Never said the rocks didn't come from the Moon. I simply suggested that they may not have been taken by men on the Moon.

Launches that that have been recorded.

I would expect more than a blind rejection of a notion without examining the facts. I have clearly shown a possibility that the Moon landings could have been faked, and you, and like minded individuals here on this board react with the zeal of a Moon Landing Conspirist.

__________________
Fields of Space

LOGIC, n.
The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

In the Year 2525.

"One small step for (a) man. One giant leap for mankind".

If an astronaut doesn't need good grammar, niether does you.

Host of Seraphim

But you have shown nothing of the kind. You have simply used the good old HB method of saying "but we don't KNOW for sure" to everything - and that itself is completely wrong.
"The film could have been faked" - WRONG
"True, there are Moon rocks, but it is not 100% certain that they came from men on the moon" - WRONG

I can't be bothered quoting you any more, since nothing you say has any value. If you want to go through life as an idiot, fine. Since we only have the testimony of those that claim to have witnessed it, photographs and film that could have been faked and some old relics that could have been built by a film studio, perhaps World War 2 was faked as well.

Good luck with your delusions

__________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly - it should be thrown with great force

And I've already shown you the lines of evidence that establish very firmly why what you "suggest" simply is not possible.

It is a nearly-trivial exercise to track satellites either visually or by radar, and launch blooms by camera sats. Most industrialized countries have done this as a matter of routine since the very first ICBM was stacked. It wouldn't do to startle other nuclear nations with a completely "black" launch of a large rocket.

Except of yourself, it would seem. What you've spouted so far haven't been facts, but very weak innuendo that doesn't stand up to trivial examination.

No you haven't. Innuendo and totally unsupported claims are not a valid substitute for evidence.

Are you trolling us, RalofTyr?

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Well, my way of looking at it is not as individual aspects. Its the whole operation of the many parts as a single goal. For myself, take it in that way then there is no reason why they could not have done it. You can argue till blue in the face over the rocks or recorded launches but the end product is still the capability and the will. They were tracked and the USSR certainly would have had a keen interest and blown the whistle if they thought there was any wrong doings afoot without going into the ability.

I believe there is the wreck of the Titanic on the ocean floor. Obviously I have never seen it in real life before it sank. But I understand how ships are made and how they float and how they sink. I have never personally witnessed the wreck and only through the media. I choose to take in what I have been taught over the years and apply it, so I believe it is there.

Same for me with the moon landings but not only can I understand how it happened there is a wealth of info in documentation, people and artifacts. It goes from rockets can go up, give enough energy they can go to the moon, whilst am no expert in orbital mechanics I understand some of the basics so I can accept that orbits and landing can be effected and so on. Yet to see any argument against that has swayed my thinking.

This has to be a level. Blind rejection? The facts have been examined ad nauseam. I would suggest that you reaquaint yourself with the facts and avoid YouTube at all costs. Unless, of course, this is a level. If so, my hats off to you sir.

I would expect more than a blind rejection of a notion without examining the facts. I have clearly shown a possibility that the Moon landings could have been faked, and you, and like minded individuals here on this board react with the zeal of a Moon Landing Conspirist.

Actually, you have done nothing of the sort. A rational examination of what it would take to fake a moon mission (let alone 6 of them) and keep it secret for decades quickly shows that it would actually be easier to fly the missions than fake them.

It started out in Q&A as a question about how anyone could believe the Moon Hoax CT. That seemed a better topic for Babbling, so I moved it.

However, there seems to be at least one defender of the MHCT, so I'm moving it again.

(Hope you have your seat belts fastened and tray tables in the upright and locked position.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

It wouldn't be the first time.

A line of reasoning establishing only that the Apollo landings could have been faked is useless. It establishes a standard of proof that can be met by speculation alone, with no evidence of actuality. It establishes a standard of proof for the opponent requiring him to prove the Apollo missions cannot have been faked, instead of merely that they were not faked.

The difference between "can" and "were" is absolutely crucial.

Yes, proving that something is impossible will effectively prove that it was not done. But if the question is whether it was done or not, then one doesn't have to reach all the way to impossibility. The evidence taken in total is overwhelming on the side of the Apollo missions being genuine. Yes, having faked some of that evidence is not impossible, but that by itself is not proof of fakery. Unfortunately you cannot simply try to say that the only way authentic Moon missions are to be believed is if that explanation is the only one. Investigation simply doesn't work that easily. You have to show that fakery is the best explanation, not merely an explanation.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There's a lot of fallacious assumptions and ignorance here.

Not at all.

Good source, if they aren't lying.

Affirmative rebuttal. Your burden to prove they are lying.

Could have been faked.

Affirmative rebuttal. Your burden to prove they were faked.

Could have been faked as well.

Affirmative rebuttal. Your burden to prove they were faked.

They number doesn't matter only a matter of complexity.

I disagree. The more examples of fakery that are produced, the greater the chance the fakery will be discovered.

True, there are Moon rocks, but it is not 100% certain that they came from men on the moon.

If you postulate that they were obtained by some means other than by direct retrieval by Apollo astronauts, then that constitutes an affirmative rebuttal; you would have the burden to prove the actuality of that alternative method.

Good, however, just proves a capsule went to the Moon.

If you postulate that some spacecraft other than the manned Apollo spacecraft went to the Moon, that would constitute an affirmative rebuttal; you would have the burden to show that such a spacecraft was actually constructed and operated.

Just, perhaps, proves a spacecraft when to Lunar orbit.

Same as above.

LRRR, asolute proof man has put an object on the Moon.

The LRRR must be deployed by a human. If you postulate that some other LRRR was deployed, then that would be an affirmative rebuttal and you would have the burden to show that such a device was actually built and deployed.

Again, proof of transmissions from the Moon, not that men were walking on it.

If you postulate that radio signals appearing to originate from the Moon were not generated by the crews alleged to be there, but had some other origin, then that would be an affirmative rebuttal; you would have the burden of proof to show exactly from where they originated and how they were made to appear to come from the Moon.

Proof of an space launch, not that men walked on the moon.

If you propose that the Saturn V did not go to the Moon as observed but instead went elsewhere, that would be an affirmative rebuttal that would require you to prove where the Saturn V actually went.

Proof of a space flight. Not of a lunar landing.

Ditto.

You have not "clearly" shown anything except an inability to identify and avoid fallacy. Our rejection is not "blind," but in fact a proper recognition of a long string of affirmative countersuggestions offered without one single shred of proof. Affirmative rebuttals that attempt to explain consequents by some new antecedent require proof of the antecedent. That's basic logic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And add to that, that whatever evidence RalofTyr produces will also have to account for all the observations made which show the Saturn V's actually did go to the moon. How were all those observers fooled?

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

For someone so committed to espousing the righteousness of rigorous thinking, you don't seem to be doing a lot of it yourself.

Your question asked:

to which I provided 10 pieces of evidence. Each component of each piece of evidence has in its own right been subject to scrupulous examination by skeptic, conspiracy theorist and student alike, and has passed all tests posed of provenance, authenticity & context.

If I state that we have evidence of 32,000+ photographs, you do not simply get to stand up and scornfully mutter "could be faked", as if that proved something. The burden of proof rest firmly with you, my friend - if you have evidence that any of these photographs have been faked, provide it and we can talk.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Never said the rocks didn't come from the Moon. I simply suggested that they may not have been taken by men on the Moon.

Then you have the burden of proof to explain exactly how such differentiated samples, in such quantities, could have been obtained and returned in secret from the Moon. (No, they could not have come from meteorites. There are significant differences between lunar samples obtained in situ and from meteorites.) Without such an explanation, and without evidence, your suggestion merits no further consideration.

Launches that that have been recorded.

If you wish to appeal to the notion of some set of secret launches, it is up to you to provide evidence for such launches - and the entire separate space program that supported them. Otherwise, this can be disregarded as well.

I would expect more than a blind rejection of a notion without examining the facts.

I have examined the facts, in reasonable detail. Moreover, I am a practicing aerospace engineer, and I have worked with Apollo astronauts and engineers. I reject hoax claims because I have evaluated them carefully and from an informed perspective.

I have clearly shown a possibility that the Moon landings could have been faked,

You have done nothing of the sort. You've simply said of various evidences "they could have faked that!". If you wish for anyone to take you seriously, you need to actually demonstrate that you've examined the facts, and done some work to support your claims.

and you, and like minded individuals here on this board react with the zeal of a Moon Landing Conspirist.

This is my first post in this thread. But if you find your reception a bit chilly, you might consider that everything you've said so far has been said before here, and rebutted at some length.

Feel free to develop one of your claims. Then, maybe, there will something to talk about. So far, it's nothing more than a litany of reflexive denial.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

To focus on these two:

The facts have been examined. Repeatedly. The facts have been gone over and over.
JayUtah has made an extensive site with a LOT of information about all of these facts and how it all works. God only knows how much of his time he put into researching, calculating and examining the facts to put them on his site.

RalOfTyr, your statement was totally fallacious. It makes no sense at all. The only way a person can come up with a theory that we never went to the moon is to not examine the facts. Once a person does examine the facts, they will be quite convinced that we went.


I would say not so clearly.

however, there comes a statement:
Prove we went to the moon. How? No one can really "prove" we went. Anymore than someone can "prove" that we didn't.

One can, however, provide evidence. The evidence in favor of a lunar landing outweighs any evidence against- BY FAR.

Saying that you are able to "cast doubt" as to whether we went or not is really irrelevant. I can cast doubt that you are really here posting on BAUT- you are actually strapped up in a straight jacket in a padded room somewhere and all of this is a figment of your diseased imagination- Prove that I'm wrong.

being able to cast your minuscule doubt means nothing more than I can cast doubt that you even exist at all- because I could be the one locked up in a padded room drooling on myself and dreaming all of this too.

Plebians


The lot of you.

Personal attacks, for shame on you all.

Scepticism is not fallacious.

Vandenberg.

I have no such burden. My mere ability at determining whether or not a person is lying, does not prove conclusively that a person is or is not in fact lying. Likewise, I can simply tell you that if you wish to prove me otherwise, then you have the burden. ad infinitum

I am not defending the MHCT at all.

No.

I believe most of the Saturn V fell back to Earth after it was ejected, being out of fuel.

__________________
Fields of Space

LOGIC, n.
The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

In the Year 2525.

"One small step for (a) man. One giant leap for mankind".

If an astronaut doesn't need good grammar, niether does you.

Host of Seraphim

You are not a skeptic.


Wrong again. You made the claim - it is up to you to provide evidence for it.



The complete Saturn V did not go all the way to the moon though. The command module did. As well as the landers.