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.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

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?

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

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
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"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.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

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.

I have no such burden.

Absolutely you do. An affirmative rebuttal always does. An unsupported accusation of lying is simply denial.

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.

Correct, which is why it is unwise for you to suggest than an eyewitness testimony does not have value simply on the basis that it could be a lie. The rebuttal works only when you prove that it is a lie. If you admit you cannot, then your rebuttal fails and the eyewitness remains credible.

You seem to want the rebuttal somehow still to work even though you cannot provide its sine qua non. That is why no one is buying it, not because we're all entrenched ideologues.

Likewise, I can simply tell you that if you wish to prove me otherwise, then you have the burden. ad infinitum

No, this not a case of going back and forth saying, "No, you have to prove me wrong." If you don't like the burden of proof associated with an affirmative rebuttal, then choose a different method. There are other ways of disputing evidence and lines of reasoning, not all of which shift the burden of proof. You, however, have chosen to affirm different origins for the Apollo evidence; therefore you bear the burden to prove those alternatives.

If you had any evidence in favor of any of your affirmative rebuttals, and I wished to dispute that evidence in turn affirmatively, then I would indeed have a burden of proof. But this is not the case, since you have provided no evidence for your affirmation.

Imagine what would happen in a courtroom if every eyewitness who testified could be dismissed completely if the opposing counsel only speculated, "Ah, but this witness may be lying." In fact he has the burden to show the witness is lying if his ploy is to work, as do you.

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

What is your evidence that the Saturn V actually did fall back to Earth? Do you have any evidence that it did so? Where and when did they fall? What factors would affect where a rocket falls, and what have you done to examine and understand those effects? How many places along the Saturn V's outbound trajectory could it fall without being seen? What about those who will testify that they sealed up three men in the Saturn V before it took off and (as you say) crashed back to Earth?

Or are you just speculating?

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

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

Hm, I may have misunderstood you here. Do you mean to suggest that the Apollo missions were secretly aborted by simply allowing the entire vehicle to fall back to Earth out of sight? Or are you referring to the commonly accepted mode of operation in which the rocket stages are jettisoned as their fuel is consumed?

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

Yeah! How dare people explain why you're wrong!

Launches from Vandenberg are extremely visible. They also don't launch inland towards the east (this is, after all, the west coast of the continent, the coast of the well populated state of California).

Nonsense. If I have photos, physical evidence and eye witnesses that deer ate plants in the yard, but you argue that it was really all due to an invisible elf, it's up to you to present the evidence for your invisible elf argument.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Please excuse the edit. Pleb? long time no hear but I didn't think I was having a pop.

With reference to the secret launches, I find that hard to believe. Considering what was required to get the Saturn V into space you now have it duplicated elsewhere. Including launch pad and protective and assembly building. And fueling facilities. Oh, and bunkers. Nearly forgot an army of people to assemble, maintain and launch it. And then there are the factories around the States that manufacture them and the rather curious method of transport to get them to wherever they launch from. Plus a few other things associated with something this size. Then you have to get all the population to look away when the thing launches. Hard not to miss that.

Prove that they are. More than that, prove that they all are. The personal testimonies are remarkably consistent.

Really? 1/6th G? Non-aerosolising dust? Unless you can propose a sensible mechanism by which this may have been faked, and which can apply to all the hours of film and TV, we have only your speculation that it could have been. In my experience it could not have been.

Again, prove that they were. The number does matter, as does the content.

Propose an alternative then. One that explains how the technology was developed to remotely collect these rocks and soils, and all the launches took place, all with not one shred of evidence remaining behind. Apollo cost billions, and those billions were spent very visually building facilities and hardware. Now you want to propose that more facilities and hardware was built than was seen, but for which there is no evidence. Can you also explain why this remote collection technology, that can pick up hundreds of kilos of rock from 250,000 miles away, is not in use today even here on Earth, or been proposed as a possible sample return mission for Mars.

So where did the transmissions come from? A satellite in lunar orbit? Impossible. A relay station on the Moon? Fine. Explain the delay in the signal then. Explain the telemetry from the ALSEP experiments.

Explain explain explain. This can't be overstated. Unless you can come up with an explanation that fits the observed evidence at least as well as, or preferably better than, the claim that Apollo put several men on the Moon, you are required absolutely by the scientific method to reject that and accept the one that fits best. Newtonian mechanics could not explain Mercury's orbital precession, but it was retained until a better model came along. So it is with Apollo. With no other ready explanation for any of the scenarios you propose there is no reason to dismiss the offered explanation: that the Apollo project, over more than a decade, constructed and used the hardware and put men on the lunar surface multiple times, from where they brouight back rock and soil samples.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

So you believe that the spacecraft satyed in orbit?

Most of the Saturn V did indeed fall back to Earth. The S-IC and S-II stages, which made up the bulk of the rocket, fell back. What happened to the S-IVB is the critical point. If it too fell back to Earth then the spacecraft must have remained in Earth orbit. Trouble is that would have been a naked eye object, but no-one reports seeing it. If it went to the Moon then what stopped them also landing on it?

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Wow, this thread has become a bit heated, no need to get so emotional about this.

Of course, there is always the very remote possibility that everything we perceive is an illusion or a hoax.
(there was a Greek philosopher who stated that the world only existed in his head, maybe somebody recalls his name, I don't right now)

The probability may be almost zero but it's not exactly zero
and it will always be >0. Nothing to get excited about.

Whether it makes sense to discuss these views on a science forum, is a different matter,
because it's quite impossible to prove them wrong.

That depends what the claim is. It is very possible to prove a number of hoax claims wrong quite conclusively. Waving flag, non-paralle shadows, no stars... all the claims along those lines can be shown to be wrong.

However, whether it is impossible to prove them wrong is not the point. The point is whether they can be proved right. You can speculate all you like, but it doesn't mean anything without evidence. The pictures could have been faked, the film could have been shot in studio, but were they? If you can't provide evidence for it, why claim it in the first place? It can only be because of a desire to disbelieve the official account, for whatever reason. Being sceptical for no good reason is pointless, especially in the face of the VAST piles of evidence in favour of Apollo. Being sceptical about everything is just a very paranoid way of living. If you're not sceptical about everything, where do you draw the line and why?

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I think the easiest off the cuff comment type claim is to say it was all staged. The hardest bit is to work that claim in reality. The more you think about the more you discover the nightmare for foul ups and gaffs that would give the game away. And I am not talking about wires showing, although they would be abundantly clear, the whole timing and recording of an event.

Then you have exactly nothing.

A true skeptic discards preconceived notions, and examines the evidence.

In favour of Apollo, tonnes, and tonnes, and tonnes. It actually boggles the mind how well documented this project was.
Against Apollo, literally nothing.

One could also argue that the laws of physics, and the practicalities deriving thereof, make such an hoax an impossibility.
One would need to presuppose secret super-tech, way beyond current theoretical limits, that is still secret, billions upon
billions of dollars that never showed up in any books, and an army of mind controlled, but still very intelligent and creative,
engineers and operatives who never, ever slipped up.
That would be a funny plot device for a James Bond spoof, but it cannot exist in the real world.
It's a fairy tale.
(And such a powerful entity would have neither motive nor reason to fake anything. They'd rule the world.)


Proud to be a pleb. Beats being an hoity-toity patrician.
(And it's spelt plebeians.)

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Well, it's possible that Harry Potter is true, and anyone who witnesses real magic has his memory wiped by an Obliviator.

Where? All I've seen are some very well-constructed, succinct, evidence-based replies to HB claims.That's called solipsism. It originated with a Greek named Gorgias. It is disproved every time someone dies and the world continues to exist and the rest of us go on living.Sure. And there's a chance that you are a six-legged giraffe clone that writes your posts with your velvety horns. However, all the evidence available concerning individuals who post on BBs indicates that is extremely unlikely. That should give you some idea of what's going on here.

Specifically, in science everything is considered to be possible, but some things are so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration.It makes lots of sense for the reasons already mentioned in this post and in others. If the objective, reproducible evidence shows that the possibility a hypothesis is correct is statistically insignificant, then said hypothesis may be correctly discarded.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

RalofTyr, BAUT has very specific Rules; if you feel you are being personally attacked, use the red triangle to report the post and the Mods will address it. Do not discuss it in-thread.

(I should mention that your use of "Plebians" in context has the feel of a personal attack itself.)

Beg to differ:
Moon Landing Conspiracy
Moon Landing Conspiracy
Moon Landing Conspiracy

Taken as a body, these posts seem to question the veracity of the Apollo program and support the Moon Hoax CT. Note that it was only after the third post that I moved this thread to the CT forum.

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

Well, not quite. Each person who dies in our "imagined" frame of reference is also part of that same imagination, including Gorgias.

That said, as has been pointed out elsewhere not long ago, science operates on the assumption that the universe obeys laws. The more our predictions based on those laws improve, the more evidence we have to support our initial assumption.

We're well past the point that we can have confidence that the universe obeys laws.

If the universe is some well-ordered dream that will end when the dreamer wakes up, so what? That (unlikely) possibility has no effect or relevance to our existence. Occam's Razor says we don't postulate unneeded complexity to our understanding of the universe. We use only what improves our ability to model/predict things.

Solipsism is quite simply negated by its irrelevance.

Not to mention the available evidence concerning the literary propensities of giraffes, viability of extreme mutations, animal cloning in general, and the engineering and marketing of hoof-friendly computer peripherals.

And that kind of illustrates the whole point here: it's true that HBs have yet to successfully impeach a single piece of evidence regarding Apollo. But it's never been about single pieces of evidence.

It's about the entire tapestry of evidence which is demonstrably interrelated, interlocking, and mutually-supporting to the degree that it's quite impossible for Apollo to not have happened as presented.

The giraffe has better odds than the apollo hoax.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.