his associates. If you dispute White too strongly, you're banned from the forum. A real test of his research cannot be made under those circumstances.

Let Mr. White and his associates participate in open, unrestricted debate and see how far his "research" carries.

As to the clavius site I have visited it and it looks to ne to be a front for NASA/CIA/NSA. Sorry...it the government spreading more disinformation.

LOL! That's my site. It's run by me and a few other volunteers out of a small ISP in northern Utah. Jack White tried to browbeat me into taking my pages down, and when he couldn't he just "concluded" I was some sort of front for the government. Not at any time has Jack White or his right-hand man Rich della Rosa been able to actually discuss the information on Clavius. They simply look for some fabricated excuse to sidestep it.

You need to spend some time with the works of Percy, Rene, Kaysing and Sibriel if you want the real truth.

No. Kaysing lies through his teeth. I presented my findings on David Percy's web site -- definite answers to most of his questions -- and he deleted them and now pretends they never existed.

I have spent time with the works of these people, and in some cas