I have suggested to Petra that she review the work of Dave McGowan (fake death 11/22/15) called Wagging the Moondoggie. While a limited hangout, it is a fascinating one, easy reading and littered with humor. I want Petra to confront all aspects of the alleged hoax, and not just those few she selects. I am going to start out with a quote from Lyndon Johnson on leaving office in 1958,and prior to Apollo 11. He apparently did not have a moon landing in his sights.
“Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control Earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change the climates …”
McGowan mentions the moon landings being a cover story for other objectives only one other time in his 14-part series, in part one, saying “In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents*make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.” (*The link leads to a 404 NOT FOUND at this late date.)
So that is my primary point to make to Petra: The moon landings were misdirection. Something much bigger, more sinister and therefore more secretive was going on. They did not build the Saturn V rocket just to befuddle and dazzle us. Such technology as was under construction was ahead of its time, and probably in play now in our GPS world where we are all under surveillance at all times, where weather can be controlled, where Vancouver and Seattle can experience 100+ degree hot spells in their otherwise cool climate, where public health is subjected to Big Brother oversight.
My objectives here are small, however. A list follows of points gathered on my third reading of McGowan. I ask Petra to address some of these points, maybe select just five. She has thus far narrowed the argument to two or three points she regards as pivotal (everyone here disagreeing on the “pivotal”). Time, Petra, to broaden your scope. These are points raised by McGowan, in his order.
There is a lot of material here, so don’t do anything more than skim. I more or less am bound by McGowan’s order of presentation, which jumps around. But each item below … I felt important enough to leave in for consideration in the broader scheme of things, that is, consideration that in 1969 they did not have the technology to land men on the moon and bring them home. We have an important change to note in 2022: We do not now possess the technology to land men, women, transgenders, gays, asexuals and blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Inuits – the whole modern bag of various assignations of specialness – on the moon and bring them back alive. We are much more woke in our inabilities today.
From this point forward it is all McGowan.
————————
Opening Quote: “For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?”
How many decades can pass without anyone coming even close to a reenactment of the heroic deeds?
The USSR dominated space research and exploits, far exceeding anything the US did, but never went to the moon. Why?
In the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of a fuzzy, 13-channel, black-and-white television set with a rotary tuning dial, rabbit ears and no remote. Such cutting-edge technology as the pocket calculator was still five years away from hitting the consumer market. How could they pull this off?
Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far.
The Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets [von Braun] had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey…
NASA doesn’t actually have the moon footage anymore. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them?
So what we saw then were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a tiny black-and-white monitor. It seems likely that it was running taped footage. NASA has never explained why they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.
As Moon landing skeptics have duly noted, if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth.
There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel.
As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off.
… most of the Moon rocks are, uhmm, missing. Does anyone see a pattern developing here?
According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average a balmy +260° F, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of -280° F. If you’re looking for anything between those two extremes, you won’t really find it on the Moon. It’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen.
One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover. And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need.
These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!
On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.”
NASA scientist David McKay explained that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”
So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.
Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.
Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction. What that means is that anything that falls in the shadows will be in virtually complete darkness. It also means that all shadows will be cast in the same direction. And it means that the sky is always black, and, with no atmosphere filtering the view, that sky will be filled at all times with a dazzling display of stars unlike anything ever before seen by man.
Collectively, the dirty dozen took thousands of photos throughout their alleged journeys. And yet, amazingly enough, not one of them thought it might be a good idea to snap even a single photograph of such a wondrous sight [a dazzling array of stars].
The problem for NASA and its attack dogs is that you can’t have it both ways. If the camera is stopped down to avoid overexposing extremely bright highlights, it cannot simultaneously capture full detail in the shadows. And if the aperture and shutter speeds are set to capture detail in the shadows, the camera would necessarily also capture the brilliant stars, which would be far brighter than anything lying in the lunar shadows. Other planets would be pretty hard to miss in the lunar sky as well, though none can be seen in any of NASA’s photos.
If you’ve done this correctly [land the lunar module], the result will be a fairly large crater and a blinding dust storm. That dust will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. If you run the experiment for too long, you may even find that the intense heat has fused the cratered sand into something resembling a large bowl of glass.
There quite obviously should be blast craters under those lunar modules. That is why NASA itself indicated that there would be blast craters under the lunar modules. And that is also why it is fundamentally impossible for the modules to be as impeccably clean and dust-free as they are in all of NASA’s photos. And no amount of spinning from the ‘debunkers’ will ever explain that away.
Those suits were able to provide the astronauts with everything they needed to stay alive in the Moon’s harsh environment. Remember NASA’s elaborate rendering of what a Moon work station protected from space radiation would look like? Neil and Buzz didn’t need any of that fancy stuff because they were wearing the magic suits. And those extreme temperatures of +260° F to -280° F? Not a problem when you’re wearing the magic suit. Not only could they provide the cooling needed to combat the searing temperatures in the sun, but they could also provide the heat to counteract those frigid shadows.
As can be seen in NASA’s photos, the egress side of the lunar module (the side with the ladder and hatch) was usually in the shade (though almost always well lit). What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye. Awesome!
Of course, to actually do that (if we’re pretending that it could be done at all), the suits would have had to have been pressurized. And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.
In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.”
“Meteoroids,” NASA continues, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.”
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: “Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We’re in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit.” So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969.
In November of 1962, Grumman was awarded the contract to build what Moon Machines described as “the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Soon after, we are also informed that the LEM was “what many regarded as the first true spaceship.” In other words, America’s “first true spaceship” was also America’s “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft.” To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of landing men on a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of taking off from and flying home from a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of performing rendezvous and docking maneuvers in lunar orbit. To this day, no spacecraft has been built that can protect astronauts from the hazards of flying through space outside of the Van Allen belts.
In the Untold Story, we learn that Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas “was not as high-tech as it looked.” On television, it looked pretty damned impressive, for the era at least. As anyone alive at the time recalls, what the world saw was an enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble. But in reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, “the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide.” But they sure looked pretty damned impressive.
Every one of those consoles on the floor of Mission Control was powered by a single mainframe computer – a single mainframe computer that had the computing power of a single laptop computer. Actually, make that a 2005-era laptop computer. And the spaceship itself, that multi-staged engineering marvel, carried a computer roughly equivalent to what powers a modern digital watch. Total memory capacity was about 72 kilobytes, or just about enough to hold one of the smaller images on this page.
Gemini astronaut Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1965, White allegedly performed a successful 22-minute EVA (extra-vehicular activity, in NASA jargon) which was yet another “We can do it too!” response to the Soviet Union’s first space-walk.
In addition, the returning Apollo command modules had to enter Earth’s atmosphere at precisely the right angle. If they hit at too wide an angle, the spacecraft would essentially bounce off and veer off into space. And if they hit at too sharp an angle, the spaceship and it’s crew would not survive the impact. The capsule also had to be in the proper orientation, with the bottom, and thus the heat shield, pointing down. Luckily though, all nine of the Apollo modules that allegedly returned from the Moon hit that narrow window in the proper orientation, despite the fact that the command modules, having jettisoned the attached service modules, had no propulsion or steering capability? [MT note: I am of the opinion that reentry into Earth atmosphere from the moon was, in 1969, impossible, which is why it was wise that astronauts never left Earth’s atmosphere.]
The contract to design and build the command modules was assigned to North American Aviation, whose engineers, it’s safe to say, had quite a formidable task before them. As noted on Moon Machines, the combined command and service modules would require a propulsion system, a navigation system, an environmental control system, plentiful supplies of oxygen, water and food, heat shields capable of handling reentry temperatures beyond anything before experienced, parachutes capable of performing near-miraculous feats, a human waste disposal system, shaving supplies, hygiene supplies, life preservers, protection from micrometeorites, and, for reasons left unexplained, machetes. It took eighteen months to redesign the command modules. Over 100 design changes were made to correct various shortcomings. This redesign process was undoubtedly made more difficult by the fact that no paper records had been kept of what had been installed in the module. As we have already seen, the Apollo program didn’t place a high priority on record keeping.
NASA had much better luck with the Lunar Orbiter Program, which involved putting five satellites into lunar orbit between August of 1966 and August of 1967. Each of the five orbited the Moon, capturing high-resolution images, for an average of ten days each. In addition to mapping the lunar surface, the Orbiters also sent back the first images of Earth from space and the first photos of the Earth rising over the lunar horizon. In all, some 3,000 images were beamed back – officially at least.
The problem here, of course, is that NASA’s numbers don’t seem to add up. Does it make any sense at all that the three successful Ranger missions, which flew directly to the Moon and immediately crashed, sent back 17,000 images, and yet the five Orbiters, which spent a combined total of fifty-three days orbiting the Moon, sent back just 3,000 images? That’s a capture rate of just over two images per hour. And the Orbiters had multiple cameras on board. There is little doubt that the Orbiters returned far more images than claimed, of which only a select few (relatively speaking) were released. What then happened to the rest of them? I’m going to go way out on a limb here and guess that NASA needed those images for another, more important project: faking the Apollo Moon landings. All of those glorious shots of Earth from space, and of Earth-rises, and of superimposed spacecraft in lunar orbit were undoubtedly created from unreleased imagery captured by the Orbiters. As were, no doubt, the fake lunar sets and the fake lunar backdrops.
Gemini 6 finally got into low-Earth orbit on December 11 and remained there for just over one day. During that time, Gemini 6 allegedly performed a rendezvous maneuver with Gemini 7, the two spacecraft remaining side-by-side for some 5.5 hours while traveling at 17,000 miles per hour. Curiously, there was a launch of a military rocket in between the launches of Gemini 6 and Gemini 7, and Lovell has said that that launch was connected in some unspecified manner to the mission of Gemini 7.
Curiously, the two pilots chosen for this complex mission were both rookies. The crew that had originally been slated to fly the mission, Elliot See and Charles Bassett, were killed on February 28, 1966, just days before the launch, when See, one of the nation’s top pilots, slammed a T-38 Talon into the side of a building in St. Louis.
The first Apollo contract was awarded in July of 1961, for the sophisticated navigation system that would allegedly guide the spacecraft to the Moon. In an unusual move, NASA opted not to solicit bids for the guidance system; instead, the contract was handed directly to MIT, generating “immediate controversy,” as noted by Moon Machines. As one of the show’s talking-heads noted, “There was actually a budding industry out there that had developed guidance systems and people from industry were quite upset. They felt that they should have been given the chance to bid on the contract – and a university is not ordinarily what the government contracts out to build hardware for operational systems.”
Perhaps significantly, Bill Kaysing, the first Apollo skeptic to gain prominence, has claimed that it was MIT (in conjunction with DARPA) that provided NASA with the blueprint for how to plausibly simulate manned trips to the Moon. If true, then it of course makes perfect sense that NASA would have turned directly and immediately to MIT, and would have done so without taking any outside bids. Until MIT completed their work and provided the space agency with an outline of the project, it would seem, NASA wouldn’t have known what other contracts to award.
The most complicated aspect of the Apollo missions was the landing of the lunar modules, which made the software program controlling that part of the mission the most difficult to design. Amazingly though, that aspect of the software design was not assigned until after most of the other programs were 2/3 complete – and it was assigned to a twenty-two-year-old gent named Don Isles who had just recently started his very first job. According to Moon Machines, “the program without which it would be impossible to land on the Moon … had been written almost as an afterthought by a junior engineer.”
Interestingly enough, some of America’s illustrious astronauts have themselves seeded the literature with alien tales. None of them, to my knowledge, has ever endorsed the notion of alien colonies on the Moon, but they have certainly added fuel to that fire by dropping allusions to UFO sightings. Our old friend Buzz Aldrin, most notoriously, has claimed that Apollo 11 was tailed all the way to the Moon by a UFO!
In one of the articles, we find Michael Wargo, identified as the “chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters,” contemplating a return trip to the Moon: “’None of our spacesuits that we currently have would be appropriate for that extreme an environment,’ [says Wargo]. Any materials built for Earth-like temperatures won’t work on the moon. ‘They don’t bend anymore, they fracture, and they fracture brittle-y, and so everything gets extremely brittle at those temperatures.’” (“Water Discovery Fuels Hope to Colonize the Moon,” November 13, 2009)
The other article from Space.com details yet more of the lost technology of the 1960s: “Though engineers are well on their way to preparing us for life on the moon, some major issues have yet to be resolved. ‘Something that we’ll have to consider is radiation,’ Zacny (with Honeybee Robotics, a NASA contractor) said. ‘We can close ourselves in habitats, but radiation protection requires a lot of shielding. We cannot solve this problem yet. Radiation can kill us.’ Moon dwellers will also have to contend with the ubiquitous dust on the surface of the moon, which gets into everything and can wear down joints and connectors and prevent sealing off doors. It also poses a health risk to people, as it can cause breathing difficulties and is difficult to filter out of habitats.” (“How to Build Lunar Homes From Moon Dirt,” September 3, 2008)
Earth’s gravitational pull would obviously get progressively weaker the farther out one ventured, but common sense dictates that it wouldn’t just abruptly end once you got beyond low-Earth orbit. Indeed, an article that appeared in various newspapers not long ago noted that the satellites that enable GPS devices to work orbit the Earth at an altitude of roughly 12,000 miles, about 11,800 miles beyond low-Earth orbit. And yet they are, miraculously enough, still held in place by Earth’s gravity and there have been no reported cases of one of them suddenly freefalling to the Moon.
There they go again, pretending as though we’ve never done this before! Already we have heard from NASA types about how we haven’t yet solved the radiation problem, and how we haven’t yet developed spacesuit materials capable of withstanding the temperature extremes on the Moon, and how we haven’t yet solved the problem of how to deal with all that Lunar dust … and now we find that we apparently also haven’t yet worked out how to deal with the fact that spacecraft returning from the Moon would have to survive much higher re-entry speeds than spacecraft returning from low-Earth orbit! And I’m guessing that we might also have a problem with controlling the all-important reentry angle.
What Van Allen’s team had discovered, of course, was that Earth is ringed by belts of high-energy particles, now known as the Van Allen radiation belts. And what Fleming’s recent research revealed, incredibly enough, is that the “day after the press conference, [Van Allen] agreed with the military to get involved with a project to set off atomic bombs in the magnetosphere to see if they could disrupt it.”
Piece of Mindful 
Very happy to see you back on this thread; I just read this once through and need to review your post more in depth as it recently came up on my radar again for a few reasons – and honestly, its really, really important to me and likely the future of our human race, foundationally speaking.
So I recently gave “American Moon” a shot, which was surprisingly less biased than all its detractors claim (sure at some points, biased, funny music etc,). Overall, covered the common to uncommon arguments fairly well. Yet, I am unsure whether it might classify as a limited hangout – many exhibits were well presented, others less so. Curious if you watched it / your take. I’ll get back to this documentary below though, so finish reading;
My up-to-date take continues to be that something is absolutely wrong with the sum of the evidence. And, a bit frustratingly, I simply cant seem to find many people in my day to day non-digial life that care enough to even watch and listen for themselves.
I will say that it is amazing how arguments are conflated – to suggest something is absolutely wrong with the sum of the evidence leaves one to head in one of a few directions – yet one doesnt need to begin commenting on which one to stick to the evidence presented by “official” organizations. (Those directions being, roughly, black projects occulted by the nonsense promoted to a gullible public – or that the technology is not feasible ran into extreme difficulties, or something more bizarre and maybe unspeakable or uncomprehendable to thos uninitiated)
“American Moon”‘s focus was for the most part, not about which direction, albeit it leans one towards the project being a surprising failure and then simulation. And it does a great job of covering just how feasible the simulation tech here on earth got as the deadline approached. But it never once could be portrayed to lean one towards the more likely possibility that this tech broke away from official oversight, or its purpose was never to travel to the moon (rather militaristic innovation in LEO)
LikeLike
I have not seen American Moon, but will now for sure. I do not have bandwidth enough for video, so in my spare time here in Mexico I have captured and then pared down the 14-part McGowan series, trying to make it short enough to be useful and enjoyable for readers. Even so, I cringe at how long it is, and yet, McGowan’s writing is crisp enough that I like the flow of the narrative.
LikeLike
Mark, I’m chuffed you wrote an article with my name in it. A few weeks ago Off-Guardian wrote an article rubbishing me for allegedly saying that the power elite are infallible – which, of course, I’ve never said. I just say they always give us the signs and if they did genuinely screw up … would it make a difference?
https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/17/the-myth-of-the-infallible-elite/
I’ve just gone through the most stressful day of my life – no exaggeration – trying to get my mother’s American neighbour in Italy exemption to travel as her chaperone to Sydney as in the last few months my mother has developed dementia – seemingly massively hastened by the jabs she got in August to travel around Europe – she didn’t want them and as far as I knew she wasn’t getting them but then she wanted to travel and so went ahead. The idea was that Susie could attend the Australian Open (not sure how likely that is now) as a win-win type situation. My mother and Susie were supposed to depart Rome on Sunday but there was some mixup about the test required and they’d done the RAT instead of the PCR so they were not allowed on the flight on that basis alone but there was another basis we were unaware of too. It was hoped they’d get the same flight the next day but Susie’s exemption was rejected by the Australian Department of Immigration – I mean, how on earth do you reject exemptions at this stage? Why wasn’t the exemption part of the visa requirements to avoid any confusion? She’d submitted a 2nd request but today I thought no way are they going to spend a third night in a hotel – I need to ensure an exemption will be approved rather than simply wait for the verdict. My mother’s going seriously batty and she’ll send Susie batty and it’s all so ridiculous. After a number of phone calls and a submission finally the exemption was granted just before check-in time. OMG! But even though they should be right now about to board the plane I’m still in hyperventilation mode. Do they know how to demoralise us or what? I know I should just keep calm and simply do the best I can but I simply find it impossible.
I will get back to your post in a little while, Mark.
LikeLike
Sorry for your troubles … this article stands for you to review when you want to cover the entire depth and breadth of the moon deception. So far you’ve only dabbled in some confirmation bias, nothing more.
LikeLike
I will read this in its entirety and appreciate the efforts. I realize how annoying it is to make comical light of serious situations, and yet, I do so anyway, revealing, well, I’ll let y’all be the judges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought the video was good…I read Mark’s post then watched and it hit the salient points. Parody and humor is important. Laughter is one of the greatest joys of life and I don’t intend to let them take that away.
I offer a parody for a parody… (complete with its own singing cowboy)
A ode to the supposed ‘project A119’ to blow up the moon
From Mr. Show with Bob and David:
Blow Up the Moon (https://youtu.be/GTJ3LIA5LmA )
Season 3
Episode 6 “Goin’ on a Holiday”
LikeLiked by 1 person
From an article on AULIS Online called The Dangers of Space Radiation:
Ellen Stofan CC BY 2.0“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That’s a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”
– Dr Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist, NASA, and principal advisor
to NASA Administrator – BBC Newsnight interview, November 2014
“Radiation surely must be the biggest showstopper preventing mankind’s exploration of the Universe.”
– Professor Clive Dyer, MA (Cantab.), PhD (Lond.), DIC., June 1997
Clive Dyer has worked in space and radiation research for more than 40 years, authoring more than 200 publications in the field
Figure 2″How do we shield astronauts from radiation on longer missions? … How do we supply spacecraft with energy needed for these far-reaching journeys?
These are questions that we can answer and will answer. And these are the questions whose answers no doubt will reap untold benefits right here on Earth.”
– US President Barack Obama
John F. Kennedy Space Center, April 15, 2010
LikeLike
Have you ever noticed that the lies are never funny (but usually boring and overly complicated), and the truth is often simple and hilarious? Some say laughter is an involuntary response to truth. I think McGowan (or whoever really wrote it) proves that with Wagging the Moondoggie. Absolutely hilarious stuff.
The point about the implications of the lie – if they can lie about this, they can lie about anything – is so important to understand. Everyone needs to do a complete re-inventory of literally everything they think they know, certainly everything supported by the “official” dogma – that must be obvious, mustn’t it? If you’re still buying any of what they’re selling, you ain’t as woke as you thought you was.
I think it’s great that folks are figuring out that the moon landing was (an absurd, ridiculous, unbelievable) fake. I hope that others, like myself, once realizing that not only are the moon landings fake, but literally all “space” technology is fake (satelloons being the closest thing they have, other than their big dumb fake rockets that fly a parabola into the ocean), begin to question the official cosmology itself, for which there is little to no evidence for. What is the evidence that stars are distant “suns”? What is the evidence for the distance to, and size of, the moon, sun and planets? For that matter, what is the evidence that the Earth is in motion? Every scientific experiment ever conducted has failed to detect a hint of motion to the Earth, not to mention our own five senses. I offer you this quote from Relativity For The Layman by James A. Coleman (highly recommended) – page 37, under the title “Possible Explanations for Michelson and Morley’s Results”:
“The failure to detect the ether could be explained, of course, if the ether did not exist; but the necessity of the ether’s existence was too firmly entrenched to be discarded. Instead, four reasons were advanced as possible explanations of the inability of scientists to detect the ether: the easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether. Then we on earth would not experience an ether wind, thus making detection of the ether impossible. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.”
Ah, but I get ahead of myself. We all have to get there in our own time, at our own pace, though I find that even the most ardent truth seeker may balk when it comes to questioning the official cosmology. Some programming runs too deep I suppose, and admittedly it’s a lot to let go of. Casting aside the official space mythos is certainly a prerequisite though, and a big step in the right direction!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“For that matter, what is the evidence that the Earth is in motion?”
The seasons, and the night sky changing with them. The big tour we call a year. That is the evidence.
The official cosmology of our solar system, the classical cosmology, is a great story of what the human mind has figured out over time. Let’s leave aside “black holes” and “big bangs” other modern confabulations, which are uninstructive anyway. But the classical cosmology is a great story.
It is a common tactic to associate reasonable criticism of hoaxes such as the moon landing with outlandish claims that you have to ditch the entire cosmology and instead go Flat Earth, Geocentric or whatnot – with a view to discredit such criticism and discourage people from examing the evidence. My guess is it may even, in some cases, be a paid job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Years ago, I looked into the moon tale. Aulis offers good perspectives, but the quality of the articles differs. In the end, it’s all inside the space frame. We just don’t know what’s really up there. Argumenting with space radiation leads to nothing, who knows. What’s telling, is the history of the program. Big problems, little testing. No accidents, except A1. The reentry, coming back from the moon, was not tested unmanned.
The Saturn rocket maybe was a failure. The Russian moon rocket used 30 engines, even the Russians did not master the problems with big engines. NASA used explosives to stabilize the engines. The Saturn took off, maybe it flew into orbit, and soon into the museums, after the skylab interim show. A source to look at are vintage film reports. I got a nice collection. One is about the development of a nuclear stage for Saturn. This thing was built full size and tested. It was supposed to make exploration of the solar system possible, but it’s forgotten today. There’s also an early documentary about research for shielding materials, much heavier than needed and seen later…
LikeLike
There is a very good reason why they launch from Cape Canaveral. And likewise in barren Kazakhstan (if I’m not mistaken).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome
In US, the rockets go into the drink…that is, down “range” into the Atlantic Ocean.
Likewise in Kazakhstan….into barren wasteland.
No one goes anywhere. Space programs serve one purpose
. .to enslave the public with Trillion$$$$ in debt!!
Period! No “grander” purpose whatsoever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point of this piece was not that, but rather that the moon landings were misdirection, other things were being done in LEO. Please take time to read before scattergunning..
LikeLike
Mark, I’m sorry. But this discussion about the Moon Hoax is leading nowhere. I cannot stress the importance of a single (and nakedly obvious) fact, that the central players in the Moon Mission were Freemasons of the highest orders (not your Blue Lodge dopes sitting around on Saturday afternoons, figuring out which food bank they’re going to feed). The scum who perpetrated one of the greatest hoaxes ever in the history of the human race were members of some deep secret Freemasonic order that has thrived in this world since the Crusades. They are the Kingmakers, the Presidentmakers, the Senatormakers, etc… They mint our currency with their ancient symbols, they print their ancient images on all our corporations, which they own. Think the Golden Arches, think Exxon Mobile, think Capitol One, think AAA, think CBS, think CIA, think the dollar bill, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on….In fact, the very driver’s license you put in your pocket, and the social security card you place next it–all Freemasonic symbolism. And on the order of Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing ugly hideous hoaxes, it’s a fact that 95% of Connecticut and Massachusetts State Troopers are low-level Freemasons. The Connecticut State Police might as well be 99%. It is time to destroy the Freemasonic Order, to tear down their statues, to burn their Wall Street offices to the ground, to refuse their corporate cleptocracy, to reject their technocratic, systematic destruction of the human mind. If we do not, then we shall forever be slaves and serfs and peasants beneath the cornerstone of their tyranny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After you, then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You still think you can win Mark by NOT detaching from the kleptocrazy bunch John so eloquently pointed out?
Why is it that when people actually are encouraged to act, that they weasel out.
If you actively keep supporting the System you are part of the problem, no two ways about it.
Either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists hasn’t become more appropriate now.
LikeLike
Either or, huh? How about I mind my business, search for truth, and not let dreams be my master?
LikeLiked by 1 person
All is connected, economy, military, law, religion, the spiritual. Apollo was not only about siphoning money and distraction from the war, it shaped the picture of the world humanity has. Vandalizing some offices will not change this place, we need to figure out the situation we’re in first. The current events are connected too, a mechanic worldview.
LikeLike
Have you been to Walmart?
LikeLike
No and you shouldn’t either.
Why do you allow such fakery into your life ?
And why do you actively withhold small shop owners from their potential ecos nomos.
If Bezos/Walmart/any avoidable retailer is evil
and why aren’t they ?
anyone supporting those evil empires
by buying from or spreading links to
aMAZON…..and co
is part of that evil
period.
you buy from the Nazis.
why ????
do you have a moral conscience ?
LikeLike
Pretty sure I am not guilty, minding my own business, no world to save that I can assist with anyway. But I appreciate you taking time to lecture me. I’ll stop buying from the Nazis immediately. I will cancel my Swastika order immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re a Nazi, and I’m a spook. Take note of this little thread over “there”. “https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-137/#comment-174930”. JR’s article is one of his best, at least from my particular bias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fun fact, Walmart shut down business in Germany back in 2006. Little bit off the rails here, my point was, building the biggest fireworks rocket ever to shape human worldview may be money reasonably spent.
LikeLike
Love your comments Horst.
Please drop more of them.
on-topic :
LikeLike
Once one accepts it was a hoax life gets more interesting! I was never into space as a kid, just mesmerized what I had to for class and promptly forgot it all. There’s quite an interesting film called ‘Shooting the Moon’ by Croww777 for those whose minds are open. He has done an enormous amount of video of the sky and it was put together by his partner in such a way as to be informative and digestible for a lay audience like myself who is really not interested in the fraud itself, but in speculating what space is really. He suggests the moon is not a rock in space that can be landed upon and that makes a lot more sense to me. I also doubt the entire theory of space and think it was all coordinated for eventual weather control and spy stuff.
LikeLike
Croww777 is a flat earther, which is why he is not listed on our blog roll. He denies this, even affects disdain that people would say such a thing, and at the same time says the the best way to understand our planet is to drop the letter ‘t’.
LikeLike
What does that mean your ‘blog roll’? I don’t really care anymore who is in what ‘camp’ I try to look at the material they are presenting, which the vids he’s amassed are not altered, are they? So I don’t see what’s the problem. I don’t need a one to come out with an entirely new and acceptable theory before listening to their speculations. Do you have any evidence that his material is tampered with or otherwise not to be trusted? If he says he’s not a flat-earther but likes the word ‘plane’ as a description, how is it this makes his material not of value?
LikeLike
Crowww777 is disingenuous in his offerings, including much that I like, but because of this disingenuity, his refusal to flat out assert that we live on a flat planet, I do not allow discussion of his work here. It’s a big world, plenty of sites where you can take him in. Just not here. Read our commenting policy. You’ll find flat earth right there among the forbidden topics, and the reasoning behind it.
LikeLike
Ok, makes sense to me.
LikeLike
Mark, why are you so against flat earth? You should be open to all ideas. It’s one of the reasons I don’t visit this site as much as I used to. Not even allowing the discussion seems so unlike you.
LikeLike
I think it has to do with some of the flaws in the theory, such as the fact that star trails look different in different places around the world, which goes against the flat as star trails should be uniform regardless of where we live if we do live on a terrestrial plane, as well as its very suspicious history as a movement. Not that we shouldn’t question the official narrative about the shape of the earth, but we should be aware that there’s plenty of disinfo & misinfo plastered in the “alternative” media, as well as the mainstream media, about the subject.
LikeLike
Some pertinent observations by McGowan, for example the need for batteries in the absence of viable solar panel technology back in the day.
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-Apollo-Service-Module-have-solar-panels
Well, there is still the light the near side of the Moon receives from Earth, plus the light from Venus, Mars and Jupiter. There should be the stars, too. The question is in how far the human eye would be able to see them in the vicinity of the Sun. But I can’t think of a reason for the stars to be invisible when facing away from the Sun as you would have to do anyway, given that the sky must be black and reveal the stars. In fact, the stars should be overwhelming.
LikeLike
Moon is a mirror. Why do they call it ‘sea level’ when its a globe of spinning water…………………
LikeLike
15 days and 31 thoughts (nice wording) later, still no answers from the addressed in the OP.
Petra, we all go through troubles in life, does it mean you cannot find a moment to properly ponder about pressing problems within nonsense narratives?
Why not admit your defeat facing the overwhelming evidence against believing in moon hopping madness (1969!) and align with your sister, Petra? Stubborn as the rock you were named after?
LikeLike
Gaia, well I have been addressing the problem not directly to Mark but I have addressed a couple of things to AK and Lumi. AK has not responded to my latest comment that what is shown us in the film, Gravity, cannot be used as a way to claim that “what we see in films is what we expect according to the conditions in space and therefore images showing what we would expect to see in space don’t mean anything as they’re easily faked”. AK assumes the images of George Clooney moving in the film Gravity were faked realistically and thus so could be the images of the the astronauts moving in the moon landings. However, what I put forward is evidence that realistic fakery cannot be assumed as Gravity is rubbished by astronaut, Chris Hadfield, as not at all being realistic in many ways.
Moon-hoaxers very erroneously believe that they can state:
“We don’t know the conditions on the moon because we haven’t been there” and
“What is shown to us could be faked”
No! Evidence must be respected. “Could be faked” is simply an assertion. When we speak of fakery in psyops we can always IDENTIFY the fakery because in psyops the fakery is generally pretty sloppy … but even if it weren’t sloppy – especially back in 1969 fakery would be able to be IDENTIFIED. You need to be able to IDENTIFY fakery not make assertions of the could/might/should/would variety. Those are not words that we can rely on in argument. What we need in argument is IS. This IS, not could/would/might/should. What IS.
And what IS is that all the images shown to us of the moon landings perfectly match the unique lunar conditions as they are AGREED to be. Scientists can know things (as we all can) without having been somewhere – we can know many things without having “been there”. We know Sandy Hook was a hoax without having been there, we know that 9/11 was a hoax without having been to NY or Washington. In fact, sometimes having been there doesn’t help at all – I know someone who was in NY on the fateful day and he said he saw a plane heading towards the South tower. What did he see? We don’t know but it wasn’t Flight 175 which “being there” he would tend to believe was the case.
What I plan to do is put up my own post debunking all the claims I encounter on POM and use that as a reference. Mark and I have gone around in circles a couple of times and I wish to avoid doing that so I want to make my debunking post that I can refer to in the future without going round in circles.
Mark has put forward a couple of times Wagging the Moondoggie and I have come back to him a couple of times and said that the book has been partly – at least – debunked as has American Moon.
See the links at the bottom of my page on the moon landings.
http://occamsrazormoonlandings.weebly.com/
Admit defeat? Never, Gaia. I know I’ve done due diligence whereas moon-hoaxers have not. Moon hoaxers think they can “work things out for themselves” without CHECKING with other people who might know more on the subject and following the debunking trail as diligently as possible. Of course, we should all think for ourselves and I certainly wouldn’t accuse moon-hoaxers of not doing that, they think for themselves, however, there’s a world of difference between “thinking for yourself and believing what you think to be true without doing due diligence” and “thinking for yourself and CHECKING to ensure that what you believe to be true really is true.”
I do the latter while moon-hoaxers do the former.
I do what Kary Mullis advises a scientist does:
“A scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong,” which is absolutely the opposite of what moon-hoaxers do.
LikeLike
The moon hoax is the most obvious of all. How you can know Sandy Hook was fake and believe in the moon landing is crazy to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have no idea what latest comment of yours you’re referring to Petra.
“what I put forward is evidence that realistic fakery cannot be assumed as Gravity is rubbished by astronaut, Chris Hadfield, as not at all being realistic in many ways”
Oh, I see, here we have nothing less than a “real astronaut” rubbishing a movie. What other evidence should we ask you to put forward?
How do you know this Chris Hadfield is a real astronaut and not another NASA actor, Petra? Because he says so? Good for you.
The very first point our real astronaut goes on rubbishing is the scene where a satellite is seen “whizzing by” at a paltry 120 mph.
“How ludicrous. A satellite goes 5 miles per second! How are you even supposed in the real world to actually see something that fast whizzing by you?” the expert astutely remarks (or something to that effect).
What do you think Petra, is that a clever or a silly observation?
Whitout being a rocket scientist, do you think you could figure out a possible situation where you can see something going actually 5 miles/second as if passing you at 120 mph?
LikeLike
AK, When you mentioned George Clooney I thought you were referring to his movement in Gravity, I didn’t realise he was in the film King Kong so I see now you were referring to both GC and the monster King Kong in KK as opposed to each in separate films.
I don’t know if he’s a real astronaut but I can assess what he says for making sense or not. Thinking involves EVALUATING in the first instance what someone says not worrying about whether someone is a genuine astronaut or not.
You ask if I think I can figure out a possible situation where whizzing past at 5mps might look like 120mph. I’m assuming the situation you imply is that you too are whizzing and and thus relatively the speed wouldn’t be so great. I don’t know, AK, why don’t you do the math and present it for me and I’ll get back to you.
What about the REST of what the alleged astronaut says, AK. What do you make of that? What is very obvious to me, AK, is that it is easy to seem to refute what someone says in the realm of physics but without expert understanding that refutation doesn’t stand up. In the comments on that video we see:
AGAINST CHRIS – KapnKrunch
“Uhh he was wrong right off the get go about Sandra bullock when she breaks free.
Just look up what tangential velocity is.
If you were attached to a spinning object in space you would most certainly be thrown away if you detached.
They actually plan to make artificial gravity this way. It’s the same concept as the carnival rides. If you are spinning you have a tangential velocity and therefore constantly accelerating. Once released you proceed along that path.
Did this guy skip physics in school?
Edit lol he actually goes into this later how did he miss that?”
DEFENDING CHRIS – David A. Craven
“She would go off at the tangent and the arm would keep rotating. She would just disappear downwards, not be blown away like in the video. That’s what he said, and that’s all correct. She appears to head off in a whole new direction once she decoupled.”
If you wish to read the entire thread go to the comment that says:
“Hearing Chris Hadfield absolutely demolishing Gravity isn’t something I thought I needed, but I love it,” and scroll down a little till you see KapnKrunch’s first comment.
Perhaps, after all, KapnKrunch is correct but somehow I think it’s David, not him. What do you think?
AK, I don’t understand anything beyond the most basic of physics and I readily admit that. I don’t have a problem not understanding physics because I know that the nature of reality is that when a major event involving many aspects occurs whether that event is real or not will be supported by many different kinds of evidence, not just evidence of the highly-scientific kind that you need to be a physicist to understand.
I believe you still haven’t answered my question or have I missed it, AK?
Do you accept that lower gravity would actually mean that astronauts would move more slowly than on earth because to move the legs would require greater effort with less pull towards the surface?
LikeLike
“Do you accept that lower gravity would actually mean that astronauts would move more slowly than on earth because to move the legs would require greater effort with less pull towards the surface?”
How can you come up with the idea that less weight requires more effort to move is beyond me Petra.
Doesn’t your common sense suffice to tell you how you would feel if weighing, say, 10 kg instead of 60?
When walking, every step has an horizontal force component and a vertical one, both increasing proportionally the faster you walk, and the feet being “off the ground” the most when running.
Horizontal and vertical components alike would result proportionally magnified in reduced gravity, so what we basically should expect to see on the moon are much longer and higher steps. Think kinda like a triple jumper would move around, with the main difference, compared to normal gravity, of a significant asymmetry between a faster upward movement and the next slower falling down.
Is that even remotely close to what we see in the moon footage?
Not a chance, but I’m sure you’ll have no shortage of real astronauts to save the day.
“You ask if I think I can figure out a possible situation where whizzing past at 5mps might look like 120mph. I’m assuming the situation you imply is that you too are whizzing and and thus relatively the speed wouldn’t be so great. I don’t know, AK, why don’t you do the math and present it for me and I’ll get back to you.”
The “math”? I assume you’re kidding Petra.
Yes, of course if I’m orbiting the earth at 5 mps (18,000 mph) and an object overtakes me on the same orbit at 18,120 mph I’d see it whizzing by at 120.
Rocket science?
How then, according to your space travels expert, is that imagery unreal?
LikeLike
It does drive me mad how my comments so often don’t post. I know that’s just what happens but it still drives me mad. I’ll try breaking this comment up.
Part 1
I would never apply my own “common sense” to physics that I have zero familiarity with because I know that “common sense” doesn’t always apply when explaining phenomena we’re unfamiliar with. I think it’s fair to say that behaviour of objects in unfamiliar environments might be counterintuitive.
In your situation, where I believed my common sense applied I’d do due diligence and argue my case with space physicists and Apollo enthusiasts to see what they said in response to my argument. As I’ve said before, “a little learning is a dangerous thing” and I don’t think it’s sufficient to rely on one’s own common sense to argue for what happens in space.
“Common sense” tells Mark that we should see stars in the sky in moon landing imagery but what Mark’s “common sense” omits to factor in is that the imagery is captured in lunar daylight not in lunar nighttime so that aspect may have an impact on stars being visible or not. Who knows maybe it shouldn’t, I cannot say for sure, but I think the idea of arguing from “common sense” about what happens on the moon is not at all doing due diligence … and that’s what I most argue for, AK, doing due diligence. We should think for ourselves but we also need to do due diligence and not simply rely on our common sense to tell us things.
LikeLike
Part 2
What my common sense tells me loud and clear is that a brightly-lit lunar surface with a black sky perfectly fits what we would expect from lunar conditions … and that is what we see in every single image.
My common sense also tells me that fakery of regolith particles on the landing pads of the LEM would never have been done with the subtlety that we see their presence – only visible through magnification of high-res photos. Common sense tells me that fakery is not usually done that way and absolutely never, ever, ever done that way in a psyop where the perps pride themselves on their in-your-face sloppiness.
What moonhoaxers must accept – and seemingly do no problem at all – is that the moon landings are a psyop of a kind never seen in history other than the psyop of the moon landings assuming it was. Psyops do not do fakery subtly, subtlety is so very much not a hallmark of psyops but moonhoaxers have absolutely no trouble at all with the massive anomalies of hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery, miniscule amounts of regolith particles in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads only visible through magnification, and so on. I have to say if you’re a moonhoaxer you simply do not understand psyop MO even if you recognise many events as being psyops because if you understand psyop MO you will know that the moon landings simply couldn’t be a psyop unless they were a psyop the likes of which has never been seen any other time. And I don’t see a single moonhoaxer saying that. No moonhoaxer says, “Oh yes, the moon landings were a psyop but they decided on a completely different MO just for them.”
End of comment.
LikeLike
Is it your common sense or you due diligence that made you quote Ayokera and then write three paragraphs in part 1 of your reply and another three in part 2 without even addressing his very clear and pertinent question, let alone providing an answer, and actually saying nothing of substance at all, instead reiterating ad nauseam the same boring bullet points you’ve already laid out dozens of times?
LikeLike
Or are we up against an advanced form of artificial intelligence that closely mimicks natural stupidity?
LikeLike
I did answer the question, Lumi911, but not directly but that is because I don’t have a direct answer. I’m not trying to be evasive I just don’t have confidence in what I think about how humans would move in an environment of lower gravity so I cannot answer the question directly. Do you get that? My answer is that I wouldn’t apply my own “common sense” and that in his position where I believed the movement shown to us to be counter to how humans would move in a lower-gravity environment, I would do due diligence with space physicists and like people. I think this is a perfectly legitimate answer and if you don’t please explain why.
Originally, I responded to AK’s claim about movement being faster with “less gravitational pull would, in fact, make it slower because there’s more effort to put your foot down on the surface” and a guy on Quora said the same thing. So AK says one thing and I and guy on Quora say another (I cannot be sure whether guy on Quora influenced my answer or whether I thought it independently). Who’s right? I would simply not use this argument and go to things that are more concrete.
Actually, I’ve just come across 12 answers to the question Why do astronauts move so slowly in zero gravity?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-astronauts-move-so-slowly-in-zero-gravity
Do you argue against all of them?
LikeLike
Supersedes previous answers (Parts 1 and 2)
Actually, AK, I think the argument for slower movement is something to do with this:
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/panvini/p110a/f02/supp8.html#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20when%20an%20object,m%20is%20the%20object's%20mass.
“When an object is attracted by the earth’s gravitational force, the object attracts the earth with an equal an opposite force. According to Newton’s second law, an object’s weight
causes it to accelerate towards the earth at the rate given by g = W/m = 9.8 meters / s2, where m is the object’s mass.”
Without the “push-off” force provided by gravity when your foot is on the ground it’s actually harder to move.
I think also this is explained in this answer to the question about slower movement in zero gravity.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-astronauts-move-so-slowly-in-zero-gravity/answer/Tony-Martin-51
I will say it again as I seem to not be understood here: I don’t understand physics and I would never use my “common sense” to answer a question about how objects should behave on the moon. I would consult experts, my “common sense” is simply not up to the task. I suggest that others perhaps take a similar approach. While there’s nothing wrong with using common sense, due diligence must be taken by checking with others who, at least, SEEM to be knowledgeable. You don’t have to agree with them, of course, because you may be able to work out that they’re talking nonsense, however, you should at the very least consult them.
LikeLike
In the Chris Hadfield video above, from 1:47 to 2:07, what is he actually criticizing? “How come she has a different gravity than the arm does?” That seems like a really unqualified way to talk about what can be seen in the movie. Wouldn’t you expect to hear him refer to angular velocity and centripetal or centrifugal force instead?
Probably not worth watching any further.
LikeLike
I have to admit I didn’t pay close attention because I don’t understand space science so I more relied on the comments to point out errors in what he said. And, as I said in my comment to AK, I saw a thread where what he said was criticised but that criticism was responded to with counter-refutation which “seemed reasonable”. This is the most I can argue, Lumi, with regard to space science because I do not understand it.
What I would understand by “different gravity” is a different source of gravitational pull so if the arm was pulled towards a body by its gravitational force Sandra would have been pulled by the same body in the same direction and that is, supposedly, not what we saw but you can counter me on that if you wish but it won’t really make a difference because I understand too little to accept what you say as true or not.
I will have to bow out of any further discussion of the Chris Hadfield video as I don’t understand space science well enough. The thing is I misunderstood what AK was referring to with George Clooney in the first place – he was referring to GC in King Kong not in the film, Gravity. There is simply no point in any continuation by me on the subject. As I keep saying ad nauseam I stick to pieces of information relevant to the moon landings which I have reasonable confidence in understanding … and I think those pieces are sufficient to determine whether astronauts landed on the moon or not. It would be very wrong of me to discuss information I have no confidence I understand and what I think about moonhoaxers is that they have unfounded confidence in their understanding of space science … while ignoring the pieces of information that are right in our faces which support real because those pieces are inconvenient to their argument.
LikeLike
Petra, as far as I know George Clooney has nothing to do with King Kong, I dunno where you got that link. I was obviously talking about him in Gravity, but that’s irrelevant.
My K Kong reference was to the 1976 movie where we see the giant ape climbing the Twin Towers. Obviously those images are not real, but my point is that it all depends on the assumptions we agree (or don’t agree) on. If we all share the notion that a giant ape climbing a skyscraper is preposterous we have no problem taking for granted the whole scene must be some sort of Hollywood trickery. On the other hand if there is no previous agreement on the real existence of giant apes, then setting the matter relying only on the imagery can be much less straightforward.
To get an informed opinion I would personally need to delve a lot into topics like zoogeography, biomechanics, physiology, etc., etc. But that’s precisely the kind of technical stuff you’d avoid like the plague.
You would probably say “Beside whole experts agreement about the good consistency of as expected imagery, we also have hours of recordings of King Kong’s sounds and noises in the jungle without any sign of fakery, that’s good enough for me. It has to be all real, why would they even bother faking hours of a monster ape calls and noises?”
I concede we’re getting a bit silly here, but I’m afraid that’s where we are bound the more we go on.
LikeLike
Oh God, when I looked up King Kong I saw this:
“Jackson’s choices for Jack Driscoll and Carl Denham included George Clooney and Robert De Niro,” and only seeing his name and not looking carefully I assumed George Clooney was in the film and you were referring to him in King Kong where I see he was just considered for the part – oops!
OK, when you say “If we all share the notion that a giant ape climbing a skyscraper is preposterous we have no problem taking for granted the whole scene must be some sort of Hollywood trickery,” you put it forward as an hypothetical situation, however, the point is we KNOW that giant apes don’t exist, it’s not a hypothetical situation and we know it’s fake but let’s say we didn’t know whether they existed or not we still might be able to work out that it was fake. Let’s take deep sea creatures whose existence we don’t know of at this stage – new creatures, are, after all, still being discovered – if one is shown to us we still might be able to work out that it’s real as opposed to fake, especially, say, if we’re a marine biologist.
I have to say I’m warming to an interest in the physics that proves movement on the moon by astronauts is precisely how they should move according to the microgravitational conditions because if that can be made very clear then, AK, that will be highly significant, no?
What you have to be careful of is arguing for possibility rather than favouring.
You want an hypothesis where the evidence favours it not just makes it possible because if it’s only arguing for possibility what’s the argument that says the opposing hypothesis isn’t equally possible?
Claude Bernard, physiologist
I say although I cannot say I understand it with confidence that Newton’s Laws of Motion support the kind of movement we see by astronauts on the moon. This is a link to those talking about the movement on Quora and I’ve already put a link on another comment.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-astronauts-movements-in-space-seemingly-slow-motion-when-theres-no-air-water-resistance-to-slow-them-down
How would you argue that Newton’s Laws of Motion do not support the kind of movement we see on the moon?
Assuming that Newton’s Laws of Motion DO support the kind of movement we see on the moon we can add another fact to support the landings being real. We cannot identify fakery in their movement. If footage of astronauts moving on the moon is doubled it looks ridiculous so there is no way to identify fakery … unless you can tell me what it is.
LikeLike
Statement is false. We know that doubling speed of astronauts on film makes their actions seem normal. That means they were filmed at full speed and then shown to us at half speed. We know that the sky is black on the moon, and I’ve a sneaking hunch that you think this statement, true, justifies the absence of stars. It does not. Stars should be abundant and spectacular. NASA claims that aperture settings eliminated stars, but admits they are there. I do think it safe to say that the US and USSR shared information, and the landing of a lunar rover by the Soviets resulted in NASA knowing a lot about the temperatures, radiation, and other dangers. It is therefore logical to conclude that NASA knew in 1969, just as now, that humans could not survive there, even in Playtex suits.
I am reading Dark Moon, and am finding that this book is the source of much of McGowan’s information, un-credited.
My next post, in rumination stage right now, is about living up to our necks in lies – Moon, space program, AIDS, germ theory, Cold War, Manhattan Project, mass shootings, celerity deaths, Men are Pigs, The Beatles, the music industry, actors, Climate Change, Covid. My problem with writing this piece is that I don’t want to approach it in a state of fugue, world weary and all of that. My own life is great, but the world is whackadoodle. I do tire of it.
LikeLike
I feel well aligned with your last sentence and it’s something I’m constantly trying to balance. I’m thinking of a common unifying theme to approach them, because they are all very closely related, not just as lies or conspiracy theories, but in support of the worldview of those currently wielding far too much power, and that dominant worldview narrative seems to be: redemption through sin. And in my opinion the only way to get folks to hear it is through comedy. And contrary to most opinion, I suppose, that is actually high art, to do that well, and so, I need more talent, much more. 😉
LikeLike
It makes no difference what doubling of speed might do. What you need to prove is that it was faked rather than real. What says that the astronauts weren’t filmed moving slowly as would be expected in low-gravity lunar conditions? You cannot argue possibility as fact, that is indulgence in the logical fallacy, appeal to possibility, you need to argue for evidence favouring their movement was faked rather than real regardless of what doubling of speed might do.
They were on the moon in lunar daytime. Why would you expect to see stars in daytime on the moon when we don’t see them in daytime on earth? Sure, the sky is black but the lunar surface is brightly lit so presumably that will have some effect. What we must all keep in mind is that our knowledge of the moon is very limited and it’s easy to have false ideas about what should and shouldn’t be.
Will you please look at this partial debunking of Wagging the Moondoggie and get back to me, Mark.
‘https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/
How much do you take on board Kary Mullis’s sage words:
You must look at the criticism of the debunking of the moon landings not simply confine yourself to debunking literature, you need to look at criticism of the debunking literature to check that it is correct.
LikeLike
Good lord, I wanted to hear your thoughts, not some NASA stooge/professional/liar/debunker.
And yes, on the moon, you would see stars set against a black backdrop even in daylight. If you cannot see the reason that they had to eliminate stars, that they would have to get them in the right places at the right times, youi’re beyond reason.
You’ve yet to read McGowan. Until you do, refuting him point by point, your own thoughts, there is nothing in your arguments well thought out or meaningful.
LikeLike
The famous teapot photo (alleged rendezvous of Lunar Module LM with Falcon return rocket of Apollo 15).
1 – no “reflected sunlight from the Moon” – this is supposed to be in space
2 – such low light conditions that apparently the spacy thingies could be captured
3 – against a pitch black background
apparently the Holy Hasselblat managed to pull off the supernatural; it had the capacity to NOT capture the wealth of light that should be behind these Playmobil props….
this cannot be real
so it must be fake
cf. morphing planes into buildings at Manhattan
or incinerating 750-900.000 people in 14 moinths at Treeblinka
it is holocaustos day tomorrow
(not) coincidentally (holocaustos = sacrifice by fire, and as per control the narrative ideally false) also the alleged death day of Scott “Gus” Grissom, who with his two hardly unmentioned astronots
according to the narrative
as highly trained engineers
willingly let themselves be
contained in a 100 % oxygenated
can
is there anyone here that believes that happened and Gus “lemon” Grissom died “for our sins” as a hero??
LikeLike
Now I think about the teapot photo more, it becomes even more ridiculous.
This is allegedly the moment the teapot (LM) and the Falcon rocket (pipe and camera; not a Hasselblat, I used that for the allitteration) come together, and 2 astronots can safely move over to the rocket, captained by the 3rs astronot. Somewhere according to the nasative, a gorillion miles away, without problems.
One or both of these space thingies go with amazing (relative) speeds w.r t. the other. As per the same nautative.
So either the teapot moves with 10s of 1000s of kilometers, or miles, at those speeds it doesn’t matter anymore, per hour, or the rocket is. Or both, with vectors on all sides.
In order to snap a photo on 1971 Kodak film, you’d need an extremely fast shutter speed.
Yet, in order to capture these objects at these clearly low light conditions, you need the opposite; enough time for the light to be captured on film.
So this combination, today achieved with Photochopping,back then with stage light, wires, a teapot, a pipe and a slow shutter camera, everything as stationary as possible.
So either the photo should be blurred with few starry light (but never pitch black) or sharp but with an Atacama Desert wealth of cosmic glory behind the teapot.
You cannot eat your cake and send it to the Moon.
LikeLike
My thoughts on things I know little about don’t count for much and in that situation I turn to others who know more.
But in any case, Mark, It’s not WHO says it, it’s WHAT they say. It’s content, not who.
I’ve said before, the first thing I did when I began looking at the moon landings was read Wagging the Moondoggie and coming from a space of complete ignorance I thought it seemed pretty compelling but when I started to look at the evidence myself I saw things differently. The first thing to start changing my mind was listening to audio between astronauts and mission control. The endless very-boring-unless-you-were-there dialogue struck me as unfakeable. Now I know that moonhoaxers don’t agree with that estimation, they think that hours of that kind of audio is easily fakeable but the point is that my thinking it unfakeable and moonhoaxers’ thinking it easily fakeable are simply opinions, right? It’s my opinion against the moonhoaxers’ and neither opinion counts for much.
Let’s apply Occam’s Razor though and see what that results in.
Occam’s Razor says that hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery detected favours the hypothesis the audio is genuine. That’s what Occam’s Razor says.
For fakery the questions arise:
— Why is no fakery detected?
— Why would they fake hours and hours of it when they didn’t have to to persuade people of the reality of the moon landings and the more audio produced the more risk of fakery detected?
For real, no questions arise. No fakery detected and hours and hours of it fit perfectly.
Additionally, Occam’s Razor also says that if psyop MO always involves sloppy fakery (and I challenge you to name a psyop where the fakery isn’t in-your-face other than the moon landings) then hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery detected favours genuine from a “psyop” point of view because we’d really have to wonder why they used a completely different MO for the moon landings than for any other psyop.
So I’m asking you, Mark, for your thoughts on the debunking of Wagging the Moondoggie that I presented to you. I think the debunking stands up. What do you think?
LikeLike
All right then, I will debunk the debunker. And no, I do not think you read McGowan, in that you have never responded to even one point raised in my post. There must be forty or fifty. I read your damned debunking, then you read the points and respond to each. All righty?
LikeLike
I did read McGowan, Mark, although I have zero recollection of what he said because it was a few years ago now … and even if it was was only recently I’d probably not remember because I have a shocking memory anyway. When you debunk the debunker I will look at other points made by McGowan and get back to you.
LikeLike
So you’ve also not read the much shorter condensation of McGowen I directed at you? By the way, “I read it but forgot what was in it because my memory does not work” = “I have not read it.” The content of two statements is identical.
I printed out the “debunking” piece. It’s 11 pages long. I am three pages into it, will finish it today. So far I have encountered non sequiturs and wild unsubstantiated assertions, such as having the US gone to the moon only to show up the Soviets and not for science, a wild and pulled out of his ass statement that completely ignores a small technicality: It was an impossible feat. You don’t just go to the moon for the hell of it.
I hate the word “debunk” as it contains within it the notion that truth is an easy thing to come by and people who suck on the government teat have it while those of us who struggle searching for it are lunatics. Check the origin of that word, “lunatic”.
I don’t know how I am going to present my debunking of this debunker knucklehead. Since we have established that you don’t read (or remember) things that you are not predisposed to agree with, it is going to be hard to reach you.
LikeLike
NASA – Never A Straight Answer
if Petra isn’t employed yet, she should apply.
and no, Ms. Liverani, I don’t assume anything, that is the strength of my points, with Mark’s and Ayokera’s adding to the pile of pressing points, but “every question can be answered”…
LikeLike
Whether natural or artificial: memory is one of the most important features of intelligence.
Maybe you could replace those faulty memory banks?
LikeLike
But, we are not all scientists! If we all have to approach every aspect of existence in this scientific fashion we are DOOMED as a species. I’d say get your instincts working! Have you read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell? You’ve got to trust yourself more than you trust scientism that’s crafted precisely in order for the masses not to understand. I just start by trying to reverse engineer these stories. I’m not smart enough to get the science, but I’m getting better at spotting liars. The technology we use is very impressive, no doubt, and the vast majority of us use it without understanding it to the degree we could recreate it in any way. But, simple questions can get you very far. Like, why haven’t we been back to the moon? Even from that starting point you’ll get a dozen different answers, but seriously, the tech has been lost? That’s not believable. And I can stop right there and be fine with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m no scientist but you don’t have to be. It’s really very simple. This is all you have to do.
–1. Follow the debunking trail. Moonhoaxers says “Fake/impossible for whatever reason.” What do the Apollo enthusiasts say? Does what the Apollo enthusiasts say stand up? Do the moonhoaxers have anything in response? Check it out. The moonhoaxers cannot refute what the Apollo enthusiasts say and most of the time they’re not even looking. They don’t care. They’re not doing what Kary Mullis says scientists must do: Aim to prove our hypothesis wrong. When we aim to prove our hypothesis wrong we TEST it to make sure no one can refute it.
–2. Look at the evidence and see if it corresponds with expectations. Yes it does! Resoundingly! The audio and visual imagery presented all corresponds with our expectations according to the unique lunar conditions and other expectations:
— Black sky against brightly-lit lunar surface
— Slow movement according to lower gravity
— Hours of audio with no signs of fakery
— Development of the machines to make it there and back
— Subtlety of evidence, eg, tiny amounts of regolith particles visible only under magnification in the mylar wrinkles on the LEM landing pads – for fakery we’d expect no particles at all or an amount sufficient to be easily visible not microscopic, barely visible amounts. This subtlety comprises both evidence FOR reality and evidence AGAINST fakery.
Moonhoaxers simply spout what they think is possible/impossible in space with zero reference to the actual evidence and how it corresponds to expectations without consulting those who say we went to see what they have to say in response to their attempts at debunking.
This is my page on the moon landings with links to five debunking pages at the bottom. In the first three links you’ll find answers to the questions you raise about not having gone again and the losing of the technology – it’s not a simple question of losing the technology – it’s a combination of factors:
— we simply wouldn’t use the same technology because we have different technology and we would want to do different things there
— a lot of information isn’t in the blueprints of the machines – they had to modify as they went along and that info can get lost in notes or in the heads of the engineers who were working on the machines … but also refer to previous point
http://occamsrazormoonlandings.weebly.com/
LikeLike
You mean they would want to do something differently on the moon than play golf, ride Land Rover, plant the American flag and jump around? But, that was so fun, why leave out the best parts?! Is it so next time they can take a convoy of Tonka trucks?
LikeLike
abracademics is one of the latest Newspeak, I quite like it to describe the mystical scientimist brotherhood (m/f)….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heard a Russian woman say ‘Quackademics’, that was pretty cute, especially with her accent. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed.
And I have identified (no need to scream) those “pretty sloppy” points, handily listed for you. A list of questions you were unable to answer. Yet claiming at the same time that all questions have been “satisfactorily” [mind you, for you] answered. While unable to answer.
Cheese helps me recognizing how crazy the world is.
At the same time I suffer from the increased realization how utterly crazy many of its humans are.
You make a nice trophy for the list.
LikeLike
Gaia, Please direct me to the list of questions I’m unable to answer. I certainly admit there are questions I cannot answer because I’m not a physicist so if your questions require a good understanding of physics then I won’t be able to answer them except in an indirect way perhaps by finding someone who can.
LikeLike
Petra, I will even reduce it to one question, whose answer does not require you to “be a physicist”, or any kind of credentialist you seem so keen on.
Just live up to your name.
How is it possible that in the alleged 6 manned touchdown missions, 378.8 kg of “regolith” (sediment), rocks and cores were collected from 6 very different (already when observed from Earth) locations spanning an area of roughly the size of your guinea pig farm Australia, no single unique, not on Earth occurring or synthesized from other earth-based minerals, has been found in those samples?
If you have the imaginative capacity, you could make the analogy with Sasha Von Humboldt or Charly Darwin landing for the first time in the Americas and finding no previously unknown species…
Feel free to consult your fellow moonhoaxers at the Snopey Sites you frequent to get to the answers you don’t like to think about yourself.
And take a trip to the geologically very varied outback. Connect with Gaia. And realize how utterly crazy it is to believe that 1969s technology could land men on the Moon, yet we’re still waiting for the first tranny contest taking place in a moonbase….
if you can do it
we do it
if we can’t do it
you fake it
LikeLike
What I want to think about Gaia are all the things I can understand that will allow me to determine the truth, not things that I don’t understand that I don’t need to know to determine the truth.
I wouldn’t have a clue what to expect in lunar rocks as compared to earth rocks so I don’t worry about it when there’s sufficient stuff I feel I can understand well enough to determine the truth.
I think the problem with moonhoaxers is that they think about things they don’t have sufficient knowledge of and have opinions on those things that are unfounded. They think their “common sense” is sufficient to guide them when it is not. When you are judging things in a realm you are not well-versed in you need to test your ideas with those who are more learned on the subject.
Here’s a couple of questions for you Gaia:
–1. Why would fakers fake tiny amounts of regolith particles on the LEM landing pads that can only be seen using magnification?
–2. What was the purpose of pushing out agent, Bill Kaysing, in telling us that astronauts didn’t go to the moon? (We know he was an agent because no one who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would say that the LEM would have made a massive crater unless they put that claim forward with a good explanation and Wikipedia telling us that Bill had a nephew named Dietrich von Schmausen, who is allegedly an alien scientist is obviously ludicrous and very typical of a psyop.)
LikeLike
Totally true and you demonstrate that nicely,moonhoaxer.
Why would people fake rocks and regolith allegedly coming from the Moon? Because you have to. There is no other way to get “moonrocks”.
LikeLike
So can you put forward clearly your argument for your belief that the moon rocks were faked.
LikeLike
The basis is a story.
You believe that story and keep doing that against all odds.
As you are (defending the) moonhoaxer, you are the believer.
You still have managed to not answer my basic question, so again:
over a usted
LikeLike
I think you need to word your questions in a less opaque manner. Your question seems to be based on an assumption. Why don’t we start with your explanation of what seems to be your assumption that what they told us about lunar rocks doesn’t correspond with what you expect from reality. I think you’re suggesting there’s an impossible nature to the amount and composition of the lunar rocks collected, no? Can you say what you think that impossible nature is, assuming that that is your assumption. Otherwise, please word your question so that I can understand exactly what you’re asking for.
LikeLike
And speaking of “third-party evidence” for the moon landings, I find this old news from Japan unconvincing. You’ll see why by looking at the three images below:
The article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140429062106/http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html
But what do you think? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this one.
LikeLike
For those who don’t care about clicking the three photo links, here are the images below:
The first and third photos are obvious CGI composites. And the second one appears to show two photographs side-by-side that are clearly duplicates of each other, with only one to our right made slightly blurry. Cheap tricks.
LikeLike
Gaia appears to believe that each and every moon, planet, asteroid, etc to be made up of distinct and unique materials. The universe is made from the same stuff, there is not magic or uniqueness to the materials Earth is made from compared to other bodies. Percentages of materials, however, can be telling as to origin, and that is why a leading theory of the moon’s origin is that it was a part of Earth, blasted away from the Earth in an ancient collision of bodies.
Gaia’s built-in assumption here is that there must be unique materials on the moon, the samples brought back didn’t include any of those (if indeed that’s even true), therefore they must have NOT come from the moon. See how that works? The assumption is driving the conclusion, not the facts.
LikeLike
My take, for what it might be worth: genuine Moon (or extraterrestrial) rocks, recovered from Antarctica in a WvB expedition, were pock marked by micro meteorite particles, an admission by NASA where they unintentionally revealed knowledge that humans walking there in Playtex jump suits would not survive long.
LikeLike
Welcome.
Did Petra drag you in to do the dirty work for her? Sweet.
Wrong assumption
The universe is made from the same stuff,
Do we have an assumption turned into a claim?
But using your words, if by “stuff” you refer to elements, I don’t dispute that.
If by “materials” you mean elements, again, I don’t dispute that.
But it is already your 3rd assumption and the second turned into a claim.
Now you have history backwards, but that’s great, because you bring on the point that is crucial.
This hypothesis of the Moon’s origin was established before the so-called moonlandings.
And then, when the Playmobil astronots finally landed on Selene’s surface, chilled in the -270 C shadow side of the LEM exit, hopped around in normal gravity, forgot to bring a geologist or soil-and-landing expert with them, but relax, take another acidic stamp and fly away with us into spaceee…., she appeared exactly how she was predicted to be!
6 times in a row.
the “moon rocks” (and all selenological samples) confirmed exactly what people though of her before landing on the thing, according to the narrative at some 350,000+ km from home. In 1969.
Why didn’t those NASA-USGS geologists become oil prospectors, mining area mappers, or just plainly play the lottery?
You understand that that is not science, yet scientism (fitting the data into a foreset conclusion)?
Nope.
1st I talked about minerals, not the highly professional terms “stuff” ot “materials” (I assume elements). Minerals are specific organizations of chemical elements and are the result of chemical processes happening around where they formed, or reformed in alteration minerals.
Bromeliads and banana trees are also “made from the same stuff”. Luckily there were people who looked and classified a bit more advanced than “stuff”.
Earth has, compared to the Moon a very different surface. We don’t need to assume anything here; we can confirm it with our own eyes.
This (geo)logically means, and if you assume an exception to this natural law, you’ll have to substantiate why your assumption is right, that the rocks and “sediment”/””” regolith””” at the surface and below it must contain new, previously unknown, because we don’t have the chemical processes that the Moon experiences here on Earth (based on the visual difference already, no assumptions).
The fact that those new unique, according to their narrative at a body bearing a 4,500,001,969 years long different chemical history than Earth, minerals were not found, or “later found [=described] on Earth”, means that either their narrative is wrong, or their model is. They cannot be both right.
No assumptions, pure logic.
LikeLike
OK, Mark, I’ll address a couple of McGowan’s points
So what? Is there anything between the moon and LEO? Why would they go half-way between the moon and earth? But more importantly, what they’ve done since the moon landings cannot contradict the evidence for the moon landings that we were presented with. Most of McGowan’s points are not related to information that serves as evidence.
Huh? Where does NASA indicate there would have been blast craters under the lunar modules? Please, please, please. Why do we have to go over the old blast crater chestnut over and over and over again.
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/spaceflight/moon-hoax/blast-crater.html
This was the full quote.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-26-sci-shuttleqanda26-story.html
“Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We’re in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low Earth orbit. We think the next step needs to be exploring the solar system, whether it’s visiting an asteroid or going to Mars. But we need to go back to the moon for practice. It will allow us to learn how to build habitats and use rovers. The moon is a good steppingstone.”
Mark, can you not see how McGowan’s points are just cheap shots? They don’t address actual evidence and simply try to make things mean things they don’t mean. “How did this happen?” “How did that happen?” The Apollo missions happened during extraordinary times and it really was a superhuman feat. What we must look at is what is shown for what happened, not pose speculative questions about this, that and the other which don’t relate to the actual evidence.
LikeLike
Nothing cheap about any of it. Lindsey’s comment could have been a slip of the tongue and quick recovery. Anyway, since we did not go to the Moon due to lack of technical know-how, I think it safe to say that we are not going to Mars either. I’ll have more to say on that as the book Dark Moon is now going into comparisons of Egyptian pyramids and Martian volcanoes. Needless to say, I am highly skeptical. I fear the authors are taking me to space aliens.
The idea that jet propulsion does not disturb dust when in a vacuum is absurd. Of course it does.
As NASA is in charge of photos, I will take their statement that there is some scorching with a huge grain of salt. We have Photoshop today. I do not seriously think that any photos taken in 1969-72 were genuine, and further suspect that many that they now claim to be taken from that time were actually taken in the mid-90s, with the advent of the Internet. The film from an alleged Moon visit would have had to withstand radiation there and on the trip to and from. The photos are very high quality.
LikeLike
No Mark, the moonlandings didn’t happen because there was a lack of technical know-how.
You should take a holistic look at the situation, just like with the invisible monsters, so much popularized today.
Something that is impossible (found out in the decades preceding the “space age”; the plane and rocket age), and always will be impossible (according to Newton’s laws, not derived in space, and the gravitationally based model they present to us), and is inaccessible to any of us to verify (only the select astronots are chosen for those amazing somersaults and lunar golf sessions), begs for faking it, especially if that ” we can fly off into space, bro” is accompanied not only by the for that purpose excellent drug LSD, but also by the diabolectical (a new one) narrative of the “Cold” War (the until Coroma biggest global psychological warfare experiment).
the moonlandings are just “1 virus” in the grander hoax of Space Travel.
believing in space travel is believing in germ theory for viruses
believing in the moonlandings and thus space travel is believing in Corona
both crazinesses that shouldn’t exist in our lives
LikeLike
Strawman fallacy: No one is saying there’s no disturbance but the landing of the LEM was very gentle and any regolith dust that was disturbed wouldn’t behave as it would on earth because of complete lack of air resistance and lower gravity.
A most compelling argument for the reality of the moon landings is the tiny amount of regolith particles seen on the landing pads of the LEM which can only be seen in high-res photos using the magnifying tool. Nothing could hug more closely the real hypothesis than this piece of evidence.
Image requiring use of magnifier to see regolith particles
Why we wouldn’t necessarily expect dust in the landing pads is explained here:
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=210.0
It speaks both:
For reality: Only small amounts of regolith particles would be expected.
Against fakery: Fakery is not normally done with such subtlety unless it’s a painting by an Old Master or somesuch and fakery most certainly isn’t done like that in a psyop where the MO is to deliberately do the fakery with obviousness.
Occam’s Razor:
For fake, the question arises: Why would you fake something that virtually no one can see?
For real, no questions arise: We expect only tiny amounts of particles and this is exactly what we see when we look carefully.
Challenge for the moonhoaxers
Name a psyop where the fakery isn’t done in an obvious manner and if you cannot name one, provide a possible reason for the fakery – assuming it is fakery – being done carefully for the moon landings while not being done carefully for any other psyop known to man.
Mark, what you betray is an inclination to judge things in a field where your knowledge is extremely limited (not saying mine is any better but I acknowledge that and behave accordingly). You cannot necessarily judge behaviour on the moon by behaviour on earth, they are two entirely different realms. When our knowledge is limited we must canvass, we must look at what those who oppose our thoughts on the matter say to see if what they say has any validity and to see if we might be misguided in our thoughts.
Even where we know a lot we should always do due diligence and do as Kary Mullis advises:
The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong.
Do you agree with Kary that we should try to prove our hypothesis wrong? If not, why not? And if you do agree what effort do you make to ensure that what you believe is correct? How do you try to prove your hypothesis wrong? You buy books supporting the hypothesis that the moon landings were faked. Have you bought any that say they were real? What debunking sites have you looked at? What videos about the moon landings have you watched that say they were real? Have you watched Moon Machines, for example?
LikeLike
I am not going to debate with you regarding whether a 33,000 object (on earth) when landing on the moon using reverse thrust (as if) does not create a huge disturbance, leaving a crater, sending dust and debris in all directions. True, the dust and debris does not behave the same with no atmosphere, but it exists. The reason I will not debate this point with you: I am not a goddamned moron.
I think if you hurl Occam at me one more time, I will myself hurl. You imply that you are offering the fewest assumptions when you require the most, the first being that we overcame all the hurdles to such a feat using untested technology. All of the signs of fakery are there, right in your face, in the photos, the impossible obstacles like radiation and flying particles and extreme temperatures and absence of reliable power sources and stupid Playtex jump suits and impossible reentry, and the most absurd idea of all, that with Apollo 8, that they just said voila! and went to the Moon, overcoming all of the problems evident in prior failed missions (most notably Apollo 6) and adding over 200,000 miles to the journey like school kids on a lark.
You do not address matters, but rather act like a native circling a fire and chanting, as if your chants overcome all reason, Occam, Occam, fraud is not obvious (when it is very much so, as if that even mattered). You say I only read books that reinforce my views. I don’t need no stinking books! I’ve only got the one, Dark Moon, and if it keeps goong in the direction I think it is, I will toss it aside with great force.
Now I am being told that the computers aboard and in Houston were very sophisticated indeed, that the technology of the time, five years in advance of pocket calculators, was indeed able to support these missions, that anyway they didn’t need any stinking computers, that just writing down rocket fuel use equates to having used that fuel for that purpose, and that the problems of radiation, which we cannot overcome now, were mastered then by simply running fast through the rain storm without getting wet.
LikeLike
You write so much better when you’re on fire.
Needless to say I like and embrace that principle, we writers share.
LikeLike
Hmmm – my parents told me as a kid (I was a kind of mush-mouth mumbler) that they could only understand me clearly when I was angry.
LikeLike
Hmm- That’s saying something, clearly what you understood what they did not understand.
LikeLike
Mark, what you must be very, very careful of is simply making assertions, you need to back up your argument. You say: “There is an assumption that all the hurdles to such a feat using untested technology were overcome,” while my response is: “You ignore the evidence that shows how the feat was achieved and you make false claims such as ‘untested technology’.”
There is detailed information on:
— The missions conducted in preparation of Apollo, Gemini and Mercury where technology was tested … and stuff even prior to those missions no doubt involved the testing of technology.
— All the machines used have detailed specifications given.
All the information required to know how astronauts got to the moon is laid bare. You need to specify what information isn’t given or argue against the information given.
If you don’t look, Mark, you won’t find.
I use Occam’s Razor perfectly reasonably.
You strawman me, Mark. I didn’t make the claim that you only read books that reinforce your views, I asked if you bought other books. But my main question is more general: have you tried to prove your hypothesis wrong?
I ask again:
Do you agree with Kary Mullis that the scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong? If not, why not?
If you do agree, what have you done to prove your hypothesis that the moon landings were faked wrong?
LikeLike
The technology was untested, that is (and I am speaking with the absurd assumption that anyone went to the Moon) the lunar lander never landed on the Moon before it did so with astronauts supposedly aboard. They could not test it, as the fuel it used destroyed the engine in the process of burning. They had to cross fingers and hope for the best. Likewise the Playtex jumpsuits were never tested in actual Moon-like environments.
Imagine the Apollo landings were real, and astronauts died up there, so that all of history would be constantly reminded of the failure, especially when the moon is full. Your philosophy, Petra, is nothing more than reliance on authority figures making absurd assertions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get you to read anything (I should stop this sentence right here) you are not predisposed to agree with, but I will flail away again:
Just one argument among many you’ve not addressed. The Saturn V rocket used for Apollo 11 was severely under-powered.
Since you’re now dabbling in logical fallacies, try argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone, that is, to dismiss an argument as absurd without actually addressing it. You might lay that one on me, but fer chrissakes, me and others have addressed your arguments ad nauseam and found them absurd, while you have merely dismissed based on flimsy arguments like Occam, Occam, and I think one time … you used Occam. Strawman is asserted without evidence. Your rebuttal to absence of a crater and dust on landing was absurd. You’ve yet to address most of McGowan, spook that he be, as he was a LH.
“¡Ay, caramba!”
LikeLike
The first landing on the moon was a successful test, that was the nature of the beast. The first landing was a test. But the fact that the first landing was a test (and a successful test) doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. That’s an absurd notion. Obviously, they simulated whatever they could before the actual landing. The vehicle they tested on earth was obviously not a very simulatory test as the conditions are so different but they did what they could. While the first landing was a test to say the technology was untested is a slightly different thing.
Please explain, Mark, what’s wrong with the explanation below and please explain exactly why there should have been a crater and a lots of dust on the landing pads. What pressures were involved that would have created a crater?
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-to-argue-with-a-moon-landing-denier/
The Lunar Module did actually kick up a large amount of dust in the final moments before touchdown.
“Buzz Aldrin even comments on it during the Apollo 11 landing, and you can see it in the descent footage,” says Plait. But with no atmosphere to hold the dust in suspension, it fell straight back to the lunar surface – hence no cloud.
There’s also no blast crater because, in a vacuum, the normally narrow exhaust jet from a rocket engine quickly fans out into a wide cone shape. This causes the pressure in the exhaust to drop, greatly reducing its impact on the ground below.
The Lunar Module used a single rocket engine to slow its descent to around one metre per second (walking speed), before gently touching down on the Moon’s surface.
LikeLike
Petra, seriously, what’s wrong with you?
The moon landings saga still holds the prize for the most stupid, silly, preposterous, shameless, in your face, charade in the whole history of the psyops, and you can rest assured that’s a heck of an achievement. It raised the challenge to the human gullibility limit to levels never before even dreamt of, let alone attempted.
Ok, technical intricacies are not your cup of tea, never mind, but, for heavensake, they showed you fluttering flags, duct-taped cardboard contraptions, mismatched bootprints, beer cans half buried in the sand, ops I mean, regolith. What other insane lunacies could have they devised to get you smell the rat? Maybe footage of the astro-nuts playing golf and frolicking around in a disguised WWII Willy Jeep that looked like a frickin’ prop borrowed from an Ed Wood’s movie set? Wait, or did they do that too?
Petra, let’s try this, now I’ll count to three and when I snap my fingers the spell is broken and you’re back to reality.
One, two, three, SNAP!
LikeLike
Not to mention the gold foil on the lunar module’s legs that Petra Lightyear posted herself! George Melies’ ‘A trip to the moon’ is more likely…
LikeLike
They didn’t show fluttering flags, they showed a flag that moved after an astronaut wrestled it into the ground … and exactly in accordance with the lack of air resistance the flag kept moving for longer than it would have on earth. Seriously, fluttering flags? You seriously are at that level still, AK? Fluttering flags?
Duct-taped cardboard contraptions? Seriously, you’re at the same level as my sister. I cannot believe that people put this up as an argument. It is so very, very embarrassing. If you cover a Ferrari with an anti-dust cover that doesn’t make it a pile of crap, does it? The duct-tape was just for the cover of the mean machine underneath which only ever moved in a vacuum in any case.
Mismatched bootprints? You’re just picking out tiny anomalies that no doubt have some explanation. What you’re not getting is the overall consistency between the artefactual evidence and the unique lunar conditions. That is what you simply do not get.
LikeLike
You showing up here as the smartass is priceless.
LikeLike
I love the way your guy, Parsons (same guy from Big Bang Theory by chance?) calls us now “deniers” and “conspiracy theorists.” We’ve done quite a bit here on that meme, which I call “thought stopping.” In fact, I have on hand here the original CIA memo (circa 1968) wherein the expression “conspiracy theory”, while not coined in the memo, was suggested (instructed?) to be used against people who did not believe the Warren Commission. It barely appears in print prior to that memo, and ever since and today is used by every crackpot who wants to claim authority status by ridiculing skepticism. And the word “crackpot,” which I am using deliberately in response to his mindless finger-poking, is used with even more intensity since his two sources used, Phil Plait and MythBusters, were pretty easily demolished by McGowan, whom you’ve never read I am sure now.
Anyway, its all repetitive, laced with put-down language, and is nothing more than an appeal to authority wrapped in ridicule. Try reading McGowan, and also my link below – that is the closest I have come to physical proof that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon – it was severely under-powered. Anyway, you’ve got really bad case of confirmation bias.
LikeLike
I will get back to your post but first I wish to get an answer from you, Mark, so I will make this comment just that question and nothing else.
Do you agree that we should all act (scientist and non-scientist alike) in accordance with Kary Mullis’s statement:
The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong?
LikeLike
Do you really think you’ve stumbled upon anything new? Of course, the nature of science is to disprove more than to prove. Yes, we are far away from that in the postwar era.
Here is an hypothesis for you: Your statement, “I will get back to your post …” is a deflection. You will not. Too much of your verbiage is avoidance. You got nuthin’.
LikeLike
A general response about science isn’t what I’m looking for. What I’m looking for is the response that we – each of us as individuals – needs to ensure that there isn’t anything out there that contradicts the hypothesis we personally support. I believe I try to do that pretty well but I don’t think moon hoaxers in general do that.
We’ve been through this before, Mark. It seems Phil Pollacia’s film was slowed down after the 4m minute mark.
Now you might argue it wasn’t as some people in the comments do – there’s a lot of toing and froing about whether the film was slowed down or not … and you see that is why I avoid that kind of argument. I’m no expert on video so I don’t go there if there’s lots of people arguing about it. I look at things that are not debatable.
LikeLike
No evidence to support you, but so very convenient on your part just to jump on comments to that effect. The scientists, Popov and Bulatov, were aware of the necessity to measure film footage and went to great lengths to examine the it and measure the speed of the film, and found it in agreement With NASA footage using the supporting structure for the rocket as a guide at liftoff. No slow down. These men were neither stupid nor foolish. That was a large part of their expose’. Your confirmation bias allows you to say they slowed it down, and then to back away from it saying that technical stuff is not your thing. That is an impossible argument to overcome, as you lock yourself in a closet and say “Can’t touch me here.” You are perfectly capable of confronting the evidence, but do not, as each time the evidence fails to support you, you lock the closet door.
Apparently NASA is everywhere, “debunking” everything, using flawed arguments, and in this case, just plain lying to overcome the massive body of accumulated evidence of hoaxing. You jump on the NASA bandwagon, blindly following authority and overlooking real evidence.
Never a straight answer from you either, right?
LikeLike
Mark, all the artefactual evidence: the photos, video and audio are self-consistent and consistent with the unique lunar conditions so I 100% believe that astronauts went to the moon. It would take something utterly extraordinary for me to change my mind. When I see argument about whether a video has been slowed down I go with the slow-down argument, I’m not going to put any effort whatsoever into trying to determine whether a video has been slowed down if there’s suggestion it was.
You don’t concern yourself with how the explosives were laid for WTC-7’s collapse, do you? If someone told you that it wouldn’t have been possible for them to be laid with sufficient secrecy or presented any argument to you whatsoever that said explosives couldn’t have been laid or demanded that you tell them how they were laid in order to prove WTC-7’s collapse was by controlled demolition, you would dismiss their argument because the showcased collapse is far too obviously CD and no seeming evidence or argument for explosives not being able to be laid can work on you. That is how I feel about the moon landings. The artefactual evidence for the moon landings is much too compelling. All the argument I see from the moon hoaxers is that this, that or the other is impossible … and I don’t believe them, I don’t believe they know enough about space science and the artefactual evidence is simply too compelling.
LikeLike
That is repetitive nonsense. You once again locked yourself in the closet. You could avail yourself of the evidence I presented that the two scientist involved, before drawing any conclusions, compared to film speed with NASA official footage. They were identical. Most likely at the six minute video you presented, NASA either got there first and slowed down the video at four minutes, well within their Technical ability and well in alignment with their absence of morals, as I know three things about them: they lie, they lie, they lie.
Or it could be they assigned one of their basement dwellers to go to the video make the four minute comment to simply create doubt. That’s how they roll.
You have once again live down to expectations.
LikeLike
“Mark, all the artefactual evidence: the photos, video and audio are self-consistent and consistent with the unique lunar conditions so I 100% believe that astronauts went to the moon.”
That is a false and sweeping generalization. You have been confronted with so much contrary evidence that I cannot simply set you aside as deluded, stubborn and ignorant. You are well into the realm of just plain lying.
LikeLike
So in order to nullify this absolute claim, I presume you know what the word “all” means; “the whole of it”, “the entire show”, just 1 single inconsistent piece needs to exist.
stop it Petra. No word salad with fallacy sauce is gonna save you.
LikeLike
The nature of reality, wouldn’t you agree, Gaia, is that ALL the evidence without exception, every single skerrick, ultimately will support at least if not favour the correct hypothesis. That is the nature of reality. So if astronauts didn’t land on the moon every single skerrick of evidence will support that hypothesis and if they did land likewise. There is no 60/40 or even 99/1. Every single skerrick ultimately must support the correct hypothesis, that is the nature of reality. Any seeming anomaly will be explainable.
So yes not a single piece of evidence will be inconsistent with the real moon landings hypothesis if that is the correct one and vice versa. And I haven’t seen a single skerrick inconsistent, I’ve seen lots of claims that this that and the other is impossible and I’ve seen objections to what we’re shown not reflecting expected reality but I don’t agree with those claims. All the artefactual evidence I’ve looked at is 100% both self-consistent and 100% consistent with the unique lunar conditions as they’re agreed to be. All the debunking of the moon hoax claims stand up in my opinion and what I DON’T see from the moon hoaxers is much argument at all with the debunking claims. I don’t see evidence among the moon hoaxers of Kary Mullis’s, “The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong.”
LikeLike
Answer 2
Apologies, Gaia, I answered your post from my email and missed that there was a photo. So my assumption is that you believe this photo makes no sense in reality. I looked it up and see it comes from Day 8 of the Apollo 15 mission and we see it towards the bottom of this page with the caption:
“The ascent stage LM Falcon photographed from the CSM’s window 5 during station keeping. In the foreground is the EVA light – Image by NASA/Johnson Space Center.”
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/17rndz_dock.html
So what should we see from the CSM window rather than what’s shown? No idea what the EVA light is. Perhaps you can elucidate, Gaia, on what at least the EVA light is SUPPOSED to be.
LikeLike
“Mark, all the artefactual evidence: the photos, video and audio are self-consistent and consistent with the unique lunar conditions so I 100% believe that astronauts went to the moon.”
1- You have pointed out several times that the moonhoaxers cannot claim to know a priori what the lunar conditions are. I suppose the same applies to you too, thus the consistency with the lunar conditions is an invalid point as per your own reasoning.
2 – You’re plainly stating that your 100% certainty about the reality of the moon landings rests only on artefactual evidence.
Again, according to you “it could have been faked” is no evidence that it was actually faked. Fair enough, but by the same token, until you can prove beyond doubts that “it couldn’t have been faked”, all the artefactual stuff in the world, per se, cannot be nowhere near to compelling evidence of anything.
At best, according to your own reasoning, it all should remain for you an open question until further notice. Can you prove the “artefactual evidence” couldn’t have been faked? I very much doubt it.
My take is that to be consistent with your logical premises you’d have to lower your certainty in the vicinity of a much less impressive 50%.
At this point it should be abundantly clear also to you that we don’t even need to bomb your certainty castle, as it’s thunderously collapsing solely under the weight of your own premises.
But the real question here is: are you willing to follow your own premises wherever they lead you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
-1– What I’ve said is that no one disputes what the lunar conditions are agreed to be so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary they should be accepted as stated. If you want to say they’re not as stated shouldn’t you do the research to say why they’re not?
Occam’s Razor:
Conditions as stated with no contradiction.
Artefactual evidence matches agreed-upon conditions perfectly.
OR favours real
Seriously, AK, do you think they’d make up conditions so vastly different from terrestrial conditions and so difficult to fake on earth? Why on earth would they do that? That makes no sense.
-2 — Yes, the proof rests purely on the artefactual evidence as long as there is no clear evidence that says they were impossible, for example, rockets can’t travel through space or that the unique lunar conditions aren’t as agreed. Without any clear evidence saying that they couldn’t have happened or the lunar conditions aren’t as stated, the artefactual evidence is sufficient. The same applies to WTC-7. We have no need whatsoever to look at the design of the building or when, how and where the explosives were laid, what the explosives were, what substances were found in the dust or anything else other than the visual artefact – showcased spectacularly to us – of its graceful collapse. The MANNER of collapse tells us all. Similarly, as the massive body of artefactual evidence matches perfectly the agreed-upon unique lunar conditions that is all we need … in the absence of evidence that clearly contradicts their possibility or that the lunar conditions aren’t as stated.
I’ve also done due diligence though and checked the hoax/debunk of hoax arguments and the debunk of hoax arguments win every time.
What moon hoaxers gloss over so easily:
-1– If the moon landings were a psyop, their MO is vastly different from the very strict MO we see applied to every other psyop known to man, namely sloppy fakery, in-your-faceness.
-2– The subtle nuances in the evidence: tiny amounts of regolith particles in the mylar wrinkles of the landing pads, the faintest of radial exhaust patterns underneath the LEM which speak so loudly both as matching expectations and against fakery.
-3– ZERO space scientists saying they didn’t happen. For 9/11 and covid although the number of experts speaking against the narrative is small (and, of course, some are controlled opposition) there are, at least, a few experts speaking out. Michael Palmer, a chemistry professor, whose book on the fakery of Hiroshima I’m all admiration for, speaks against the reality of the moon landings but he’s hardly a space scientist and his whole focus is on the radiation which is an abstruse area.
In his latest comment Mark says that I ignore evidence presented to me. I say it’s not evidence, it’s opinion.
AK, You expressed your common sense notion that astronauts wouldn’t move as shown but you didn’t answer my question to explain how they should move according to Newton’s Laws of Motion. Can you do that?
While Mark claims that it’s absurd to presume there wouldn’t have been a crater under the LEM when I asked him to explain the pressures involved that would have created a crater he didn’t respond. But these guys explain what went down when the LEM landed in great detail including some figures on thrust, etc. Why would I believe Mark’s “common sense” opinion that there would have a blast crater with virtually zero elucidation of that opinion when these guys present a far more detailed response evincing much greater knowledge on the subject?
How is what Mark puts forward “evidence” while what these guys put forward not evidence?
https://www.quora.com/Why-didn%E2%80%99t-the-Apollo-11-spaceship-make-a-big-crater-when-it-landed
LikeLike
What you might regard as evidence, Mark, but I don’t. What you regard as evidence I regard as opinion based on little knowledge. I asked you for what pressures you thought would cause a crater under the LEM and you didn’t respond to my question.
This person responds in quite a lot of detail.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module
“The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.
Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.”
Are you in a position to dispute any of the above?
There is a mass of artefactual evidence in the form of photos, video and audio and all of it is both 100% self-consistent and consistent with the unique lunar conditions as we understand them to be (if you wish to dispute those unique lunar conditions you need to say why they’re not what they say they are).
That is the evidence I respect not claims from people saying this or that is impossible. The evidence proves that the necessary to be done was done. You don’t pay the slightest attention to the likes of Michael Shermer saying they wouldn’t have been able to lay the explosives for WTC-7 because we know they were laid whichever way (a trivial matter in the scheme of things) because WTC-7’s collapse was clearly CD. It was done. Whatever was needed to be done to go to the moon was done because the artefactual evidence says so.
LikeLike
You are checking off the boxes, Petra. This fallacy is as follows:
In fact, you have hit on a large reason why so many people (70% of Americans, 50% worldwide) believe the Moon landings to be real. They trust authority figures to know what they are doing. I sure and the hell did in the beginning, but learned as life went on that authority figures often rely on this trust, as it makes it easier for them to lie. And lie they do.
For instance, if people trusted themselves to dive into complicated material and try, at least, to make sense of it, they would not be so easily fooled as they are. But people jump back from complicated reading (or just drop the word “complicated” from that sentence) and do the lazy thing, trust authority figures. They rely on news too. Thus belief in AIDS, Covid, Building Seven, Columbine, Jonestown, and the moon landings. To name but a few hoaxes.
Regarding your Quora guy, my reaction is just to step back. I am not afraid of his words, but offer this as a non-rocket scientist: It is one of many, many problems with the tall tale of the Moon landings. In fact, I listed fifty things, which you’ve yet to read. What scares you?
Given the compendium of strong evidence of a hoax, you can take his fancy thrust about thrust and all of that, and at the same time count angels on the head of a pin. Same result, nothing we can see or know for sure, something we have to naively trust that the experts get right. I do not. I do not trust “experts” (though there are many who are real, but not at NASA). It is a far better way to go through life. Make them put up. Hold them accountable. Do not take their word. They could (gasp!) be lying.
LikeLike
I do not accept that my putting forward my explanation is an appeal to ignorance. I don’t claim that the claim must be true, do I? I ask if you’re in a position to dispute it. The thing is all you have to offer as the opposing argument is “there should be a blast crater under the LEM something about jet stream.” How is your argument superior?
I say that no one is disputing the explanation in an authoritative way and it seems OK to me so in the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept it as true. In addition, what we see is the faintest radial exhaust pattern underneath the LEM which to me has the kind of subtlety expected from reality not from fakery. And then there are all the other things that support reality in my opinion.
Mark, you know I don’t trust authority figures. While I’ve learnt so much from other analysts – an absolutely huge amount – I myself have worked out a few psyops myself, not that that requires any great skill because the MO is so clear … but despite a clear MO I’ve worked out psyops others haven’t or if they have I worked them out independently, eg, post-9/11 anthrax attacks fakery, fakery of Collateral Murder, 1980 Bologna Station complete psyop not “false flag”, fake 1947 Massacre at Portella della Ginestra, Sicily, 1993 Battle of Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down), 1984 La Penca bombing which Daniel Sheehan, one of the lawyers involved in the bogus 9/11 Lawyers’ Committee was involved in, and a couple of others including, of course, good old Billy Kaysing that no moon hoaxer worked out.
I’m with you guys on virtually all the psyops just not the moon landings so if I’m wrong it’s not because I’m a believer, I’m totally not, it’s because I respect the purported evidence. I think the evidence is real, not faked … and I think it’s fair to say I’ve spent hours looking at evidence which I’ve concluded was faked.
LikeLike
When I mentioned the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu psyop in my comment above I thought I ‘d check out what I’d written as I had no recollection what prompted me to look at that event. I see it was prompted by a comment saying that Madeline Albright was a dual Israeli/US national. When I checked her Wikipedia entry it indicated she wasn’t but what it said about her role in denying Boutros Boutros-Ghali a second term as UN Secretary-General intrigued me and I ended up looking at the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu which was so obviously a complete psyop. It seems Albright blamed Rwanda on BBG and that was why he was scapegoated with the BoM psyop. Supposedly, BBG approved a secret $26 million arms sale to the government of Rwanda in 1990 when he was Egyptian Foreign Minister, the weapons stockpiled by the Hutu regime as part of the fairly public, long-term preparations for the subsequent genocide. I wonder if that was true.
While I can recognise psyops, that recognition unfortunately occurs in a vacuum of political knowledge which limits my understanding. If anyone is interested in the events around that time including what happened in Rwanda I’d appreciate any comments. I remember reading an article stating that the CIA was completely behind what happened in Rwanda and no doubt this is true but I wonder if BBG was scapegoated completely unfairly or if he too can be considered culpable.
LikeLike
If you want to see my page on the Battle of Mogadishu psyop it’s:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/battle-of-mogadishu-1993.html
LikeLike
OK, I hadn’t thought of that, I only came across the idea in the article I linked to. I’m glad though you’re aware of the problem of everyone thinking alike. Obviously, there is disagreement among you about the moon landings but you’re all onboard with it being a hoax except me and Danny and perhaps a couple of others who don’t say much I’m not sure.
Anyway, if nothing else, the constant argument has helped refine my thoughts and I thank you all for that. And I also thank you, Mark, for your blog which allows everyone to say what they want, I really, really thank you for that because I know of no other and it’s wonderful to have a forum where people can say what they want without fear of censorship.
LikeLike
I used to follow all that stuff closely, in the 90s, thinking it was all real. $26 million in arms now looks like a spook marker to me, as the number 8 plays large for them, don’t know why. They are superstitious.
LikeLike
Petra, and others: If you want to comment further, would one of you please go to the very bottom and start a new conversation. This one is ingrown and hard to follow. Nesting stops at five comment replies here. I would change that if I could.
LikeLike
My gut tells me Petra’s a spook.
LikeLike
Phil Plait (Bad Astrology) is a spook. He’s never come to this blog. He does not know we exist. He’s paid to misdirect, lie, mislead. Someone like Petra, no, not like that at all. The machine that supports NASA does not reach down so far as us. When they get to 90% they have achieved their purpose.
LikeLike
Who pays all of these people to misdirect, lie, and mislead?
I poke around at a discussion board about a certain hard rock band, and even there you can’t get away from the propaganda. Threads about the band members publicly expressing contempt for jab-refusers, with commenters cheering them on. Fans nastily badgering other fans with mainstream talking points. Anyone who disagrees is labeled a conspiracy theorist and mocked with sarcastic emoticons. It’s unbelievable. You can’t even go try to share thoughts about your favorite old albums without being inundated with name-calling and shaming.
Have paid operatives infiltrated literally everything?!
Again, who’s paying these people??
LikeLike
LikeLike
We the taxpayers pay for it. Congress approves it. Check out The Strategic Competition Act of 2021 for example and the billions of dollars approved for just media influence. They did the same with Covid, Moon landings, etc…
LikeLike
Spill the beans, which rock band? Who are these pezzi de merda?
LikeLike
Hilarious! Nope, I’m just a pathetic soul who wastes way, way too much time arguing with people on both sides of the conspiracy fence and who has turned into a complete bore in the process.
LikeLike
We are all ups and downs, and this sounds like the latter. Cheer up. You’ve brought a lot of lively debate to this place. Who was it said that “if we all think alike, then no one is thinking”? It is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but you never know really where this stuff comes from. Even my Lincoln quote from the blog header, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled,” is uncertain though I think true. I had to add the word “attributed.” I’ve tried to replace it with better things, but WordPress won’t let me do that. I am stuck with it. This blog is, like me, is showing its age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gee, was it really Lincoln that said that (attributed)?
LikeLike
As Mark says he’s showing his age :). At the top he attributes the quote to Mark Twain and if it wasn’t him it certainly sounds like him. I think it’s a great quote. I have it on my website too.
The “all think alike” quote is from Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner:
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
I learnt this quote in the great article exposing the pandemic fraud:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I first encountered this problem of attribution to Dorothy Parker, said to have reviewed a book and wrote that it should not be set aside lightly but rather thrown with great force. People who study such things found it not to be original with her. Others have expressed the same sentiment. It is like a cottage industry, nice ideas floated and landing on public figures who, historically, absorb them posthumously. Ergo, “attributed.”
LikeLike
I was aware that Lippman said something similar. But most pithy quotes can be traced to others if you follow the work of those who do the sweat lodge stuff on them. Lippman may have said what he did and may have been, knowingly or not, repeating the words of someone else. I am not sure it matters, at it is the content, and not the person to whom it is attributed that matters.
This is from your blog, the ‘about’ page:
I will link to your blog today or tomorrow, as you are doing good work. I think a little self awareness concerning the Sagan quote and the moon landings is in order, however.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Petra, or rather one of your Snoopey character site members, a few new questions to keep your brains busy:
1 – how did the astronots manage to reheat their survival compartment, after they were done bunnyhopping at their “lunar excursions”?
**2 – without an airlock, there was no space for this crucial and never left out safety feature in the Playmobil thingy, and the exit towards the shadow side (famous Apollo 11 exit by someone first, then Neil, and then Buzz with his drunk head), all the electronics and everything inside that cockpit instantly freezes to -270 C/ 3 K, the claimed temperature of space.
How did all those tubes, electronics, screens, straps, and all materials survive this instant dry-freeze treatment? And why don’t we have that tech on Earth now?
Materials that can survive temperature hits of that magnitude, that would be awesomely useful. If it were real.**
**3 – why don’t they drop 6 robot vehicles on the Moon, in the vicinity of the 6 landing sites?
The remaining landers, mirrors and 3 buggies should be the most unique and easy to study objects to understand what 50 years of radiation and exposure to the uniqur environment of a foreign body does to the various materials (like paper maché) used to get those damn things there.
Don’t you think that would be wildly important engineering and material scientific knowledge?**
Ah no, NASA’s magic Disney materials, “some of which still have to be invented” ROFL – Johnny Fitzgerald – can and will withstand any unknown challenge with ease, cause “we CHOOSE to go to the Moon…”
Eh no, Johnny, it is not that island you spent Christmas ’63, you could choose your own “death”, but in order to get somewhere in life, if you’re not born with a golden shower spoon, como usted, you have to overcome physical and chemical challenges to get somewhere.
You cannot choose to stand on top of Mt. Everest. Or Mt. Tonga, Gaia’s rage atm apparently…
Curious to see what the space shills come up with.
I have debated those clowns such a long time ago, literally 3 lives….
LikeLike
For all the “LUNAR-Tics” still tripping out on the moon landings, I met a few space cowboys back in the woodstock- era who swear they were there too. There was no reason to doubt them…They are free to let their “Freak-Flags-Fly”….Even if it “never Waved”.
LikeLike
We used to call people with their heads in the clouds as ‘Space Cadets’ when I was at college – petrafied of life.
LikeLike
“petrafied”, beautiful
once I have writing access again I add it (and many more new ones) to the list, see how I also have included the Newspeak by others:
https://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=Category:Newspeak
LikeLike
I do not think, Gaia, that NASA (or SpaceX) has the ability to drop robot vehicles on the moon or Mars or anywhere. We are told both the US and Soviets did so back in the 60s, but more and more I am thinking that the apex of their technology was to orbit and photograph the moon, unmanned, of course. McGowan makes this point, that NASA captured more images from crashing rockets into the moon than from orbiting vehicles. He suggested that the footage from orbiters was later used in the fake Apollo missions, which is why they kept it from public view at the time.
McGowan, the spook, I must add. Interesting man. Would love to meet him.
LikeLike