More sideswerving the point of this post.

When are we going to see this amazing evidence?

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

So you have a dictionary, got any evidence?

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

I'd like to ask the OP, when the LRO takes pictures of the original Apollo landing sites and shows the gear they left behind, what excuse does he plan on using to discredit them?

I just thought he might want to think about it in advance so he doesn't get blind-sided by, you know, actual evidence.

Rob

You made the claim that man never landed on the Moon, Ken. What is your evidence? Without your evidence, we have nothing to rebut other than your vague claims.

The massive amounts of evidence for the landings is available all over the web, in libraries, books, movies and other forms. There are verified rocks, hardware, many thousands of personal accounts.

What's your evidence?

And the dance goes on!

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

Ken...if you cannot answer direct questions, then why should anyone listen to you??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I see. I'll take this as speaking to the specific question about this statement. You have implied that your interpretation is the correct one. Would you please give us your interpretation and how you arrived at it?

Would you also answer the more general question in more detail? I meant 'you' specifically, rather than how anyone in general might conclude whether or not any NASA representative is speaking truthfully or not.

__________________
If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you. - George Bernard Shaw

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This is your evidence?

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

Ken...you have been treated very nicely by the posters of this board, and in return, you have ignored questions, made demands, and accused other posters of ad hominum attacks.

Do you really think you will be allowed to continue behaving like this?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Typical. You conspiracy fantasists like to pretend you're "in the know" but when it comes to actually investigating anything, you roll onto your backs.

And how can it possibly be irrelevant where they were faked? If you could answer that one, you'd have actual evidence!

Hostile to life - you are aware that they wore spacesuits, aren't you?

Until you actually deliver, forgive me for assuming that you spotted some compression artifacts in a YouTube video.

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

Can you provide a link to any photo of the rovers (Spirit or Opportunity) taken from Mars orbit?

...and please answer my previous question to you.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Things moved faster than I thought, removed new Question for now.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

All independent monitors agree the landings happened.

Any elaborate hoax would have left a "smoking gun"; there is no gun, therefore the landings happened.

__________________
Yonder is Dubhe seen on Earth tonight as it was in the days of Grover Cleveland's presidency whereas this way is Deneb seen as it was in the lifetime of Muhammed . If one somehow travelled to Deneb at very close to c then whenever you looked back you'd measure Earth as closer to you than the distance you would simultaneously measure between Earth and Dubhe.

That doesn't answer my question.

When the LRO pictures of the original Apollo sites are published (as they will be, since there actually are Apollo landing sites to be photographed), will you claim that they are fakes? Will you claim we placed gear there as part of the hoax? Or is the LRO a fake also? These are simple questions, please answer them. Thank you.

Rob

This has been asked before in thread, but I'll repeat this request: Please present the quote, in context, that you believe supports this claim.

__________________
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

Hey, Ken from Dublin, welcome here!

I've been waiting for a long time to see a hoax believer here.

I also challenge you to give us some proof about what exactly was wrong with the technology of the 1960s and why you think people never landed on the Moon.

...Are you or anyone else here aware of any official NASA photographs that indicate fakery?

I'd just like to know before I introduce you all to some

Not so fast, please. First of all, there are multiple problems with your claims so far, which you have not satisfactorily addressed. As I pointed out in post 7 (and others did elsewhere),

1. You claimed we are nowhere near the technological levels required to send people to the Moon. What technologies, exactly, are we lacking? As a practicing space engineer, I'm most interested in learning about this.

2. You cited (apparently) the two Shuttle disasters as support for your claims against Apollo. But you haven't addressed the differences between Shuttle and Apollo configurations, nor the fact that the Shuttle has flown 126 times versus only 15 for Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, and Skylab manned launches combined. You haven't addressed what the failure history of such flights means for the general nature of manned space travel, and explained what exactly that has to do with travel outside LEO.

Rereading that, it seems a little opaque, so let me simplify that:
"Fatalities in 126 Shuttle missions (orbital) => 9 Apollo lunar missions must have been faked". That bald assertion doesn't cut it; you have to explain the details and account for the differences.

3. You impugned the ability of 1960s technology to do the job. But you have yet to explain exactly why it was inadequate, despite several challenges. When presented examples of enormously capable 1960s aerospace technology, your countered with more examples of enormously capable 1960s technology; you undercut your own claim!

4. You disparaged the accomplishments of Apollo as to walk around, play golf and drive cars up there. This is a gross mischaracterization, and I presented you with a summary of the actual scientific and technical accomplishments.

5. You used a cherry-picked bit from some conspiracist web site* to claim that Carl Sagan disbelieved the Apollo landings. When presented with multiple references to his actual involvement in and acknowledgment of the missions' realization, you simply said I know what he meant. Since you have been given explicit, unambiguous counterexamples, your unsupported statement of personal belief is insufficient. Now, do you have any actual evidence that Sagan believed Apollo was not real?

6. You claimed that Dan Goldin "let slip" that humans couldn't travel above 400 miles altitude. When numerous posters put this in context for you - a context completely consistent with the Apollo record as well as current planning and investigations - you claimed that they (well, Jay in particular) can't speak on behalf of the man. And yet you can, even though your only knowledge of the interview is the same out-of-context snippet* endlessly regurgitated amongst the hoax believer (HB) community? Or are you actually able to supply the context for what he said?

for the first time.

I very strongly doubt that. You have made no original claims yet; there is nothing to indicate your claims of photographic "fakery" will be original.

In any case, I don't intend to follow a "Gish gallop" across the usual spectrum of HB claims. There are specific claims you have made which need to be defended - or retracted - first. Of course, you are free to do as you wish, but I don't intend to be trolled that way, and will consider any undefended claims as abandoned.


*You may certainly disprove this by providing original citations.

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

Sorry, I posted the above before the moderator notice; however, it only addresses existing issues, so I suppose it's OK.

Sure: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08816

(Which is irrelevant to the Moon. The question of new lunar high-resolution imagery of the Moon has been discussed in detail on this forum.)

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

You're not going to get the last laugh, Ken from Dublin.

Keep tabs on all current and future robotic missions -- particularly those beaming back pics of Apollo relics and footprints.

__________________
There in the valley of Scorpio, beneath the Cross of jade
Smoking on the seashell pipe the gypsies had made
We sat and we dreamed a while...in that crystal thought time in Mexico. ~Donovan

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Note to moderators: I hit REPLY before I read your directive. Sorry if I have talked out of turn.....


Are you saying the photos were taken from over a hundred million miles away? That makes no sense. No photos have been taken of small rovers on Mars from "over a hundred million miles away". If they have been, then where do you say these photos were taken from?

If you say they have been taken by orbiting satellites, and you mean satellites orbiting Mars, then, why is it unusual for these photos to be beamed to Earth? We just now have a satellite orbiting the Moon which will be able to take photographs of the Apollo landing sites and beam them the quarter million miles back to Earth.

Of course, even then, HB'ers like YOU will simply insist that NASA has faked the photos just like you say the photos and film from Apollo has been faked.

Nothing short of walking on the Moon yourself and seeing the sites in person would convince you of the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings.

There are a few hoax theories that I would love for you to answer for me and everyone else, however, I fear that you would not answer. Also, they are not things that you have personally mentioned, still, they are things that the HB'ers shout. If you invite me to put these questions forth, I will be glad to, and would look forward to hearing your answers to them.

__________________
My daughters Chinese adoption story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16m4LY-t6Q

I've been waiting 24 hours for this--in the last post directed at me, I was not the one quoted; R.A.F. was.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

That's right..throw me under the "bad spelling" bus.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Ken,

The difference between technology then and now is that technology then was engineered to go to the Moon, while technology technology is not because until recently, no-one with the power to write cheques has written cheques for such a purpose. Even now, they're writing the cheques with less zeroes (in real terms of course adjusting for inflation) so the process of development takes longer.

There is a common misconception among lay people that our technology level is somehow generic. All our capability can be graded with a single number and all we can achieve is implied directly from that number. That is of course nonsense. Technology varies hugely from field to field and will vary depending on what we want to do.

An obvious example is that there is no aircraft capable of supercruising. We did however have one a few years ago. It was called Concorde. As a whole were we more technologically advanced when we had supersonic transport? No. Technology overall continues to move forward. It's just that in the particular field of the SST, we abandoned it so our capability have disappeared.