David C's Moon Hoax Thread (taken from 911 Pentagon)

[Maksutov]

A TV show for David C.

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Well IF he's on the fence as he often claimed to be, he certainly had both legs on one side of it.

No, he is not on the fence. He is well and truly in the HB camp. He has a reserved space and he has taken an option to buy. Have a look at his past record, and see where he has been proven wrong - and if he admits that he was wrong.

Shortly he will claim he was forced out of here because of "CIA agents" or "NASA-paid disinfo agents".

[Tinaa]

Okay guys...stop with the ugly comments. I'd hate to give out warnings to long time members for inappropriate behavior i.e. ad homs.

[Nicolas]

Tinaa, with all due respect, I have discussed the moon hoax with David for moths, and when I say that he is not really on the fence but has a huge tendency towards one side of it, and keep asking for what he considers proof because his track record (with which I am fully familiar from other boards) suggests he will only call things proof if he agrees with it and dismisses all the rest, is that an ad hom and/or inappropriate?

I'm asking this because I never know how much of a "to all members" semi-warning is aimed towards me.

[Nicolas]

Have a look at his past record

Obviousman, if you would say that I am his past record, you wouldn't be too far off...I know David C from way before his BAUT membership.

[Tinaa]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Tinaa, with all due respect, I have discussed the moon hoax with David for moths, and when I say that he is not really on the fence but has a huge tendency towards one side of it, and keep asking for what he considers proof because his track record (with which I am fully familiar from other boards) suggests he will only call things proof if he agrees with it and dismisses all the rest, is that an ad hom and/or inappropriate?

I'm asking this because I never know how much of a "to all members" semi-warning is aimed towards me.

I should have been more specific. Calling someone a nutter is not allowed. I sent a PM to the guilty parties. As we saw in another thread, bringing up past behavior on other forums is not a good idea. Let's just deal with what is written here.

[David C]

I really wasn't planning on getting into a long discussion about the moon as all of the good moon documentaries are going off-line and I don't have much to show as evidence anymore. The one thing I remember from "What Happened on the Moon" that really convinced me that the missions were faked was what I've already mentioned about the reflections on the helmets. It showed some footage of the Apollo astronauts with the reflection of the sun on the visors of their helmets. There was no significant diffference in the curvature of the Apollo helmets and the shuttle helmets but the reflections of the sun were quite different in size. The only thing that could have caused the huge difference was that the reflection in the visor of the Apollo astronaut was that of a very large artificial light source. That's one thing I consider to be proof that the missions were faked.
There was also a picture of Aldrin climbing down the ladder on the shade side of the LEM and he was very illuminated. There are other pictures of rocks which are quite dark on the shade side of the LEM. That's more proof that the landings were faked. I wish I had the pictures to show.

This video shows the astronauts' behavior after the missions. It's obviously the behavior of people who feel very guilty. This is mere evidence. I don't consider this to be proof as I do the above info.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...on+the+Moon%3F

In this video at the 19 minute mark it shows a clip of the astronauts played at double speed. They are obviously walking in earth conditions and the footage we saw was in slow-motion. I consider this to be proof that the missions were faked.

http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...57736&q=apollo

In this documentary it is alleged that the plans for the rover and the LEM have been destroyed. If that's true it's not proof but it is more evidence that the missions were faked.

http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

Of all the footage I've watched I've never seen anything that couldn't have been filmed in a studio or in the dessert with a special lens. If some document says that the moon rocks are real, that's evidence that they are real but not proof as people are capable of lying.
If all the hoax-debunking sites say that the whole scientific community believes they went to the moon, that's not proof that they really believe that. I've been told that almost all of the geologists in the world believe the moon rocks are really from the moon. Have almost all the geologists in the world actually examined the moon rocks?
I've seen evidence presented that the landings were real but I've never seen any proof. I have however seen proof that the landings were faked.
I wish those videos were still on line so I could show what I'm just describing. As I don't have much evidence to show anymore and I don't have the time that I had during the summer I don't expect to be posting much on this thread. I never intended to start it though. Someone asked me a direct question about the moon on the Pentagon thread so I started to talk about it.

I recommend buying this video.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Moon/dp/B0007UVXI6

[Dave J]

David...you watch a short clip or two that is sped up to "show " that the footage was slowed down Earthbound footage. And you consider this "proof" vs evidence.
Have you though that this is mere seconds out of many hours of footage? Have you considered that maybe speeding up ALL the footage migh reveal some instances where your "proof" falls flat? Have you even tried this to further test your "proof"?
You put definitive proof in a tiny slice of evidence, while seemingly ignoring the rest.
Some of my evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/pdfspace.htm
Look at the Rover and LM sections in Apollo. Data all destroyed? I don't think so.
Edit: additionally with Aldrin coming down the ladder, the bright surface, and the Sun shining on photographer Armstrong as well, provided plenty of "backfill" illumination for Aldrin. The lunar dust is abrasive, and the clear plastic of the helmets was readily scratched...and will create a more diffuse sun reflection. Plus, if a "large" lightsource was used to illuminate the "fake" scene, would this not blur the sharp shadows?
You're hardly what I would consider "inquisitive", David...you question so little of the hoax theory.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by David C

I really wasn't planning on getting into a long discussion about the moon as all of the good moon documentaries are going off-line and I don't have much to show as evidence anymore.

Well, if your "evidence" consists of "look at this hoax site", then I imagine that you don't have a lot to say...

I wish I had the pictures to show.

What is stopping you? Apollo mission photographs are available on the web.

But that would involve doing actual research...something you seem unwilling/unable to do...

In this video at the 19 minute mark it shows a clip of the astronauts played at double speed. They are obviously walking in earth conditions and the footage we saw was in slow-motion. I consider this to be proof that the missions were faked.

Prove it! You are simply "parroting" what you have read on these hoax sites, and that's not good enough. If you are unable/unwilling to devote the time necessary to investigate the Moon landings, then your opinion(s) will be called into question.

Of all the footage I've watched I've never seen anything that couldn't have been filmed in a studio or in the dessert with a special lens.

Quick example...Apollo 15's liftoff from the Moon (filmed through the LM pilot's window) could not have been filmed in a studio or desert as it "covers" literally hundreds of miles of completely desolute terrain. Simply because you have not seen this video proves nothing.

As I don't have much evidence to show anymore and I don't have the time that I had during the summer I don't expect to be posting much on this thread.

I don't expect that either...actually, if you continue with the "here's a link" as if that were evidence, then you won't be allowed to post here...

I recommend buying this video.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Moon/dp/B0007UVXI6

Only if that "recommendation" is accompanied with the warning that a person would have to be almost completely credulous to believe that nonsense.

aside..In the reviews, "Midge" wrote the following...

Don't bother with the images on NASA's website. They did massive editing of the photos.

Notice how "Midge" doesn't want anyone to examine actual NASA photographs. Talk about trying to "hide" evidence...sheese.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by David C

...The only thing that could have caused the huge difference was that the reflection in the visor of the Apollo astronaut was that of a very large artificial light source....

This is what they call in science a hypothesis. Your datum; that the reflection appears larger. Your hypothesized explanation; that the light source is not the sun but is in fact an artificial source with a significantly larger visual size.

Now, in science the next step would be to test the hypothesis; look for data that either supports it or fails it. Off the top of my head, one of the more obvious marks of a large light source -- and the reason these sources EXIST in the film and still-picture world -- is to cast softer shadows. It is simple geometry, really. A naked photographer's light (err...maybe I'd better rephrase that...^_^; creates sharp-edged, harsh-looking shadows on a face. A 3' x 5' soft box on that light diffuses the light and softens the shadows, making for smoothly graduations of light instead.

If this were science, the obvious step would be to investigate the Apollo photographs to see what kind of shadows appear; focusing, of course, on those particular pictures in which the large reflections appear.

A theory, you see, is viable when it satisfies all observations -- not a single selected observation.

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by Tinaa

Okay guys...stop with the ugly comments. I'd hate to give out warnings to long time members for inappropriate behavior i.e. ad homs.

My apologies. I let frustration lead me to inappropriate comments.

I'll let David's actions speak for themself.

[Nicolas]

This video shows the astronauts' behavior after the missions. It's obviously the behavior of people who feel very guilty.

Interpretation of behaviour and obvious are quite mutually exclusive.

I've seen evidence presented that the landings were real but I've never seen any proof.

what-will-you-consider-proof-of-apollo?

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by David C

Show some evidence that the entire structural engineering community says this is what almost certainly happened. What about Steven Jones?
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
He's an engineer. (This links supports my argument and I don't have time to summarize it now. That shouldn't stop anyone from watching it and giving an opinion.)

I answered this, I think, on the other thread, but my point here bears repeating. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer, and that you believe that shows why you're having difficulty understanding evidence presented to you. You don't understand how to evaluate credentials. For one thing, you only seem to believe people when they support what you've already decided is true. It doesn't really matter what we say, because you don't believe us before we say it.

Steven Jones sounds like he knows what he's talking about to me. Why don't some of the engineers here watch this video and say why he's wrong? I'd reall like to hear the opinions of the engineers.
http://www.question911.com/linkout.p...20Evidence.wmv

And there's step two of your problem. "Sounds like he knows what he's talking about to me" doesn't mean "he's right." This is true in Apollo, too. For some reason, you only believe that those telling the side you don't support are immune from lying. Yes. You're right. It's entirely possible (leaving out the evidence, naturally) that 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program, plus thousands of people--probably tens of thousands--who have studied the relevant data, are all corrupt.

However, don't you agree that it is logically also possible that, say, Bart Sibrel is lying? Since they could both be lying, shouldn't you then look at the actual evidence? Don't just watch what Bart wants you to watch. Watch as much of it as you can get your hands on. Go to the sites that show uncropped Apollo photos. Go read books, lots of books. Heck, even read the Website Connected To This Forum, or clavius.org. You will, if you are actually open-minded about it, start to see the level of evidence that exists for Apollo and the foolishness of "evidence" that it was faked.

And, no, we can't prove Apollo in any kind of scientific sense. However, we have a preponderance of evidence, and we do in fact have it beyond a reasonable doubt. All the doubts I've seen expressed have been unreasonable.

[BertL]

Wait, David... first you say you video of the moon landings is not proof, then you say when speeding up the same footage it is proof.

David, that's not fence-sitting.

[dirty_g]

All I can say is that you should look at both sides objectively. Do not just agree that it was faked as some people say it may of been with a few pieces of evidence. Look at the other sides evidence and LISTEN to it. Don't just throw it away as your mind is set. People who are debunking you are looking in detail at what you have said and have then come up with their own arguments to present to you. Why don't you give them the same courtesy and look at what they have told you and what they have shown you. Then make up your mind. Your argument that people lie applies to the people who beleive it was "hoaxed" as well.

[Serenitude]

Like he said in his "911" thread - he's not here to learn, he's here to convince you.

Trying to convince him is a waste of your time, to be frank.

[twinstead]

As one of those who read every post of that 'other' thread on that 'other forum', I can already see where this thread is heading.

As a debate tactic, dismissing everything, no matter how compelling, that contradicts your position because "they might be lying" while believing everything that supports your view no questions asked is extremely effective.

His mojo is strong.

[dirty_g]

I think everybody is entitled to an opinion and should be allowed to share their views and challenge mainstream BUT..... just saying that your opposers could be lieing instead of presenting more arguments seems to be strange and frankly clutching at straws....

[Swift]

Originally Posted by dirty_g

I think everybody is entitled to an opinion and should be allowed to share their views and challenge mainstream BUT..... just saying that your opposers could be lieing instead of presenting more arguments seems to be strange and frankly clutching at straws....

As someone around here has in their signature, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

[WHarris]

As Harlin Ellison put it, "everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by David C

I really wasn't planning on getting into a long discussion about the moon as all of the good moon documentaries are going off-line and I don't have much to show as evidence anymore. The one thing I remember from "What Happened on the Moon" that really convinced me that the missions were faked was what I've already mentioned about the reflections on the helmets. It showed some footage of the Apollo astronauts with the reflection of the sun on the visors of their helmets. There was no significant diffference in the curvature of the Apollo helmets and the shuttle helmets but the reflections of the sun were quite different in size. The only thing that could have caused the huge difference was that the reflection in the visor of the Apollo astronaut was that of a very large artificial light source. That's one thing I consider to be proof that the missions were faked....

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the differences between concave and convex mirrors, and then the effects slight differences in the convexity of mirrors can have on the distorted images seen by the unaided eye and cameras.

Search "geometric optics" on Google for starters.

[Eta C]

Originally Posted by twinstead

As one of those who read every post of that 'other' thread on that 'other forum', I can already see where this thread is heading.

As a debate tactic, dismissing everything, no matter how compelling, that contradicts your position because "they might be lying" while believing everything that supports your view no questions asked is extremely effective.

His mojo is strong.

As someone who debated through high school and college I can tell you that David would never have won a round with this. It is assertion, plain and simple and without providing evidence to back up the assertion of lying it can be dismissed by the other side. Now maybe this "tactic" plays in undeducated circles but it doesn't hack it otherwise. Anyone who uses or is convinced by the "tactic" of "they could be lying" is not someone whose opinion I would believe.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Eta C

As someone who debated through high school and college I can tell you that David would never have won a round with this. It is assertion, plain and simple and without providing evidence to back up the assertion of lying it can be dismissed by the other side. Now maybe this "tactic" plays in undeducated circles but it doesn't hack it otherwise. Anyone who uses or is convinced by the "tactic" of "they could be lying" is not someone whose opinion I would believe.

Well, yea, but in his mind, it makes him invincible in a debate. You have to understand that logical fallacies mean nothing to these folks. It's all about scoring brownie points; if you can provoke otherwise rational debaters to fits of frustration, you have won the debate.

[Redtail]

This video shows the astronauts' behavior after the missions. It's obviously the behavior of people who feel very guilty. This is mere evidence. I don't consider this to be proof as I do the above info.

How so?

[frenat]

Originally Posted by David C

The one thing I remember from "What Happened on the Moon" that really convinced me that the missions were faked was what I've already mentioned about the reflections on the helmets. It showed some footage of the Apollo astronauts with the reflection of the sun on the visors of their helmets. There was no significant diffference in the curvature of the Apollo helmets and the shuttle helmets but the reflections of the sun were quite different in size. The only thing that could have caused the huge difference was that the reflection in the visor of the Apollo astronaut was that of a very large artificial light source. That's one thing I consider to be proof that the missions were faked.

No difference in curvature you can see right away maybe but how do you know they are exactly the same? Also any scratches on the helmets would spread out the reflection. Multiple layers of glass would also have some effect.

There was also a picture of Aldrin climbing down the ladder on the shade side of the LEM and he was very illuminated. There are other pictures of rocks which are quite dark on the shade side of the LEM. That's more proof that the landings were faked. I wish I had the pictures to show.

The surface of the moon reflects some light and it would be most visible on a white reflective suit.

This video shows the astronauts' behavior after the missions. It's obviously the behavior of people who feel very guilty. This is mere evidence. I don't consider this to be proof as I do the above info.

Or they were tired after their long trip, sick of being poked and prodded, wanting to get home with their families, sick of people asking vague questions like "what was it like there", depressed knowing they were never going back and nothing they ever did from then on would be remembered as much no matter what it was. Take your pick.

[hplasm]

Guys(ettes)!

Ever spoken at length to someone who looks at you when you've finished and goes "Eh? Were you talking to me...?"
(optional slack-jaw and drooling)

I'm getting that feeling from this thread now...

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by frenat

Or they were tired after their long trip, sick of being poked and prodded, wanting to get home with their families, sick of people asking vague questions like "what was it like there", depressed knowing they were never going back and nothing they ever did from then on would be remembered as much no matter what it was. Take your pick.

Good thing they didn't know at the time that later some people would claim they are lairs and that everything that they had just worked so hard for and accomplished so brilliantly was a hoax.

Then they'd really be depressed.

[Eta C]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Well, yea, but in his mind, it makes him invincible in a debate. You have to understand that logical fallacies mean nothing to these folks. It's all about scoring brownie points; if you can provoke otherwise rational debaters to fits of frustration, you have won the debate.

Well, if David C wants to win in his own mind, he's welcome to it. However, given the way he often has said "you'd be laughed out of the debatng hall" or words to that effect I think I am correct. He's the one who'd be laughed out. And trust me, I saw some questionable (or as we called it "squirrley") tactics during my career. Any "debating hall" that accepts his approach is not worthy of the name. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta" is an argument style worthy only of derision. It's not even wrong. I think I'm not the only one here of that opinion. Aside from this, we're in violent agreement, Twinstead. Let's save the arguments for the deluded.

[David C]

David...you watch a short clip or two that is sped up to "show " that the footage was slowed down Earthbound footage. And you consider this "proof" vs evidence.
Have you though that this is mere seconds out of many hours of footage? Have you considered that maybe speeding up ALL the footage migh reveal some instances where your "proof" falls flat?

If all of the footage is sped up and only some of it looks natural when played at double speed, then some of it was in slow-motion and some of it wasn't. How do you explain the natural earth movement at double speed?

Some of my evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/pdfspace.htm
Look at the Rover and LM sections in Apollo. Data all destroyed? I don't think so.

Every time I click on a hot-link from here it says "This page cannot be found". I looked at this a long time ago though if I remember correctly. This was created for the benifit of the public. It wasn't what could be used to actually build the LM or the rover. How do we know if it's bogus or not? What about the actual blueprints that would be needed to build the LM and the rover?

Edit: additionally with Aldrin coming down the ladder, the bright surface, and the Sun shining on photographer Armstrong as well, provided plenty of "backfill" illumination for Aldrin. The lunar dust is abrasive, and the clear plastic of the helmets was readily scratched...and will create a more diffuse sun reflection. Plus, if a "large" lightsource was used to illuminate the "fake" scene, would this not blur the sharp shadows?

I see a significant difference between the illumination on the shade side of the rock and of the LM in these two pictures.
http://www.know-library.net/images/t...n-Ausstieg.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...uyne_full1.jpg

In this video at the 19 minute mark it shows a clip of the astronauts played at double speed. They are obviously walking in earth conditions and the footage we saw was in slow-motion. I consider this to be proof that the missions were faked.
Prove it! You are simply "parroting" what you have read on these hoax sites, and that's not good enough. If you are unable/unwilling to devote the time necessary to investigate the Moon landings, then your opinion(s) will be called into question.

I know what earth conditions look like. The footage is the proof.

Quick example...Apollo 15's liftoff from the Moon (filmed through the LM pilot's window) could not have been filmed in a studio or desert as it "covers" literally hundreds of miles of completely desolute terrain. Simply because you have not seen this video proves nothing.

I don't have the background to know if that could have been simulated then or not but when I see the proof such as the reflection of the large artificial light source on the visor I think it was possible to simulate it.

The only thing that could have caused the huge difference was that the reflection in the visor of the Apollo astronaut was that of a very large artificial light source....This is what they call in science a hypothesis. Your datum; that the reflection appears larger. Your hypothesized explanation; that the light source is not the sun but is in fact an artificial source with a significantly larger visual size.

I wish I could show you the comparison. The reflection of the artificial light source in the Apollo visor was more than one hundred times bigger than the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronaut's visor. There was no significant difference in the curvature of the two visors. When something is that obvious there's no need to do any calculations.

I've seen evidence presented that the landings were real but I've never seen any proof.
what-will-you-consider-proof-of-apollo?

Some footage of a thrown object with a trajectory consistent with moon gravity would do it. If I'd been on the moon, I would have demonstrated conditions by throwing a rock in front of the camera or something. During all six missions there was nothing like this. The only thing they did was the feather and hammer drop which was fakable. It might have been a lead feather and a hollow plastic hammer. All of the jumps they did could be explained by support wires or slow-motion.

As a debate tactic, dismissing everything, no matter how compelling, that contradicts your position because "they might be lying" while believing everything that supports your view no questions asked is extremely effective.

What someone says should be presented as evidence, not proof. Anyone who presented what someone said as proof would get laughed out of the debating hall.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the differences between concave and convex mirrors, and then the effects slight differences in the convexity of mirrors can have on the distorted images seen by the unaided eye and cameras.

I've seen enough reflections of things in convex mirrors and reflective surfaces of different curvature to know that a difference of more than one hundred-fold between two reflected objects when there's no significant difference in curvature can only be explained by a big difference in the size of the object being reflected.

As someone who debated through high school and college I can tell you that David would never have won a round with this. It is assertion, plain and simple and without providing evidence to back up the assertion of lying it can be dismissed by the other side. Now maybe this "tactic" plays in undeducated circles but it doesn't hack it otherwise. Anyone who uses or is convinced by the "tactic" of "they could be lying" is not someone whose opinion I would believe.

I've seen articles by experts that say totally opposite things. I've seen articles written by experts who worked for Monsanto that say that genetically-engineered foods are safe and I've seen articles by experts who say the opposite. Mere testimony from an expert is evidence--not proof. I've read about scientists who deliberately fudge the data of their experiments to get the results they want. All I'm saying is that it's naive to simply take what a few experts say as proof as people are capable of lying. An article that says that the whole scientific community believes the moon missions were real may be bogus too.

I answered a direct question about the moon on the Pentagon thread and suddenly there's a moon thread with my name on it that I never intended to start. If "What Happened on the Moon" were still on-line, I'd devote some time to this but just telling people what I remember seeing isn't really enough. When I started posting on a moon thread here a while back, WHOTM was still on-line. As soon as I started posting, it went off-line. That's where most of the evidence I'd planned to use was. I'll post from time to time but don't expect something from me every day. I didn't start this thread.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by David C

If "What Happened on the Moon" were still on-line, I'd devote some time to this but just telling people what I remember seeing isn't really enough. When I started posting on a moon thread here a while back, WHOTM was still on-line. As soon as I started posting, it went off-line. That's where most of the evidence I'd planned to use was. I'll post from time to time but don't expect something from me every day. I didn't start this thread.

If you are not going to address the questions asked of you...(I'm still waiting for "some" type of answer to my own post)...and if the only way you can argue your "points" is to say "look at this video", then I am going to suggest to the Mods that this thread be locked...

I see absolutely no reason for this board to "wait around" for David to grace us with his presence when he appears unwilling to discuss this subject reasonably.