I would not be doing this were it not so much fun reading McGowan. He does have a nice sense of humor. I originally did this in reaction to Petra’s challenge, to find one scrap of evidence in McGowan’s 14 essays that in any way gives strength to the argument that we never went to the moon. Petra, if she can be believed this time, has now bailed. After one presentation!
Somewhere, in one of my moon essays, I showed photos of the supposed moon buggy used by the astronauts compared to a Willies Jeep. The guy did good work, getting hold of actual dimensions and then overlaying them over a buggy.
I thought I had written a post about this matter, but no luck finding it. I did search for the words “willies jeep” in our archives, and found that phrase was used in this post, in which I described every one of the 14 McGowan essays, so that the work I intended to do here was already done! The clip show is over – just go to the link.
It has been quite a while since I have had this much fun blogging, between the “debunking” piece that Petra brought us, which generated nearly 200 comments, and the current debate going on in the post below this one concerning the possibility of space travel.
My next goal is to do a podcast, and then some interviews in that format. For now, I am still stuck in1960s style printed word. I do like to write, but also have presence and decent looks and an expressive face, so I want to give it a go. I’ve asked for help on the matter, but drew zilch, so I am on my own. WordPress offers a course on podcasting, so there I go next, I guess.
Piece of Mindful 
I think it was Nathan Stolpman – “Lift the Veil” – who dug into the dimensions of the absurd moon buggy. Where did HE go to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found his name and website, but he is all about politics and politicians, apparently thinks Ukraine War is for real.
LikeLike
The Lunar Rover Is NOT A Willys Jeep
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egrrZN8_v6M”
The Apollo Lunar Rover – Still NOT a “Willy’s Jeep” (very annoying music – I’d turn it off)
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXG3Df3X5VQ”
LikeLike
So it’s not a Willys Jeep, but they still “got it up there” whatever it is/was. ROFL
LikeLike
Speaking of which, McGowan wrote about flybys in the past years. NASA claims now and then that they have photographed debris from the missions, but the photos were extremely unconvincing. You would think that something as big as a rover would turn up.
LikeLike
They could have assembled it up there – without the tapes we’ll never know..
LikeLike
I am of the view that the tapes did not exist, so they had to make up a bullshit story about how they went away. It seems obvious to me..
LikeLike
Dead men tell no tales.
LikeLike
the orbital angle…
How did Russian cosmonauts know where they were?
LikeLiked by 1 person
My gosh. Why even looking at this, there is an explanation for everything, of course the car is waterproof. The game goes: Have shills questioning it, saying it couldn’t fit, etc. There’s even a vintage clip showing how it’s unfolded out of the ship by pulling long straps. So the nay sayers are ridiculed. And no, the army Jeep didn’t fold like that! A Jeep is designed for humans to drive off-road, of course the dimensions will be quiet similar. Even if these are exactly the same, it would prove nothing. For me, the elephant in the room is the overall history of the program. It was just too fast. Multiple unmanned tests are considered a necessity for technology like that, but they got away without, allegedly. A1 – all dead. The rest a story of success, like winning all the time at the casino table.
LikeLike
Even as I first got into moon stuff years ago, I thought that sending untested technology 234,000 miles away to be used the first time, human lives at stake, made no sense. It could not have happened that way. I spent too much time looking at photographs, but slowly realized that people do not see with their own eyes, but rather with the eyes of authority figures. The black sky made no sense – I know they said the Hasselblads had to be set that way to limit the light coming in, but you would think with six missions one of them would have opened up the camera to take a look at what must be a magnificent sky. One of the astronauts even said at a press conference that the sky really was black. Then the disappearance of tapes and film footage … c’mon guys. Not all of us are that stupid. Just most of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure why you think black sky makes no sense – because you think stars should be shown or the sky shouldn’t be black in lunar daytime? If the latter, curious to know why, if the former:
https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars
It’s interesting how those at extreme ends of the spectrum use the same kind of logically fallacious argument – argument from incredulity.
People who have no understanding of psyops think that the notion they’ve faked a pandemic without a virus is batshit crazy while those who think we went to the moon with seemingly not enough time to do the necessary to get there use a similar argument.
Evidence is king and the evidence is 100% consistent with the unique lunar conditions and says loud and clear we went to the moon just as loudly and clearly as it says the alleged pandemic is a complete fake … and so very many other things.
LikeLike
You know what bugs me, Petra? A lot of things, but this: When you brought that “debunker” to us who ridiculed skeptics and claimed that the fuel problem was solved because the missiles were in stages, you ate that up uncritically, just bought in. You have no clue how much fuel it would take to get anything to the moon and back, but you call it “evidence”!
You have no clue as to the dimensions of the lunar rover. Once again, you just blindly bought in.
That”s called confirmation bias. You have a bad case. You need to be skeptical about all sides in this debate, as I am. Just because I read McGowan and Dark Moon does not mean I buy into all their work, especially the Dark Moon people with their pyramids on Mars. With McGowan I only brought up two of his issues from the first essay because I did not feel comfortable defending the rest. I am not comfortable with either side in the space travel debate, but you obviously think space travel is possible because you believe they went to the moon. Why? Have you thought about the (im)possibilities?
I think everything you write is derivative, and not well thought out. And again, I am not convinced you ever read DM.
LikeLike
Black sky makes no sense because the Moon has no atmosphere. It has to be a light show up there, but we’ll never know.
LikeLike
Part I
According to scientists, the lack of atmosphere is precisely why there’s a black sky.
https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2000Oct.cfm
I’d imagine that as for any celestial body the light reflects off the surface but the intensity of the reflected light fades as distance increases.
What you demonstrate, Mark, is that you don’t consult the refuting information. If you want to argue that there shouldn’t be a black sky with any credibility you need to put forward the scientific argument for there being a black sky and argue against it not just put forward “this is what I think” type arguments.
I said I wasn’t going to argue any more and I’m really going to try to avoid that although I might put in a link or two where a claim is made that I think is refuted. Without having a clue about fuel requirements (who does outside space geeks?) which is not in the least necessary, critical analysis shows that Sensible Site guy has given a perfectly sound refutation of WTM … and Scott obviously agrees with this assessment. I’d be curious to know what others on this site think about SS guy’s refutation and I put forward the hypothesis that if most reject it there’s a kind of groupthink going on here.
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
In two parts, SS guy also refutes American Moon which goes into far more scientific detail and I invite all those who consider themselves critical thinkers to read these refutations carefully. As stated by Kary Mullis, scientists – and we can expand this to critical thinkers generally – aim to prove their hypothesis wrong. By definition that means immersing oneself in the literature supporting any competing hypotheses to really come to grips with the material. So it’s true I’m clueless about many things but what I always do is follow the refutation trail as far as I can and I think when you do that regardless of how good your scientific understanding is generally you’ll be more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/eqfeqs/debunking_american_moon”
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/i1rkbp/debunking_american_moon_part_2”
LikeLike
That was rich, claiming to be a critical thinker claiming to read all material that attempts to refute what you believe. As I have said from the beginning, you did not even read McGowan. My evidence is this: You don’t know anything about what he wrote. You parade out professional debunkers, clueless as to their real job, so say anything that sounds believable to keep the hoax alive. There are people out there similarly spinning 911, JFK, the Beatles, Jonestown, Climate Change … Official truth is the only truth, and any who are skeptical are shut down. That is how it is done, how it has always been done. These people have immense resources and power, and can make any claim stick by use of hired apparatchiks.
Regarding starlight on the moon, do you imagine NASA would hire a debunker that would claim that light indeed cascades the lunar surface day and night. These debunkers are paid professional liars playing a confidence game. I link you to nothing but my own brain tells me … where there is no atmosphere, light is blinding. We do not see stars in the day here because of our luscious rich atmosphere. On the moon, nothing deflects light.
You can quit any time. I am done, fed up with you, not impressed, wondering why you persist?
LikeLike
“As I have said from the beginning, you did not even read McGowan.”
Our senses of logic are too different to argue and I should have dropped out as I said I would. In fact, I will, however, just to say this:
Logically, neither you nor I nor need to have a clue about how much fuel was required to go to the moon to appreciate SS guy’s refutation of what WTM says about fuel.
Logically, I don’t need to have read WTM to appreciate SS guy’s refutation assuming he’s not misquoting from WTM. SS guy puts forward what is in WTM and then refutes it, that is the only requirement to appreciate his argument, one doesn’t have to have read it oneself although as I say I read it back in 2014-15 and have zero recollection of it so – as good as not having read it … but at the same time not required to appreciate an argument that refutes it as WTM’s words are quoted in the refutation.
We simply cannot agree on logical argument and there is no point in going further. As I said – this time for absolute good – I will drop out of argument and simply read posts and make the odd comment that doesn’t involve continuous argument.
LikeLike
Thank you! You make very little sense.
I was raised Catholic, and we all had bibles in our homes, though no one read them. Are you Catholic by chance?
Saying you read an author but cannot remember anything he wrote is exactly the same as saying “I did not read him.”
Case closed, and good bye.
LikeLike
I most certainly was not raised Catholic as my Italian father knew the church was complete hypocritical BS from a very early age and when he died my mother took over – she became fanatical about how bad the Catholic church is and even wrote a book about Sicily (Sicily, a captive land) that’s a bit of a rant about how bad the Church/State collaboration is in that region.
Yes, I know it’s the same thing, Mark, but the point you fail to grasp is that one doesn’t need to have read a book necessarily to know that it’s complete BS.
— SS site guy cites a reasonable amount of it and refutes it resoundingly.
— I dipped into it myself and found a big lie in “frigid lunar night” and a lot of waffly text that didn’t prove anything.
— You still haven’t provided a single instance of anything convincing from the book.
— I predicted before even looking at him that Bill Kaysing was an agent whose purpose was to mislead those skeptical of the authorities and nothing could fit better than Dave McGowan also is. My claim that WTM is a work of propaganda from start to finish has still not been shown to be incorrect by you or anyone else after days of argument.
As I say, our sense of logic doesn’t not agree at all and we need to leave it there.
LikeLike
Part II
The other thing I think critical thinkers need to do is focus on the irrefutable facts in the first instance. The irrefutable facts are that all the evidence presented to us 100% conforms to the unique lunar conditions so according to that criterion what we believe about what’s possible and what isn’t, etc should be put low down in the hierarchy of what guides our thinking.
It’s understandable that people who have no clue about psyops do not accept the pandemic’s a fake, isn’t it, because they have no context … but the irrefutable facts clearly say it is a fake … however they don’t look at them. What we need to allow is that if we really don’t know much about going to the moon, we have little knowledge of the Gemini and Mercury programs prior to Apollo and we really haven’t done a whole lot of research then what we think possible and not possible is really quite meaningless. We need to focus on the evidence. I know I know very, very little about going to the moon but what I do know is that all the evidence presented conforms with the unique lunar conditions and conforms in a way in some cases especially that is entirely unexpected from fakery and I believe that is more than sufficient.
LikeLike
You know nothing of the unique lunar conditions, so the baseline for your opinions is a house of cards. Just on the matter of light, it is easy to understand that the place would be flooded with starlight in day and night conditions. It is also easy to surmise that NASA had a problem in that 1960s technology could not recreate the stars and constellations in a warehouse in such a way that they moved in harmony as the moon and earth moved so that even amateur star gazers, and there are many, could detect fraud. So NASA instructed apparatchiks to devise bullshit excuses for the absence of starlight, and presence of black skies. You bought in.
LikeLike
“You know nothing of the unique lunar conditions, so the baseline for your opinions is a house of cards. Just on the matter of light, it is easy to understand that the place would be flooded with starlight in day and night conditions.”
Indeed, the moon was flooded with starlight, the star that is the sun and we see it clearly reflected on the surface.
I don’t know through my own scientific understanding the unique conditions on the moon, you’re very correct there, Mark, but if you think you do know what they are through your own scientific understanding I guess that is your prerogative.
I believe the authorities – or whoever – when I feel have no reason to doubt and as I don’t know a reason to doubt the unique lunar conditions as stated and as the evidence perfectly accords with those conditions, Occam’s Razor says loud and clear: astronauts landed on the moon.
LikeLike
If your “authority” figures were actually paid apparatchiks, you’d be in quite a pickle. And they are, and you are. As the Buddha says, do not believe in anyone (including the Buddha) unless it agrees with your own mind. Rough quote.
Your admission here that when you don’t know things you trust authority figures is interesting. It puts you in a vulnerable position, ’cause you are basically giving people permission to lie to you. And three things I know about NASA: They lie, they lie, they lie.
LikeLike
“If your “authority” figures were actually paid apparatchiks, you’d be in quite a pickle. And they are, and you are. As the Buddha says, do not believe in anyone (including the Buddha) unless it agrees with your own mind. Rough quote.”
So Newton said:
“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
I believe it is silly to disbelieve unless you have a reason to and the fact that we are lied to non-stop isn’t of itself simply a reason to disbelieve everything from the authorities. We can see the patterns in the lies from the authorities and psyops have very distinctive characteristics so the notion that we must by default not trust anything at all from authorities doesn’t serve us well – what is a much better approach is to work out when we think we can believe what they say and when we can’t.
Presumably, the unique conditions on the moon – at least some of them – were worked out quite a long time before setting foot on it was even thought of. The notion that somehow these unique conditions were fabricated and then all the fakery presented for going to the moon was worked out to match these fabricated conditions is simply preposterous. Besides, it would be very, very difficult to make it all match without signs of fakery. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, if we use Occam’s Razor, we must accept landing on the moon as reality.
LikeLike
Presumably, the unique conditions of a Deadly, global pandemic- at least some of them- were worked out quite a long time before the Covid-19 pandemic.
The notion that somehow these unique conditions were fabricated and then all the fakery presented for a Deadly Global Pandemic was worked out to match these fabricated conditions, is simply preposterous.
Besides, it would be very difficult to make it all match without signs of fakery.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary if we use Occam’s Razor, we must accept The Deadly Worldwide Pandemic as a reality.
Also…I dont accept that there is any evidence of fakery with Covid…there are plenty of websites that fact check and debunk every conspiracy theory out there.
LikeLike
I don’t know if that is tobgue-in-cheek or not, BMS, but I assume that the way you inserted Covid instead of Moon says that is what you are up to.
Petra, you do this repeatedly, and your use of Occam’s Razor is so out of place. It merely says that fewer assumptions generally lead us closer to truth. But you’re not trying to find truth. You’re trying to make sense of nonsense, so Occam can take the day off.
LikeLike
@Mark
Yes.
I just used Petra’s text/format in her comment above, and inserted a different event, to show how ineffectual (and pointless) the “argument” was.
LikeLike
Petra, I think You are just like that character played by the Jim Carrey in movie Bruce Almighty with this Moon travelling topic. “Give me a sign, any kind of sign!” There are plenty of things that shows us that the Moon Travels were faked, but You have chosen not to recognize them. You WANT to believe so much that “great” story of mankind that it doesn’t matter what is the reality for You any more. Talking this and that from other subjects does not help You any way either. Please, check this video clip out. Do You recognize Yourself from it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68zH_Dw0Zw
LikeLike
“Petra, you do this repeatedly, and your use of Occam’s Razor is so out of place. It merely says that fewer assumptions generally lead us closer to truth.”
People are always telling me I’ve got Occam’s Razor wrong, Mark, but I guess it will come as no surprise to you that I think that they’re wrong about me being wrong and I have complete confidence in my understanding of the tool – at least in its fundamental meaning – a tool, in fact, that I feel tends to underpin my conclusions generally – I’m always looking for the irrefutable facts or no-reason-to-doubt claims and which hypothesis those irrefutable facts support best.
I will spell out how I think Occam’s Razor says we went to the moon and – if you’re so inclined – you can spell out how you believe my interpretation is mistaken.
The unique conditions on the moon as stated are:
— lunar daytime has a black sky unlike on earth
— 1/6th gravity of earth
— virtually no atmosphere
All the visual evidence presented to us conforms perfectly to those conditions – alleged flag waving in the breeze, etc are all claims that are easily refuted.
If we say that those conditions don’t apply and they are something else we must ASSUME that all the visual evidence has been faked to conform perfectly to these fabricated conditions so alien to earth, however, if the conditions are indeed as stated then we need assume nothing about why the evidence so perfectly conforms to them – it’s what we would expect.
LikeLike
You are full of assumptions, not understood or investigated, and then invoke Occam. You are absurd. The other meme you invoke is Dunning Kruger. I hope you begin to grasp how you insult Occam and epitomize DK. But if DK holds, you are incapable of understanding how wrong you are about everything.
LikeLike
BM made the point I wanted to, but you brushed past it. Petra, I’m open to hearing your case – I don’t have any absolutist views on this issue – but you should see how empty that particular argument above is, since it could be said about Covid as well – which you consider a hoax.
“No signs of fakery” in the moon missions? I guess it depends whether you buy the “debunkers” arguments or not, since there seem to be many signs (tbh I haven’t read about this in awhile so I can’t reel them off personally.)
More interesting to me though, is that since you have such a settled mind that “it’s real,” then you are given to the classic case of confirmation bias – anything that’s presented as the official story, is to your mind (since your mind is made up) “real,” and so your mind will find explanations for it. And when one holds a certain belief, the mind is ingenious in finding ways to protect that belief.
LikeLike
I think that the reason why many find McGowan’s Moondoggie piece convincing, is as much for the circumstantial evidence, as the specific minutia of the physics of space travel, or supposed conditions on the moon (for example).
Let’s face it… none of us can say they know for certain what is true about the moon landings.
We have the evidence and words that they have presented to the public.
That is all.
We can examine the “evidence” to a certain extent… but then we are forced to take any number of things on faith. Or believe “experts” that tell us things that we can never confirm or disprove for ourselves.
McGowan uses humor and sarcasm to the extreme, to point out the absurdities of many aspects of the story.
There may be “explanations” for these absurdities (or not), and we can decide if we accept these explanations, just as we do with any “conspiratorial” topic… be it covid, 9/11, Sandy Hook, or whatever.
Certainly, we know that it is standard practice by TPTB to monitor conspiracy discussion online, and then engineer “explanations” or even change the story altogether to explain away anomalies.
Thus, people have questioned the moon landings for decades, and the debunking has responded accordingly.
Of course, all it takes is ONE part of the story to be shown to be a hoax, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
If 99 out of 100 points in Mcgown’s work is “explained away”, but 1 of his points isn’t… then that puts the whole story in doubt.
This is why the debunkers focus on specific issues, and ignore the others…specifically the circumstantial/logical anomalies.
Cleary, McGowan’s work is well done and convincing…otherwise no one would take the time and effort to “debunk” it.
It is extremely difficult to read the entire article and not, at least, have some serious doubt that we are being told the truth about the moon landing event.
People who don’t like that will cry out for moon hoaxers to list of specific “facts”, that “prove” that the moon landings are fake.
Then they will refer the hoaxer to a site that has, ostensibly, debunked that “proof”.
The problem is that it quickly turns into arguments about things we cannot know, and it devolves into an appeal to authority, and nothing more.
It is ultimately pointless for “hoaxers” to find anomalies in the official narrative, since the official narrative can easily be changed or explained away by “new science” or “new information”, or simply an authoritative explanation about something we cannot know or find out ourselves.
Petra seems to be very emotionally invested in the Moon Landing Story.
And/or she seems very triggered by Mark, in particular, and cannot stand conceding “the last word” to him.
My evidence for this is that she has backed out of the conversation several times, only to resurface to comment directly on something Mark has written.
If she took the time to re-read the entire McGowan piece, and rather than get hung up on the minutiae (ie, “there is an explanation for the flags! I’m not reading anymore!), and considered the circumstantial evidence and logical anomalies re: the entire narrative, and still believes wholeheartedly in the moon landings… then more power to her.
I would hope that she could, at least, concede that others might have some doubts, and understand why those doubts exist.
Just as she, apparently, has doubts about the Covid narrative and perhaps other “conspiracies”. Of which there are millions of people who would point her to debunking articles that “explain away” all the circumstantial evidence and logical anomalies, just as confidently as the moon landing hoax debunker sites do.
LikeLike
This is a response to TIMR but no reply button on his comment.
“No signs of fakery” in the moon missions? I guess it depends whether you buy the “debunkers” arguments or not, since there seem to be many signs (tbh I haven’t read about this in awhile so I can’t reel them off personally.)
More interesting to me though, is that since you have such a settled mind that “it’s real,” then you are given to the classic case of confirmation bias – anything that’s presented as the official story, is to your mind (since your mind is made up) “real,” and so your mind will find explanations for it. And when one holds a certain belief, the mind is ingenious in finding ways to protect that belief.”
I don’t “buy” people’s argument, I evaluate it and part of that evaluation is looking for counter refutation – which is simply part of due diligence – in order to avoid confirmation bias. So far, no one has counter-refuted anything in Sensible Site guy’s refutations of WTM and American Moon. I find the charge of “confirmation bias” is pushed out willy nilly without real thought on whether it is taking place or not. When someone has done due diligence then they are entitled to have a settled opinion … while always leaving room for being wrong even though they think they’ve done due diligence.
I am still waiting for any – any at all – counter refutation of Sensible Site guy’s work … still waiting. Seriously, don’t you guys get it by now?
I have responded to Sensible Site guy’s post on the distortions in Dissolving Illusions with regard to smallpox and its alleged vaccine. Without poring over in detail, I think that his criticisms are not invalid necessarily, perhaps there is a little sloppiness on the part of the authors, but the point is that their sloppiness doesn’t necessarily invalidate their argument and in the time of Jenner scientific work wasn’t done properly as much as it isn’t done properly today.
LikeLike
Petra this comment of Yours has nothing to do with Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is very specific tool for a very specific tasks. You can’t proof anything with it and lastly You can proof with it if the Moon Travels were true. There’s have to possibilities which lead to the only one known output before using the Occam’s razor. So in this specific topic the outputs are different. One believes in travels and other not, there are nothing in common with those outputs let alone them being the same. Even if the outputs are the same You can’t proof anything with Occam’s razor, just that You can account the most simple thing or usually the calculation which lead to the known output. That does not say that the things or calculations chosen are the right ones. Because then we already know the output it doesn’t really matter anymore.
When one usually mentions the Occam’s Razor in conversations it’s kinda like appealing to the authors, like “What would Mr. Occam say about that?” Using it like that is as silly thing as Homer Simpson saying: “In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic!” when Lisa invented the perpetual motion machine.
LikeLike
One potential reason to tink that “the authorities” (🙄) are lying about something, is that they’ve been caught lying over and over again about so many things.
It’s like having a narcissist in your life.
They have shown the willingness to lie to us before…how many lies before you no longer give them the benefit of the doubt?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m responding to a few items from BM Seattle here:
— “Presumably, the unique conditions of a Deadly, global pandemic- at least some of them- were worked out quite a long time before the Covid-19 pandemic.
The notion that somehow these unique conditions were fabricated and then all the fakery presented for a Deadly Global Pandemic was worked out to match these fabricated conditions, is simply preposterous.”
Weak analogy.
It is obvious from numerous angles that the pandemic is a fraud. Right off the bat in Australia according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 300,000 cases of the flu in 2019 and only 30,000 alleged cases of covid in the first 14 months or so. That the pandemic is a fraud simply screams itself out in every possible way.
— “Of course, all it takes is ONE part of the story to be shown to be a hoax, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
If 99 out of 100 points in Mcgown’s work is “explained away”, but 1 of his points isn’t… then that puts the whole story in doubt.”
Sure it does because the nature of reality is that every single piece – every single one -will support if not favour the correct hypothesis and when someone provides me with that one piece of out 100 from McGowan or anyone else I’ll sit up and pay attention. Mark keeps on about how I haven’t read WTM but the issue isn’t my reading it or not the issue is: where does anything in WTM – any one thing – refute the reality of the moon landings? So far, no one has presented that one thing and I assert that if there were just one thing it would be laid out by now.
— “Let’s face it… none of us can say they know for certain what is true about the moon landings.
We have the evidence and words that they have presented to the public.”
When there are hundreds of pieces of evidence of all kinds I believe we can know the truth. I don’t believe that fakery of the moon landings when so much evidence is presented – and the conditions on the moon are obviously going to be very different whatever they are – could be so utterly consistent both with each other and with the conditions as stated. I believe that would be an impossibility.
LikeLike
Do you reckon the following was real life?
LikeLike
I understand your stance, Petra.
I stand by what I wrote and will let it be for others to read and assess for themselves.
Enough has been written here on the topic (as well as links for people to check out) for readers to come to their own conclusions, imo.
I’m happy to acknowledge that there are people who believe the entire mainstream story of the moon landings. It doesn’t bother me.
I also understand why some people have doubts about the story.
LikeLike
Petra, along with continued invocation of Occam, you repeat that if one matter of seeds of doubt can be established by reading Moondoggie, then we who can see through the moon hoax might be validated, all I can say is do your own homework. Read Moondoggie. It is not my not anyone’s job to knock on your door and say “here’s a whole bunch if evidence for you”. Debating someone who deliberately lives on the dark side of the moon is frustrating, and there is no quit in you. Read Moondoggie, and dispute him point by point. Believing is a nice luxury in the absence of evidence. It is called religion.
LikeLike
As a rule of thumb, military films are fake. Anything intended for the public from that source is planned, scripted and rehearsed, especially high-level meetings.
I am going to remove the word “darling” from your comment, as it is patronizing. Take no offense.
LikeLike
Mark, did you watch the video? It’s an army documentary about the launch of murica’s first satellite during the igy. The igy was dreamt up at van allen’s house over his wife’s chocolate cake per the ridiculous narrative.
It’s the psilliest thing I’ve ever come across on the interwebs. But you must believe it if you believe in satellites of course.
And since I was ordered to take no offense at the removal of the word darling; I won’t.
LikeLike
I understand why some people don’t believe the moon landings and why many people believe the 9/11 official story (in my own case I believed it – if very unenthusiastically – till I watched the film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick in 2014).
— Some of us know those in power lie non-stop and the moon landings seem highly improbable especially as they haven’t been repeated in 50 years.
— For others, 9/11 being committed by those in power is outside their paradigm of how the world works nor do they like to think those in power commit malign acts against their own people.
It’s the evidence that tells us, just the evidence.
We can understand why people (including ourselves until we wake up) believe things but it doesn’t mean their reasoning is sound.
LikeLike
Petra, one of the strongest single points I see, as Boethius emphasizes, is the impossibility (?) of propelling (and I would add steering) a rocket in the vacuum of space.
All the official experts said it was impossible too – prior to the miraculous moon mission, when those issues were somehow overcome without explanation (that I have seen.)
MiniMe says it’s simple, no problem, but imo just asserts that it would work, without really addressing how different the conditions are from Earth’s atmosphere. Or Boethius’s point about failure of tests in special conditions on Earth. Or the “under-expanded nozzle” issue from SMJ’s link. Or the many concerns Gaia raises.
Do you class this as outside your Ken, or you’ve read official responses that satisfy you? Can you link to those responses?
LikeLike
*ken… Sigh
LikeLike
So, is your goal to “wake people up” that doubt the moon landings?
Serious question…what are you hoping to achieve with this dialogue?
Clearly it is an important topic to you, and you have difficulty just letting others doubt the moon landings for whatever their reason are.
As far as i have read, no one here is being completely dogmatic in their beliefs (except, perhaps, you).
They are expressing doubt, nothing more.
Do you feel compelled to change their minds?
If so, do you think you’ve already given them the tools to do that, or is there more you feel compeeledti say on the subject?
LikeLike
@TimR
My mother was Scottish so no confusion with capitalised ken, Tim 🙂
Yes, physics of rocketry is outside my ken, Tim, however, Boethius’s claims are discussed in the link below. If anyone wants to counter-refute the refutation of his claims I’ll have a look but I’d still probably go with “outside my ken”.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
As I’ve said, I believe the nature of reality is that every single piece of relevant information will support if not favour the correct hypothesis so it’s best to stick to the information you can be sure of – if the information you can be sure of all stacks up and there’s a reasonable amount of it, leave the stuff you don’t have a good grasp of alone.
@BMSeattle
“As far as i have read, no one here is being completely dogmatic in their beliefs (except, perhaps, you).”
I guess I am dogmatic but I don’t think I’m being dogmatic about my beliefs per se but about how to think critically. The facts that the moon landings were improbable and the power elite lie to us non-stop shouldn’t really be cause for doubt if there’s sufficient evidence that 100% supports if not favours the “we went” hypothesis and I think there is.
What I see here is disconfirmation bias, the lack of recognition that certain facts overwhelmingly favour the “we went” hypothesis with no facts contradicting it.
It seems that people are pretty much agreed that Dave McGowan was/is an agent but that he told some truth and, generally, a lot of agents do that, don’t they, they mix truth with lies, it’s a very common part of the psyop MO. The problem with WTM is that no one has identified a single item in it that refutes the reality of the moon landings. Not.a.single.item. No sign of truth mixed with lies, just straight out lies (eg, frigid lunar night) or propaganda. We must make facts mean what they must mean. Surely to goodness if astronauts really didn’t go to the moon, WTM would contain at least one item that convincingly refutes the “we went” hypothesis but there isn’t even just the one. A whole book of 14 chapters and not one instance.
I simply see no reason to doubt and critical thinking doesn’t mean keeping an “open” mind when the evidence is overwhelming in my opinion. There’s simply too much evidence in favour with not a single piece contradicting the hypothesis for there to be doubt in my opinion. None of us doubts covid’s a psyop or 9/11’s a psyop OK? It would be ludicrous to doubt their psyoppery, I say the same for the moon landings, except they weren’t a psyop, the psyops were tangential in the form of Dave McGowan, Bill Kaysing and a few others.
LikeLike
@Petra
You have repeated your belief and stance multiple times.
I understand your perspective.
I asked if your goal was to “wake people up” here?
Do you feel compelled to change people’s minds who doubt the moon landings?
Or are you waiting for/expecting some sort of admission from others that you have convinced them that they are “wrong”?
As I’ve mentioned on a couple of occasions, you don’t seem content to rest upon the evidence you have prevented.
Mark has posted links to McGowan’s piece, and to the site that debunks McGowan’s piece, and you have had ample opportunity to explain your perspective.
I would suggest that anyone interested, can check them both out, and form their own conclusions.
Moondoggie is a very engaging read, regardless of if you agree with it or not. McGowan was an excellent writer and very funny. Unless someone is offended by moon hoax material or jokes about American Exceptionalism, it’s worth a read.
And then they can read the debunking article and judge for themselves if it debunks every point that McGowan makes, or not.
And if it doesn’t, or it ignores some points, then people can take from that what they will.
I think some of your confusion in this exchange is that you seem to believe that anyone here cares if you believe in the moon landings, or not, or that it is important that you change your mind on the matter.
(thus, your calls to present evidence that refutes the reality of the moon landings. You take the fact that no one has done this, as a sign that there is no such evidence, rather than a sign that no one here cares enough to put the time/effort into finding and presenting it to you)
As I said in a previous comment, I’m perfectly happy that you believe in the moon landings.
It doesn’t bother me at all.
In the big scheme of things, the moon landings don’t really matter.
I’m content not knowing what really went on with them. I have my doubts about the story we are told about them, but I wouldn’t bet a significant amount of money on either position,
I’m just struggling to understand why the moon landings in particular trigger you so much.
You have to admit, you simply cannot let the topic be. Again… what are you hoping comes out of this interaction…specifically.
LikeLike
“You take the fact that no one has done this, as a sign that there is no such evidence, rather than a sign that no one here cares enough to put the time/effort into finding and presenting it to you)”
I’m afraid I don’t understand. It takes two to argue and people have been arguing with me and among themselves over the moon landings. Mark has made posts on the subject … I don’t see evidence of people not caring.
The reason I care about the moon landings is that it is the only big event over which there is dispute where the authorities have told the truth – everything other major event disputed about is a lie, no?, but I think it’s very important to get everything right as much as possible. That most disbelievers of the 9/11 narrative still have it wrong in that death and injury were staged I find quite bothersome. To me, it’s not enough to recognise the story is a lie, you need to get it totally right to understand the nature of the psyop. Getting it half-right is exactly what the perps want people to do.
Those who disbelieve the moon landings and believe WTM and Bill Kaysing are getting it doubly wrong: the truth of the moon landings and the truth that Bill and Dave are agents whose words are all lies or propaganda … all of them.
If you don’t think that’s important OK, I do. I mean, if you want to educate people in how propaganda works and what propaganda is and yet you yourself are duped by it, what position are you in to educate others? You need to be able to recognise it wherever it is. WTM is a work of propaganda from start to finish and if no one here cares enough to disprove that claim then you should! You should care.
LikeLike
¡Ay, caramba.
LikeLike
Have you watched the explorer one video yet?
LikeLike
No. Why don’t you tell me one thing you find unbelievable in it and let me know where it occurs in the video?
LikeLike
Well, everything is unbelievable about it of course. It’s an official army documentary of course.
Watch it. And then tell me why you would believe anything about murica’s first satellite launch.
LikeLike
Moon Hoax Now fiom –
I’m sure that in the past, mention was made of breathing holes in the space helmets being visible in official footage, before they lost them of course…
LikeLike
Errata. Should read Moon Hoax Now FILM, link found at this site –
https://www.aulis.com/miniatures3.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Am I reading these arrival dates correctly? Apollo 11 Launch date: 7/16/69 Recovery date: 7/24/69. So 8 days total to get to the moon and then back to Earth. They were on the moon for about 2 hours on 7/20-7/21. Then 3 days to get back to Earth’s Pacific ocean on 7/24/69. Wiki states Mission duration 8 days, 3 hours, 18 minutes. thats a backwards 9/11.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amazingly insightful comment! After reading it I had the same feeling of discovery that I had years ago when I realized that 11/22, the day JFK faked his death, equaled 33, and that the first shots fired at 12:30 … ditto. Thank you for your insight.
LikeLike
Hello! I post now first time here. I like this site very much and I’m happy to read from people who are capable of free and critical thinking and not accepting everything from authority as they are telling/lying us. It’s not easy task as they are brainwashing us from childhood. I am ashamed I once believed stories like “we” went to the moon, but when I few years ago took time to research the topic I pretty soon realized it all was just a big hoax. Websites like Yours Mark have been great help to strengthen the reality of hoaxes. I’m from Finland and I like to comment some time about how we were exposed for U.S. (and U.S.S.R.) propaganda from “moonlandings” to 9/11 to “Corona virus” but now I “have to” comment this topic because I think that Petra is getting too much attention from You these days and she is disturbing Your thoughts. Maybe it’s her intention to do so, maybe she is one of thous SS guys she admires so much, but she’s incorrigible and keep harping the official story or ever and ever and with doing so she dilutes the achievements of Your and other writers here and is maybe even moving away potential readers from Your blog IMO. This moon buggy/ Jeep comparison is not helping the situation any way because those are clearly the different vehicles in spite of if the former were on the moon or not (Not being the right answer.) Jeep have real suspensions and is very capable of doing the jobs it was made for, but moon buggy looks to be just a movie drop which it really is. The real Jeep on the moon would be more convincing, but because of limited space for baggages they have to invent this collapsible ludicrous buggy attached to the outside of moonlanders. There is no pictures where astronots unload the buggy from lander nor pictures where they assembled the buggy. But hey, why teach the actors do excessive works?
About the stars visible on the moon I think it should be that when in the shadow and blogging the light from moon surface, for example with hands, the astronouts must be able to see all the bright stars above him, because there are no atmosphere reflecting the sun’s Light so the very first view when exiting from Apollo 11 moon lander to the moon surface should be the stars above, if observer really is/was on the moon. And there would be special cameras aboard to take pictures from stars which should be more bright than ever in humans history.
I’m sorry if my first post to You was too personal, but I really think wasting time to helpless cases like Petra is really wasting the time, but of course You are free to do whit Your time whatever You want and this is not an attack but just a friendly advice from thinker to thinker. I try to focus more in the cases than writers from now on.
LikeLike
I made a comment Yesterday, but it isn’t showing yet. Anyway I make now this new different comment about the vehicle in picture aka Moon Buggy. What I know about the cars I’m thinking the “design” of the Buggy resembles much more the floor of the VW Beetle, which is very easy removable from the chassis, than it resembles Jeep. They even use the Beetle floors in beach buggies here in Earth. I’m not saying that the Moon Buggy is perfectly the Beetle floor, but when we think about the nazi origin of the VW and it’s technical designer Ferdinand Porsche (They say that Adolf Hitler was the designer of the body.Take it or leave it) and when You think about the fact that same Porsche also designed vehicles with electric motors in every wheel just like they (NASA) says was the case with the Moon Buggy AND when You think about that many of the Apollo engineers were former nazis I’m founding the coincidences being very interesting at least. Were the designers of the Moon Buggy maybe former VW employers from Nazi Germany? Did the Buggy designers by the way even know it’s not going to Moon? I don’t know the answers, that was just a little thought of mine.
LikeLike
@BMSeattle
“You are unwilling or unable to say, specifically, what you hope to achieve out of this “arguing”.
Best i can tell, it is to tell people what they “should” think and/or believe.”
Oh dear, I’m afraid I’m really not getting my message through if you take from me that I’m telling people what they should think and/or believe, that is not what I intend at all.
My interest is in mind control by the power elite using propaganda and what I aim to do is show people how the power elite target us and how to recognise that propaganda and to show people that while they think they’re applying critical thinking in a consistent manner they’re not because their biases get in the way.
Let’s consider an example we all agree on: the 9/11 half-righters.
The 9/11 half-righters will apply critical thinking when it comes to the “miracle” of steel frame skyscrapers coming down by fire but when you point to the equally absurd miracles told to us in the “miracle survivor” stories their critical thinking shuts down – they are completely hypnotised by the secondary narrative that the US government cold-bloodedly and callously killed all those poor people in the buildings and have a “How dare you suggest those poor people didn’t die” attitude.
While they are perfectly willing to disbelieve the authorities their minds nonetheless have been completely controlled by the secondary propaganda campaign to maintain their belief in real death and injury. The most common objection I get from half-righters when I tell them death and injury were staged is, “Why wouldn’t they kill them, they don’t care about the people.” Of course, no one’s suggesting they care but it suited them perfectly not to kill them for a variety of reasons one being complete impracticality: they needed demolition professionals to bring down all the buildings at the WTC and while you can propagandise health professionals to inject people with poisons you cannot propagandise demolition professionals to partially evacuate buildings before destroying them.
My questions to you:
— Do you accept that Wagging the Moondoggie is a work of propaganda? If not, why not?
(For example, Dave McGowan was/is obviously very knowledgeable about the moon missions alleged or real and he would know that missions were planned for lunar dawn not “frigid lunar night” so when he refers to “frigid lunar night” we know he’s being very deliberate in that falsity.)
— Assuming you accept it’s a work of propaganda, what would you suggest is its purpose?
— Why has no disbeliever of the moon landings picked up that it is a work of propaganda?
— Those in power know that a reasonable percentage of people who disbelieve them understand “revelation of the method” so why did they so blatantly employ this technique making Bill Kaysing completely unbelievably Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and speaking of a nephew improbably named Dietrich von Schmausen, alien scientist.
LikeLike
@Petra
so, when you finished up a previous comment to me, saying…
“… and if no one here cares enough to disprove that claim then you should! You should care.”
You weren’t telling me what I “should think or believe”?
Either you are being disingenuous or you aren’t really thinking about what you are writing.
You said…
“My interest is in mind control by the power elite using propaganda and what I aim to do is show people how the power elite target us and how to recognise that propaganda and to show people that while they think they’re applying critical thinking in a consistent manner they’re not because their biases get in the way.”
I guess this is your way of answering my question of what, specifically, do you hope to accomplish by this back and forth?
I’m not sure how specific that is, but I don’t blame you, since the above goal is one that, conceivably, will never be fully met.
I fear that you will be commenting here at POM about the moon landings until Mark shuts down the site.
Q #1: For context, here is Collins definition of Propaganda..
Propaganda is information, often inaccurate information, that a political organization publishes or broadcasts in order to influence people.
My answer is not going to satisfy you, but… I don’t know.
I interacted quite a bit, back in the day, with the McGowan character, and my thoughts on him and his agenda have shifted over time.
Without getting into the details of what I think about him, I’ll say that I think his writing, in general, told a lot of truths… only to misdirect in specific, meaningful ways.
I’m not up on all the jargon, but I believe that is called controlled opposition?
Say a lot of truth to reel you in, while misdirecting on a key, fundamental part of the story?
This is what I suspect is happening with WMD.
Q#2: I addressed this above. Rope people in with a lot of truth, while ultimately, misdirecting.
Q#3: Silly question. One, it’s a broad statement that is very likely not to be true, and you couldn’t know it, even if it was.
Two, you are asking me to get into the minds of a hypothetical group of people. I’d be speculating on an absurd hypothetical.
Q#4: Sorry, but I don’t have the proper context to answer this, even if I did presume to be able to get into the minds of “Those in Power”… which I don’t.
I’ll just finish with this bit of context for you.
I first heard of the theory that the moon landings were faked back in 2001.
My closest friend had found an online article about it, and excitedly showed me and another close friend.
We playfully teased him, of course (we were still relatively young and immature), but we obliged him and looked at the article, and… wouldn’t you know… it was pretty convincing.
The other friend, however, did his own research, and a few days later, presented a “debunking” article, that went through most of the points in the fakery article, and shot them down!
Crazy, huh? I guess this moon fakery/debunking battle has been going on a little while.
Over the years, I have read and looked into the moon and the apollo missions at various times.
Point being, it wasn’t WMD that is my sole source of information about the moon landings.
And, I’d wager, every person here that you are discussing this topic with, have a variety of reasons that they believe what they do.
I didn’t jump into this discussion to discuss the validity of the moon landings at all. It was to try and point out the hubris of thinking you could “change the minds” of people here about it… or believe you are “teaching them about propaganda”.
You even, yourself, several days back, made a comment about agreeing to disagree with Mark, and not commenting anymore…
but here you are, unable to help yourself by “helping” others.
Well, I am bowing out now. And I mean it.
I don’t think it was wise of me to engage, in retrospect, and clearly I did a poor job of getting my point across to you, as you seemingly still think my agenda is to defend McGowan’s essay.
Yes, i think it’s worth reading…for the reasons I mentioned in a previous comment. For those who still have the patience to read, and are interested in the topic, read WMD, then read the article that debunks it, and make up your own mind about it.
LikeLike
“… and if no one here cares enough to disprove that claim then you should! You should care.”
You weren’t telling me what I “should think or believe”?
What I’m trying to say is, “If you cannot find anything in WTM that convincingly contradicts the reality of the moon landings while you can see that there are deliberate errors in it, they cannot just be mistakes, because the author is clearly knowledgeable,” then you should care about that inability.
Yes, actually, I guess you’re right, I am telling people what they should think but only because when you apply the rules of critical thinking as I see them there is only one conclusion you can come to:
— There is nothing convincingly contradicting of the reality of the moon landings
— The author is knowledgeable and wouldn’t simply make the mistake of “frigid lunar night” for example.
(In addition, we also have the very obvious agent in Bill Kaysing who treats hypergolic fuel as a particular type of fuel rather than a class of fuels just as Dave does.)
I suppose yes I’m telling people that it is an absurdity not to consider WTM a work of propaganda because it clearly is from every possible angle and there is nothing – nothing, nada, niente – indicating it isn’t … unless of course you can provide me with it.
Q1. “Without getting into the details of what I think about him, I’ll say that I think his writing, in general, told a lot of truths …”
Please, dear God, tell me what truth. Where is the truth? You cannot make the claim without backing it up. I’ve put forward the obvious untruths and shown they’re obviously deliberate. Where is the truth in the WTM? If you cannot provide it then you have nothing. Can you not see that?
Don’t you see that if we’re going to consider that WTM might NOT be a work of propaganda there would have to be a single item that could be identified as true in relation to contradiction of the reality of the moon landings. So far that identification has not been made and I do not accept that no one has been bothered to find it. I simply don’t accept it – the indications that it IS a work of propaganda are too clear. So if you want to make the POSSIBLE case for it not being a work of propaganda you need to find the one item in it that is true.
LikeLike
Actually, we can simplify.
The only possible way that WTM is not a work of propaganda is if there are no deliberate mistakes in it, that is, if the mistakes are genuine in their misguidedness otherwise what other possible explanation is there for the deliberate mistakes? Why would an author make deliberate mistakes unless it was for propagandistic purposes?
So unless you can give me an explanation for McGowan’s deliberate mistakes other than propaganda then surely to goodness you must accept that WTM is a work of propaganda. Of course, if you wish to claim his mistakes aren’t deliberate, I’m all ears.
LikeLike
Hey stupid cow, you still don’t understand that your fantasy moonñandings do not depend on Dave McGowan.
Even if Wagging the Moondoggie is wrong from first to last page, that is still no evidence that moonlandings can happen.
Mark, give it up, this act, this is you playing games. What a pathetic act you put up here….
LikeLike
Maybe the WTM is a so obvious work of propaganda because it then gives persons like You the weapon to argue against something considered self-evident like the faked Moon Landings, but still it doesn’t mean that every information in it is false. (I don’t know If i wrote that sentence right, it’s early morning here and I haven’t drink my coffee yet and I’m kind of boring arguing against hopelessness) It’s just opposite I think, most of it could be true because people like You stick with the few errors and can’t see the whole picture.
Secondly there was almost all that information in favor of the Moon Landing hoax “theory”. (“Theory” because I don’t think it’s theory anymore, it’s just the way it is ergo a hoax.) in online long before the WTM and the WTM was mainly composition of these information. Many of the info in the book was in the offing even long before internet. My late dad knew enough to know the manned travels to the Moon being hoaxes in the ’70:es. I just chose to ignore that information then like You do now with al that information in online. Once someone really research even a little part that information he/she can’t never believe in “Moon Landings” anymore. You clearly haven’t research the topic or You are just trying to deceive us like NASA use to do. All that mambo jambo of Yours about other conspiracy topics doesn’t change a bit.
We all here reading these sites know that there is the big amount of propaganda everywhere, that’s nothing new for us. Most of us can filter that out quit well.
LikeLike
To lighten my comment above, I personally don’t think that the WTM is so obvious work of propaganda. I wouldn’t notice McGowan to be an agent if Mark didn’t wrote about it here. Now it is obvious and I have read the WTM and that Laurel Canyon book again with fresh eyes. Than You, Mark. The Serial killer book is unfinished for me yet.
LikeLike
Petra – thanks for the link, to those physics guys. I skimmed it when bit came up before, but am trying to go through it with more patience. They strike me as impressed with their own verbiage, enjoy hearing themselves talk and explain – a common enough and excusable foible or vanity, if that impression is correct. I just wonder if they aren’t being taken in by their own bs – they “know” space rockets are real, they know a lot of physics, so it’s easy enough to “explain” how it works.
Imagine if they had had to invent them in the first place! Would their easy confidence be rewarded by successful flights? The experts back in the day thought it an impossibility – then the government waves a wand, declares it imperative, and presto, they can do it. Curious that.
In any event, I think it’s a bit of a cop-out on your part to not seek to wrestle with getting at least a layman understanding of the physics of rockets in space, and the many issues that skeptics have raised. Just fobbing it off as “well there’s a response, that’s good enough for me,” is either not living up to the spirit of your due diligence, critical thinking method; or, if that IS the method, a shortcoming.
For myself I’m continuing to study it, I think it’s a crucial (and interesting) part of the whole debate.
LikeLike
Excellent comment TIMR IMHO. You are really patient with Petra. Once You have studied the topic enough You never can’t believe the manned Moon landings anymore. The NASA shout themselves in their feet when they released all those fabricated pictures online. Firstly there are way too many of them that is physically possible to take that amount of pictures in given time. Secondly there were supposedly no real horizon in Moon first time those astronots arrived there. Look at the pictures of the apollo 11, the shadows of the “Lunar Module” and astronots continues to the supposed horizon which is about 100 yard away maximum. Then later “trips” there were same big mountains almost everywhere in different places. In some “trips” they apparently moved their “Lunar Modules” from place to place while hanging on the “Moon”, which should be impossible to do. The list goes on and on even with the pictures. Then there is a lot of other issues for example how to land on the Moon with one rocket engines with the technology of that era in the first place. That impossibility does not depend about if the rockets work in the space or not. Once You really are thought enough about the issues of those “trips” You begin to realize that almost all in the official story is just a fairy tales. Finally You are mad for Yourself that You were so fool to believe that kind of crap at first place.
LikeLike
Suominen
This is a good point, if all those 25,000 photos were taken from 1969-72.
That is not the case. Apollo was shot in 2 stages, we have the 1968-72 phase in which a handful of hundreds of photos were released to specific media and psience outlets…
Then, 20 years later, they did it again, but then shooting that crazy amount of photos you refer to.
That is also the reason that LEM looks so crappy, of carton, metal foil and curtain rods and so.
That is because those photos were of the 2nd batch. The LEM prop looks so crappy because that LEM is 20 years OLD in those 1980s shot photo series Stage II…
LikeLike
Yes, and it was easier to manipulate pictures with new technology. I watched the Kubricks Shining yesterday (From national TV (Sorry), I don’t have any Netflixix or other services like that.) one more time and I think that the reason for Jack’s typewriter s colour changing darker during the movie is about painting the old LM:s for new photo shootings. The typewriter’s brand is Adler, meaning Eagle in English. Same think like the impossible amount of travelling bags in the small Volkswagen represents the impossible amount of stuff in LM:s on the “Moon”. (If You believe there’s “codes” in that movie) They send same time in the other channel the Apollo 13 movie. They send it quit often here, maybe to strengthen the “Moon travelling” propaganda. Maybe the amount of “Apollo” believers are getting too low for Them?
LikeLike
“In any event, I think it’s a bit of a cop-out on your part to not seek to wrestle with getting at least a layman understanding of the physics of rockets in space, and the many issues that skeptics have raised. Just fobbing it off as “well there’s a response, that’s good enough for me,” is either not living up to the spirit of your due diligence, critical thinking method; or, if that IS the method, a shortcoming.”
My argument isn’t that “as there’s a response that’s good enough for me,” not at all, but rather to offer the response to those who disbelieve for them to come to grips with. If the moon landings happened or if they didn’t we can know without understanding rocketry – the evidence will be everywhere not just in the physics of rockets so if they didn’t go, there would be slip-ups in the images of the brightly lit lunar surface with the black sky, there would be signs of fakery in the hours of audio, etc, there would be other signs. The same applies to covid. Although it’s certainly helpful, we don’t need the small number of scientists calling out the invalidity of the scientific papers, we know that covid’s a hoax from numerous angles.
An essential component of critical thinking is to understand that the nature of reality is that when you have enough pieces of the puzzle, the complete picture is clearly indicated, it simply must be the picture indicated not another picture, it must be the picture suggested by the 300 pieces or whatever number will clearly indicate a particular picture. What those delving into rocketry have done is be victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect in their belief they understand the physics well enough while ignoring the easy-to-perceive evidence staring us all in the face and which very convincingly forms the “we went” picture.
To me the best evidence is that which is very difficult to shoehorn to fit the opposing hypothesis. This includes, for example, the only-visible-when-magnified tiny amounts of dust on the landing pads and the faintest of radial exhaust patterns underneath the lunar lander – why would anyone fake something you can barely see? And then we have my favourites, Dave McGowan and Bill Kaysing. What is their purpose if not to mislead those disbelieving of the authorities to get it wrong on the moon landings just as we have all those controlled opposition agents getting the disbelievers of 9/11 to only get it half-right.
What I did – but moonhoaxers haven’t done – and which I think means that it is the moonhoaxers who’ve copped out not I is immerse myself in the argument on both sides – where I can understand it – as much as possible. In that process I learnt bits here and there such as the astronauts went in lunar dawn and the moon has black sky day and night and that hypergolic fuels are a class of fuels not a particular fuel and some have a visible flame and some don’t. Learning all these bits and pieces means that when I look at what’s put forward by Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan I can instantly recognise their material as propaganda – moonhoaxers aren’t able to do that because they haven’t investigated all the material they can easily understand. Instead, they’ve gone down unnecessary rabbit holes and got lost.
LikeLike
“My argument isn’t that “as there’s a response that’s good enough for me,” not at all, but rather to offer the response to those who disbelieve for them to come to grips with.”
So you don’t even care to weigh the merits of the response yourself, but you’ll pass it along to us, okay.
Well I think you’ve got it exactly backwards in terms of how you weigh the evidence – mountains of photos and hours of audio, vs basic laws of physics. I admit I’m struggling to get up to speed on the latter, but when someone like Boethius, who claims to have a science background, and Gaia likewise, say it’s impossible, that gets my attention more than your dirt on lander pads. SMJ and AK have raised good points as well. MiniMe may be right, or the StackExchange guys, but it’s not a question to be brushed aside lightly. You haven’t really looked into this if that’s your approach. Certainly it doesn’t warrant your lack of humility and lecturing others about critical thinking.
Why couldn’t the fake set they used have sand and dirt that would incidentally get thrown up onto the pads? It may be as simple as that. Hours of audio sounds like a good job for low level apparatchiks in the vast fakery empire. What does that prove?
LikeLike
Part 1
Tim, Occam’s Razor – in the absence of evidence to the contrary we choose the hypothesis that fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised.
When there are no signs of fakery and no other evidence to the contrary, OR says we accept the evidence as is. Moonhoaxers, notably my sister, think we don’t have to show respect for the actual physical evidence (and I when I say physical I refer to digital too), that we can airily dismiss it with a wave of the hand, saying “could be faked”. I don’t accept that approach at all. We must show respect for the evidence first. There is masses of visual evidence both still and moving, the pieces of which are both consistent with each other and with the unique lunar conditions. Consistency is everywhere you turn.
If this evidence is faked we must ASSUME it’s faked whereas if we accept it as true because the pieces are perfectly consistent with each other as well as with the unique lunar conditions we don’t have to make any assumptions. Of course, if they just showed us a few images then sure I’d have to accept the possibility of fakery but I don’t accept masses of pieces of evidence all faked and yet showing no signs … as well as the audio which you allude to.
You see how you cherry pick with the sand? What about the faintest of radial exhaust patterns? That can’t happen by accident in fakery, OK? Now, of course, they COULD have faked the faintest of radial exhaust patterns that virtually no one notices but, according to OR it fits the “we went” hypothesis much better than it fits fake. For fake we have to assume they went to the trouble of faking something virtually no one is going to notice whereas …
It’s not as if I don’t get fake, is it? I just look sideways at a newspaper or spy an item on the TV in a waiting room and call “Fake!” – I know there’s fakery and lies everywhere you turn day in, day out, day in, day out but I see no signs of it with the moon landings.
LikeLike
“im, Occam’s Razor – in the absence of evidence to the contrary we choose the hypothesis that fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised.”
Petra, that only works when we know the output of the problem and there could be only ONE output then. It do NOT work when there are two or more outputs (Where one is right.) in the same question. Are You REALLY so stupid not to understand even that simple thing?
LikeLike
And even in rare cases where Occam’s Razor works, it does NOT proof anything. It just allows us to use the simpler hypothesis in some specific calculations. Because we already KNOW the output in that case, it doesn’t really matter how we came to it. In the “Moon travelling” case the outputs varies depending peoples opinions. It’s not the same thing that something happened or it happened not, so we can’t use the Occam’s Razor here. You just keep on repeating over and over that same s*tt. I think Occam wants it razor back from You, dear Petra.
LikeLike
Part 2
Rocketry: so I’ve been thinking about my picture analogy and I think it’s a good one. Say someone gives you a photo of an ocean view where you see the sand, ocean and sky with the top left corner missing. Someone else comes along and has what they purport is the top left corner which shows tall trees indicating a forest and tries to tell you that the top left corner they have indicates the partial image you have is really a forest. You don’t accept it, do you? because you know that the 3/4 image that you have absolutely shows an ocean view and the only thing that can fit in that top left corner is something consistent with that partial image, no other kind of image can override. That’s my attitude to those who say rockets can’t move in space or whatever … unless something incredibly convincing comes along. I always try to keep an open mind but as I really don’t understand physics (I dropped it like a hot potato in senior high school) I’m not going to waste my time on it.
Unlike the moonhoaxers I have done due diligence on what I can understand and I know the picture formed from what I can understand corresponds 100% with the we went hypothesis. Moonhoaxers haven’t done that due diligence, OK? They didn’t recognise Bill Kaysing as an agent or that the work of WTM is propaganda from start to finish. I did because I did due diligence on what I can understand.
You do get that WTM is a work of propaganda, right, Tim, from start to finish – not truth (other than propagandistic truth) mixed with lies, but complete propaganda – because if not then disconfirmation bias is playing a big role in your thinking. No one to date has identified a single solitary thing in that work that convincingly contradicts the reality of the moon landings. That is an irrefutable fact. Sticking to the irrefutable facts rather than going into arcane physics is so much a better approach.
Let me know when you have anything at all in response to the refutation of Boethius’s claims.
LikeLike
“Unlike the moonhoaxers I have done”
Moonhoaxers were those who hoaxed the “Moon Landings”. Not those who know they were hoaxes. Beside, I don’t think nobody here believes that the Moon is a hoax. I don’t understand what You try say whit that nonsense.
LikeLike
A FEW WORDS ON USING “COULD” IN ARGUMENT
There is “could” that perfectly fits with Occam’s Razor and there is “could” that goes against OR and if we find we’re using it against OR we need to drop the argument.
Example 1 – fits with OR:
So we know the 9/11 planes were faked and we have no reason to believe that the alleged passengers died another way so it’s perfectly legitimate to say “they could have faked the deaths of the people in the buildings in the same way they faked the plane passenger deaths.” In fact, we can see problems arising if they only faked the plane passenger deaths but didn’t fake the building deaths. Of course, there is actual evidence that they didn’t kill people but it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest the possibility that they didn’t as long as there was no evidence they did or any other reason to think they did.
Example 2 – goes against OR:
They could have faked the minute amounts of particles on the landing pads and the virtually invisible radial exhaust pattern underneath the lunar module. In theory, perhaps they could but this fakery doesn’t easily fit anywhere. It’s not how fakery is done generally and there’s nothing it chimes in with. It’s a completely hypothetical “could” in a context vacuum and you don’t want to be using completely hypothetical coulds. You want to be using coulds that align with other information, that are part of the building of a case.
What you really need to get is that the actual evidence counts so much, it is so very, very important.
What have you got to say we didn’t land on the moon? What have you got in your hands that says, “Yes, this evidence supports if not favours going over not going.” What have you got? You actually have absolutely nothing – of course, you won’t because they went, that’s why, you can’t have anything.
What is what Beothius says worth? N-o-t-h-i-n-g. It’s been refuted and so far no one has counter-refuted that refutation. It’s just arcane physics-babble that there is absolutely no reason to believe when there is so much evidence staring us in the face that supports the reality of the moon landings.
LikeLike
That is all just nonsense in Your comment above. Didn’t You read my comments about the using of Occam’s Razor. You CANT use it like You do at all! So much mumbo jumbo from You without any actual information about anything. There are sites that will explain it for five years old.
There were no men on the Moon taking any pictures, no mater how black the sky is in those fabricated photos, and THAT is the FACT. No meter how much You try to confuse people here whit Your claptrap.
LikeLike
Everybody here, except that special one, knows much about things even when everyone can’t be right about everything. That one special case don’t really know anything about what she is talking. Or maybe she just pretend to be so stupid, trying to deceive us from more important things like Gaia said before. Old NASA/TPTB tricks.
LikeLike
So someone has rudely replied – I won’t reply directly but I’ll respond to his argument.
“Even if Wagging the Moondoggie is wrong from first to last page, that is still no evidence that moonlandings can happen.”
Occam’s Razor – in absence of evidence to the contrary the fact of WTM being wrong from first page to last it is, in fact, extremely compelling evidence.
The person who wrote the book is obviously very knowledgeable so if it’s wrong from start to finish if we didn’t in fact go to the moon a very big question is raised. Why? Why would someone so knowledgeable not be able to produce clear argument against the moon landings. Why would this clearly knowledgeable person push out obvious nonsense such as “frigid lunar night” when anyone even only half-conversant on the subject knows they supposedly (at least) went during lunar dawn. Why not produce some juice not nonsense and why would this person so clearly knowledgeable lie?
Why don’t people get the screamingly obvious fact that Dave McGowan is an agent whose purpose was to mislead those disbelieving of the authorities? Why can’t you get this screamingly obvious fact?
You need to have a sense of how pieces of reality fit together. Dave McGowan’s obvious lies don’t fit with the non-reality of going to the moon, they simply don’t fit. Of course, if there were evidence we didn’t go to the moon then we’d have to accept the lack of fit, we’d simply have to accept it even if we didn’t understand it but there is no evidence that says we didn’t go to the moon, only claims about rockets not being able to move in space and other nonsense.
LikeLike
Dave McGowan was full of shite so therefore Werner et. al. sent some fellas to a flying space rock?
LikeLike
“Was”? I assure you, he lives and breathes. I applied Petra’s “critical thinking” to his alleged death, and concluded that his chain smoking while on his knees in a bathrobe for an interview was done for effect, planting an idea in the mind of viewers so that when he later announced he had lung cancer we would think “Yeah, saw that coming.” I followed him on a people search engine after that, and a man by that name was alive and well in LA, and of the correct age. Now he’s gone, but not dead, I assure you.
Dave was on a mission, and as with all limited hangouts, the object was to allow what was obvious but more so to hide much more important stuff … with Laurel Canyon he was on the very same mission. Our job is to not to figure out the obvious (no moon landing, no rock star early deaths), but what Dave was commissioned to hide … the more important stuff. I think that when I and friends discovered Janis Joplin alive, just one example, working as a “news” reporter, we busted through on Laurel Canyon. With the moon landings, they were working in Lower Earth Orbit to achieve something, but what baffles me is 1960s 70s technology, at least here on the surface, so primitive! As Dave reminds us, pocket calculators were still five years away. What were they up to?
That is our challenge.
LikeLike
When there is no possibility of reality and no evidence will ever satisfy that reality, because it is physically and chemically ; thermodynamically, gravitationally, electromagnetically ; geologically IMPOSSIBLE, OR says
something which
never CAN be real
never WILL be real
enjoy your aftershave, milady
LikeLike
My bad. I used the past tense because the wagging book was written in the past of course. I have no idea if McGowan is alive or dead and I didn’t read his books. Didn’t need them to figure out that you cannot strap some dudes to a missile and send up to a flying space rock to play golf in a spacesuit made by some feckin seamstress at playtex.
By the way, those playtex suits were purportedly pressured at a little under 5 psi per the ridiculous narrative. That’s the equivalent of playing golf on the top of Everest.
Feckin retarded the whole spaceship thing is.
LikeLike
would You stop Your nonsense posts if we all just agree with You about the Moon landings being real? Is that Your goal to achieve here? So much nonsense mumbo jumbo just because Your opinion differ from other’s opinion in ONLY ONE topic? (Really!?) Why can’t You just go on and discuss properly for other interesting topics here instead? This is going to led anywhere. You just waste Your and our time repeating same things over and over again. It’s all right people to have different opinions, I respect that You have Your opinions. It would be horrible if everyone just agrees everything.
LikeLike
No one needs to respond to me and for me although in many ways it does seem a waste of time I feel as though I’m clarifying my argument … even if it only seems that way to me and not to others.
Whether the moon landings happened or not is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact. I believe that when an event has a massive number of pieces of evidence available you simply cannot go wrong in working out whether it’s one thing or another if you apply the correct critical thinking and that is what I’m trying to establish. This argument is really about critical thinking.
LikeLike
Oh, Is that’s how thing are working in the World. I must believe in the “Moon Landings” now. I didn’t knew them to be fact before You just told me so. I just keep living as nothing has happened in this Truman Show. I’m so so….NOT!
LikeLike
Oh, I looked those moon photos again, and, You are right! There is indeed a black sky there and what I found even stronger proof about the pictures being real thing is that there is no clouds in the sky in any picture! There should be clouds visible in some pictures if they were photographed in the Earth instead, because if I look out of my window, there’s clouds in the sky almost every time so You should see clouds in the faked Moon pictures too, right? Of course some nice depunk site guy might have an answer that it’s not totally impossible the clouds to be in the Moon, because they might be formed from the vapor of the descend engine of the Lunar Module. Okay, but how about lack of the birds in the Moon pictures? That is unflinching evidence that there are no atmosphere in the pictures, and because there are no atmosphere it must be real Moon in the pictures. That’s how I use Occam’s razor, and Mr. Occam was way more wiser than I am so it is a proof of Moon landings to be real too. This is all true because I told so to myself. I don’t have to read any books to be right. Case closed.
LikeLike
When Neil Armstrong and Buzz”light year”Aldrin planted the flag on the “MooooN” and old glory started waving without air, I think that said it all. POW, to the moon ,Alice…That’s about as close as you’ll ever get to it.
LikeLike
“Critical thinking” involves weighing all evidence. It would be a starting point, not just a debate tactic. Give it a go. Read Moondoggie, despite DM’s obviously compromised position. He had a purpose in writing it, at least part to allow skeptics their due. Of course A11 was nonsense. But something else was going on as well. A critical thinker would expose that avenue.
LikeLike
Seriously, Mark, asking me to read WTM is like asking me to read The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (my mother tried to push it on me – I’m like for God’s sake) or some other nonsense 9/11 book.
Just give me the nugget in it that you think convincingly contradicts the reality of the moon landings and I’ll respond to it.
LikeLike
I used to read any kind of books in my youth regardless which “side” wrote them. From communist books to nazi books. I never believed anything as real truth in those writings. I have never believed in any isms. The world is not so black and white and every writing is more or less biased, like it is the case with every news and newspapers. There is no absolute truth anywhere in any books. You have to read the texts from “both sides” and from many sources and then think with Your OWN brains what might be real and what not. One should never trust those debunk site guys who are here to deceive us from the truth. Just like You are here Petra when You refer to those misinformation agents.
LikeLike
Petra, I will not, repeat, will not do your homework for you.
LikeLike
We have such different perceptions, don’t we, Mark? I feel that a significant amount of refutation of WTM has been put forward in the form of Sensible Site guy’s work and also in my observation that “frigid lunar night” is a deliberate mistake because someone as obviously knowledgeable as Dave McGowan wouldn’t have made that mistake innocently or simply because he was so influenced by his biases.
Just to make it clear, the most time astronauts spent on the moon was 74 hours or just over three Earth days in the Apollo 17 mission. All the images we have from the moon are obviously taken during lunar day (29 Earth days long) so there is no reason to think they were there in “frigid lunar night”. This is EXACTLY the kind of deliberate error we see in psyop material.
My claim is not just that the work is mistaken but that it is a deliberate work of propaganda. So far, no one has produced anything to refute that claim.
My first rule of critical thinking is:
Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
and in that endeavour I follow what I call “the debunking trail” – you don’t like the word debunking, that’s fine, we can call it “the refutation trail” instead.
The WTM refutation trail
Step 1: WTM is put forward.
Step 2: SS guy refutes part of it and I add my one item of “frigid lunar night”
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
According to my rule of critical thinking what needs to happen now is:
Step 3: Counter-refutation of SS guy and/or an item within WTM that clearly contradicts the reality of the moon landings
So to my mind the next step in the discussion, Step 3, is on your side, not mine. I’ve done my “homework” so to speak and now it’s up to you to perform the next step. If you don’t see that the argument responsibility has shifted to you then we have such different ideas of what the critical thinking process is we can’t really discuss in a sensible manner.
LikeLike
This nonsense is the exact opposite of critical thinking, which means a constant re-evaluation of your OWN beliefs and thus NOT jumping to some picture conclusions and sticking to them.
I don’t believe you are real, it is Mark doing this to his own blog, maybe to look smarter himself or to deliberately annoy us or to push WtM as some authority, which it’s not.
And the fact you don’t even know what “frigid lunar night” refers to, because you only talk about it out of any context, and don’t even know that
1 – nor all missions were at lunar dawn, they were at different moments during the lunar day (14 Earth days) and especially the later missions took much longer, so would spend several parts of that lunar day.
2 – the 3rd astronot spent many hours in that exact frigid lunar night, doing somersaults orbiting around the Moon, allegedly of course
That is your problem, you know nothing by yourself and just get some Snopes BS which you don’t understand yourself.
The fact Mark lets YOU of all possible people dominate these comment sections tells me he is behind your “character”.
LikeLike
Gaia, I have tried. I have even drank bottles of Smart Water (I do not know if they market that product in Columbia, but trust me, it does not work), but Petra is not my invention, and not some ruse to make me look smarter than I am. She’s a bit of a gift to the blog, causing unimaginable hits even as I thought I was tanking. I treasure her, but did not invent her.
LikeLike
So I was right. She doesn’t need to be “yours”, your own words (“gift”, “treasure”) say all about you and your blog.
Instead of giving attention to those who objectively deserve that (e.g. washington sean, who was the ONLY one who reacted exactly on-topic in the other thread and with the most excellent information), and you have 0 attention for that reaction. That is absurd.
You are addicted to “hits”, “numbers”, I was glad you were honest about that at Ab’s podcast, you are only interested in hits. I wonder why, on an unmonetised site, makes 0 sense.
And your push for Petra to read WtM is equally absurd.
Instead of dealing with the moonlandings holistically, trying to get to understand them, you keep pushing a document written by what YOU regard as “an agent”, a “gatekeeper”, whatever.
So you rather push agents and trolls than truth and those taking the time for valuable things.
Such respect for your commenters to call that trolling POS “a gift”, a “treasure”…
She is NOTHING of that and other commenters here are.
LikeLike
Still anger with me, Mark? What do You think about My purpose, I mean comments here? I know there’s nothing new in them and I went to the trap of Petra without helping the situation. Or actually I was helping Your situation when arguing with Petra, right? You’re welcome. If You want me to be here I hope I would add something more to Your magnific community here. I don’t wanna be just someone bringing more hits Your blog. And obviously I’m too dull to be any kind of agent. You and me are interested in many same subjects and I have learn a lot from You. Your work with those “dead” rock stars were groundbreaking studies in whole internet IMHO. Especially that revelation that Freddie Mercury became Dr. Phil was mind blowing. They just add some stuff in his head which formed that unnatural pumpkin head shape. When I showed that to my wife it was first time she believed in my conspiracy stories. He was before that mad for me and ask “that if people dye they are dead, why would they lie about it?” It was harsh waking for her, but I think that more people should live here eyes open. If they don’t want to do that it’s okay or me, but I think many would be grateful when learning how much we are lied whole time. I’m thinking to so same kind of research that You have done with all those “dead” people some day. I know it takes lot of time and patient to do which I have neither at the moment. Here are some topics that I know almost nothing about but I like to learn new things and thoughts and expand my world view. Thank You and other writers here from that. I could be a too nag in my comments sometimes, like my late dad use to say already back in the -’70es, but It.s more about my twisted humour instead in my opinion. I try to decrease that behaviour if necessary or if I’m hurting people’s feelings. Keep the faith!
LikeLike
You ABSOLUTELY do. I could have named you above, but your essential additions to the pile of sense against space travel go without saying
and your English has already improved in the relatively shoet time you are here, so you see how we aiducate each other…
Bingo (and I hate bingo)
what a disrespect your honest self shows, Mark. I “know” you over the years (I got to know you before Ab, remember?) and indeed this is you
WHY?
Why do you call your blog Piece of Mindful
to gather
minds who HATE, DETEST this “numbers system world”, this fake populuslarity contest, this crapitalist nonsense
the Essence of Eternity is TIME
timelessness
scale independence
globally guiding
aSHIFT.
join Eye am Eye Radio for a More Moral & Meaningful Mindset !
together
we matter
to gather
we better
LikeLike
to “Occam´s / Ockham’s razor” (and the addict here of it)
I put
Ockham’s minesweeper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ockham_(M2714)
:rofl:
LikeLike
Obviously Petra is never going to change her mind of the Apollo missions so all our comments to him goes to the void. I found this site last year, but because I’m very slow reader I just finished the blog texts recently. There are so many excellent writings from Mark and others that I’ve never seen quite so exquisite conversations in the internet before. Here are people that really think things and not yell loud their preoccupations like in so many other sites.
So recently when I was reading these latest and just as marvelous like before writings of Mark’s about for example “Moon Landings” I find out that there were something different now in the comments. When there used to be sophisticated changing of thoughts there were many comments long arguments about the same topic of the “moon Landings” being real or not over and over again. Same arguments about how the debunkers have debunked everything so we should not use our own brains instead, because all information about the space travelling and rockets are so difficult to people like us to understand. This was sad and very boring to read, but I continued the reading because I like this site so much otherwise. It was not so easy to jump over the some comments for me anyway. It was my failure, but I made a really bad mistake and tried to advise Mark what to do with his own blog. While I like to think things sometimes too much I’m not a very smart man in some situations. I just trying to play well with the cards that have given to me, but every now and then I fail to do it well enough. This situation with Mark was a good example of my failure and now I think that Mark does not like me and my comments. I am truly very sorry, Mark, from the bottom of my heart for my obvious clumsy and offensive behavior against You. I know now how itchy those twisted and harping arguments of Petra’s can be. Maybe that’s the reason why she is here, I think she is just trying to get us scratching her itchy comments so that we have less time to think things. Or maybe she just is helpless case.
LikeLike
Obviously Petra is never going to change her mind of the Apollo missions so all our comments to him goes to the void. I found this site last year, but because I’m very slow reader I just finished the blog texts recently. There are so many excellent writings from Mark and others that I’ve never seen quite so exquisite conversations in the internet before. Here are people that really think things and not yell loud their preoccupations like in so many other sites.
So recently when I was reading these latest and just as marvelous like before writings of Mark’s about for example “Moon Landings” I find out that there were something different now in the comments. When there used to be sophisticated changing of thoughts there were many comments long arguments about the same topic of the “moon Landings” being real or not over and over again. Same arguments about how the debunkers have debunked everything so we should not use our own brains instead, because all information about the space travelling and rockets are so difficult to people like us to understand. This was sad and very boring to read, but I continued the reading because I like this site so much otherwise. It was not so easy to jump over the some comments for me anyway. It was my failure, but I made a really bad mistake and tried to advise Mark what to do with his own blog. While I like to think things sometimes too much I’m not a very smart man in some situations. I just trying to play well with the cards that have given to me, but every now and then I fail to do it well enough. This situation with Mark was a good example of my failure and now I think that Mark does not like me and my comments. I am truly very sorry, Mark, from the bottom of my heart for my obvious offensive behavior. I know now how itchy those twisted and harping arguments of Petra’s can be. Maybe that’s the reason why she is here, I think she is just trying to get us scratching her itchy comments so that we have less time to think things. Or maybe she just is helpless case.
LikeLike
Sorry my computer is messing with me so I posted my comment accidentally twice. My Web browser is crashing once in a while without any clear reason. Does it not like me either?
LikeLike
I have too vivacious imagination sometimes, and I’m interested of the phenomenon called synchronicity. So I was thinking the habit of the NASA naming their projects and things after the ancient mid eastern names like after the Roman and Greece gad Apollon and try to found anything related to that naming habit and the name Petra. And Bingo! There is indeed an ancient city called Petra in the country of Jordan. I take a picture search of it and I found other Bingo! This is the same place where the some known (And who is not involved in any conspiracy subjects at all. No no, just like it is not with his director buddy Ron Howard) film director Steven Spielberg filmed his movie Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. (https://twitter.com/visitpetra/status/1057574134169944064?lang=zh-Hant)
That’s not really a big point, but there is near Petra in the dessert a place called the Moon Valley (https://www.jordangrouptours.com/historical-studies/wadi-rum-moon-valley) where are filmed several science fiction films where they pretend to be on the foreign planet, including the movies “The Martian”, “Red Planet” or “The Last Days on mars”. (https://trip500.com/the-valley-of-the-moon/)
The landscape of the valley is a much like they say it is in the Mars (https://www.westend61.de/en/imageView/CAVF64338/desert-landscape-near-ad-deir-at-sunset-petra-jordan), but You can find some places to resemble the Moon surface (https://www.openbible.info/geo/photos/ae981db/mount-seir-1) and (https://fi.depositphotos.com/70161245/stock-photo-mountains-of-petra-jordan-middle.htmlas) presented us in those “Moon Landings” pictures. Interesting, is it? You can find pictures where they are riding with donkeys on the “Moon”. (https://www.brendansadventures.com/donkey-trekking-petra-jordan/) Some could say that this proves that there is a breathable atmosphere in Moon after all and that space suit thing was just for a diversion. And this is off course also the proof that we really went there, right? No.
This may be nothing and that’s just how my twisted mind works. There are coincidences and “coincidences”. I hope that You learned something new after all.
LikeLike
I watched it live in a harbourside pub in Aberdeen; my lasting impression is how indifferent the clientele were – just kept on chatting and I was the only one looking most of the time.
Down to earth folk are hard to fool? It was uninspiring but of course I now wish I’d examined my gut feelings more closely.
To cite good ol’ Occam’s razor again it would seem to me that with forever prestige at stake and the extremely high risk of failure, the least you would do is send surrogates up so you had the originals for the tv news.
LikeLike
You’re totally Wright (inside humor, I knew an Ian Wright)
and for the most important part
namely
how to deal with
let alone
sample and analyze
the substratum, the surface geology, that only surface contact you have, like tires on a race car, your lives depend on only that contact
I would send
the
geologist
only on the very last mission
5 (Tom Hanks was also no geo) missions after Mr. Alan “Van Allen belts? I think we didn’t go so far out to go through those….” Bean…..
that makes the most sense
it’s like keeping the hunter with hawk eyes in the cave
and sending the golfing kiddos out
for the greatest achievement of mankind
Anyone interested in buying a Lissajour orbit ?
LikeLike
it was a typo, but now it’s Newspeak 😀
*the “”””official””” term of that imaginary 2 or 3-body gravitational railroad (ever seen jumping trains ?, that is what NASA says “space rockets” do “between orbits”, there is no “between orbits”, it’s orbit or crashing ; meteorites….) is
Lissajous orbit
LikeLike
So that person is ad hominemming again. I don’t know whether he realises that an ad hominem attack is a form of logical fallacy that tends to undermine one’s argument. I have absolutely no doubt that a study would show that the argument of someone who ad hominems is more often wrong than the argument of someone who doesn’t.
But just to respond to the “frigid lunar night” thing.
A lunar day is 29.5306 Earth days so presumably that means 14 Earth days of sunlight followed by 14 Earth days of darkness – whatever, there’s no reason to think that astronauts were on the moon other than at the best time to suit the temperature and they were obviously always there during sunlight hours whether dawn or after dawn because all their images show a sunlit moon.
I rest my case: Dave McGowan was knowingly lying when he said “frigid lunar night”.
If you just stick to the irrefutable facts you are so much more likely to get to the truth.
LikeLike
There were nights when the third astronot was flying in the orbit of the Moon with his Command Module. That thing flew around the Moon many times they say. But there is so many conflicting information even in “official” stories that I think they really don’t know if there is really hot or really cold when flying in space “underneath” that burning Sun. They don’t know because nobody ever were there to figure it out. Anyway in the shadows there should be frigging cold out there, in the Moon or in the orbit. That’s if one believes in those NASA bed time stories. And even if the Gowan was wrong about those “frigid lunar nights” it does NOT PROOF ANYTHING! You are clearly more clever that You pretend to be, dear special agent Petra.
LikeLike
Wikis states They were on the moon for about 2 hours on 7/20-7/21. All that trouble for a 2 hour visit.
LikeLike
What would You not do for playing golf in the Moon? That’s important thing to do for a mankind, I think.
LikeLike
Hi Petra,
Dave McGowan was referring to the (claimed) Russian lunar rover Lunokhod I, not at all to the (claimed) Apollo dudes and their rover when he talked about the “frigid lunar night” (https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-11/). Please go back to that page, there are even some pictures of the Russian rover right above the quote you keep bringing up. You have repeatedly made made pretty strong claims using this particular quote and by now have obviously spent quite a bit of time writing about it. Please take no offense–but a fraction of that time applied to reading before writing would appear to be a good “intellectual investment” by avoiding such a glaring misinterpretation and the useless “time sink” it creates for all readers (and yourself, if I may say so).
So as this is not the “gem” you thought it was you might reconsider “resting your case” based on it.
LikeLike
Tried to respond more fully but comment didn’t appear. Will keep it short.
Yes, stupid error, thanks Wolf.
Can you find anything in WTM that credibly refutes the moon landings?
Can you counter-refute any of SS Guy’s refutation of WTM?
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
LikeLike
Sorry about the lost full comment, Petra, as I would have appreciated it. Now you kept it short indeed and essentially just bounced the ball back with a challenge. But fine, let’s go from there.
Allow me to quote from an earlier posting of yours:
“As stated by Kary Mullis, scientists – and we can expand this to critical thinkers generally – aim to prove their hypothesis wrong. By definition that means immersing oneself in the literature supporting any competing hypotheses to really come to grips with the material.”
I fully agree with this approach. In fact, this was exactly how I, some years ago, had to reconsider my being a “Saturn-V/Apollo fanboy” and instead began to see NASA in a different light. I still try to live up to this standard of critical thinking and I know it is so much easier said than done. Confirmation bias is a bitch and there are the echo chambers and also the self-proclaimed authorities (including those presumptuously using the word “debunk”) that persistently tempt our intellectual laziness…
So coming back to your challenge: Let’s indeed be critical thinkers and immerse ourselves “in the literature supporting any competing hypotheses”. I am ready to list what I see as the weakest and strongest points made in WTM, as well as the weakest and strongest points made by the Sensible-Site guy at the link you provided–if, in the spirit of symmetry and fairness, you will commit to doing exactly the same. But no cheating please! Immersing, not skimming. Honorably agreed?
LikeLike
I appreciate your response, Wolf. It’s nice to feel as though we can engage in a more kind of open discussion rather than simply argument.
“… just bounced the ball back with a challenge …”
I’d say the reason I was in a position to do that and not be set back on my heels with a challenge I couldn’t respond to is that I’d done due diligence previously and so even though I made a mistake on this occasion my case – as I see it – is watertight so any errors are not going to undermine it. And my previous due diligence to a degree would explain my carelessness – I knew I didn’t have to prove anything so I wasn’t as careful as I would have been had I been starting on my journey … at least I like to think so anyway.
Re confirmation bias. Yes, it is a bitch but I think the more you immerse yourself in the material that opposes your hypothesis and follow the debunking trail as much as you possibly can the much less likely you are to fall victim – also you should consider why you WANT to believe anything in particular. I don’t want or not want to believe the authorities, I just know they lie non-stop. I don’t want to disbelieve them I simply have no choice … most of the time.
“I am ready to list what I see as the weakest and strongest points made in WTM, as well as the weakest and strongest points made by the Sensible-Site guy at the link you provided–if, in the spirit of symmetry and fairness, you will commit to doing exactly the same. But no cheating please! Immersing, not skimming. Honorably agreed?”
A good suggestion but can we modify it a little. I think it’s best to confine argument to elements that clearly suggest impossibility of the moon landings or of fakery rather than more nebulous areas such as the level of technology in the 60s so why not agree on the points to discuss first?
I suggest these:
From SS guy, including items discussed in the comments
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
— 1. Single-stage versus multi-stage rockets
— 2. The missing tapes
— 3. The amount of fuel needed to reach the moon
— 4. The Van Allen belts – links to another post
— 5. Lighting – links to footage
In my opinion, everything SS guy says on the above 5 points stands strong and I’ll respond to anything you say indicating weakness.
I’ll leave it to you to put what you think WTM’s strongest points are.
It’s frustrating the way comments don’t always publish so I’ve put a page up on my substack for you to post a comment for any “lost” comments. You can post your comment there and then come back here and say you’ve posted there if a comment gets lost and I’ll do the same.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/open-discussion-critical-thinking
LikeLike
Thanks for offering to take our chat to your substack, Petra, but in fairness to Mark and his blog I would prefer to stick around here. (To avoid losing a comment I just save it outside before posting it.)
I acknowledge your having done “due diligence” earlier and would ask that you acknowledge the same for me. It was only reluctantly that some years ago I changed my position from being a “believer” but–indeed as a result of extensive “due diligence” –for me the probabilities eventually shifted to such a degree that I now consider the claimed Apollo accomplishments as very, very unlikely.
I try to be careful with considering something “watertight” though. Calling it that almost sounds as if you see the case as closed? As you welcome a more open discussion (very much likewise btw!), I will assume you remain open-minded–otherwise, there would be no point spending time in a discussion, right?
Assuming we can acknowledging each other’s previous “due diligence” I think we can keep it fair and symmetric and in fact make this a nice case of critical thinking applied to WTM by McGowan and its analysis on SensibleSite. I politely decline your suggested modification as I think it is better if we allow the salient points to naturally come out of the reading rather than predefining something going in. And who knows, perhaps one of those 60ies tech aspects does end up holding some water after all?
I stand by my original proposal that both you and I read and afterwards comment first on the strengths and weaknesses of WTM as the primary and then of SenSi as the derivative text. Like you I only read WTM years ago and would now reread it. Unlike you I still need to read the SenSi stuff, so you are actually a bit ahead of me on the reading assignments, ha. But let us not be tempted by intellectual laziness, what do you say?
LikeLike
OK, Wolf, another counter proposal. You say you’ve done due diligence as I have but I don’t have a clear idea of what that due diligence is whereas you can see my due diligence as I’ve made my case here in various comments the last one being on Mark’s latest post where he linked to a page claiming proof of fakery with a photo of a lighted moon lander on earth at night to which I responded with an Apollo 11 photo showing that the density of the light is completely different in both photos.
I’ve made my case and I’ve also put the rules I followed to get to my conclusion.
I wouldn’t expect you to read some book on 9/11 full of propaganda as you wouldn’t expect me to right? My attitude at this point is, “If someone has something that says we didn’t go to the moon, you need to point to it, you need to identify it.” So far on this site all I’ve seen is claims of how physics work – not really interested as its beyond my scope and I see so much evidence supporting the moon landings I don’t need to delve into arcane areas. And no one, for example, has counter-refuted the refutation of Boethius’s claims by StackExchange.
So I am definitely “case closed” BUT I always keep an open mind so I’ll certainly look at something that someone claims contradicts the reality of the moon landings or casts serious doubts on them. So I put to you, Wolf, that you just give me ONE thing, just ONE thing that stands up in WTM or whatever and we can progress from there. If you come up with ONE thing that stands up then I’ll be willing to look further. You can, of course, provide more than one thing, it’s up to you. As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.
LikeLike
You make a fair point in stating that any “one thing” that stands up will be “interesting” to you which I read as possibly making you reconsider your position. I will take this up in the more recent thread of the blog.
Let me just conclude our brief conversation here on this thread with these thoughts:
I am certainly willing to point at weak spots by the self-proclaimed “debunkers” but I much prefer an honest intellectual exchange. The nasty arrogance exhibited by those presuming to call themselves such, denigrating opposing views to “bunk” a priori, makes me strongly question their seriousness and intention.
You do not hesitate giving “reading assingments”, quoting you from the more recent thread,
“Due diligence. Read carefully … and then come back to me with your thoughts.”
Reading this quote again now, do you notice how very much teacher-like it sounds and how it easily will rub people the wrong way because of the appearance of talking down? Even more so if at the same time you see no need to do it yourself anymore, because–the reader must presume–you feel you are done, having reached a sufficient level of knowledge. Please stay open to the possibility that others have arrived at a different conclusion than you from similar, or perhaps even greater, effort at due diligence. I think keeping an open mind strongly implies always remaining willing to read new material.
Are you really saying you are done doing your own due diligence? Petra, what happened to “immersing oneself in the literature supporting any competing hypotheses”? …O-N-E-S-E-L-F
Finally, please note that I did not ask you for reading anything I wasn’t imposing on myself as well.
LikeLike
“… I much prefer an honest intellectual exchange …”
I’m afraid, Wolf, I’m not really getting the “exchange” factor. I don’t see “exchange” as being a necessary part of argument, that is, I interpret your idea of exchange as meaning we both put forward our arguments in a kind of simultaneous fashion. To me one person can start with the other person responding to their argument, there is no requirement for us to both put forward our arguments at the same time as it were.
“You do not hesitate giving “reading assignments”, quoting you from the more recent thread, … and how it easily will rub people the wrong way because of the appearance of talking down?”
Yes, it might rub people the wrong way and I should probably take that into consideration in the future but serious people will ignore the annoying tone just as I have ignored the unflattering epithets applied to me – you did notice them, right, and you noticed how I didn’t let them affect me?
“Please stay open to the possibility that others have arrived at a different conclusion than you from similar, or perhaps even greater, effort at due diligence.”
I have given no indication that I’m not open to whatever conclusions others have arrived at but I do need a case for them – that is a definite requirement. As I see it, I have put my case forward, Wolf, I have put it forward very clearly. Do you not see that I’ve made my argument and in fact I do not accept that others have done their due diligence because I don’t see evidence of it. At this stage in the game I’ve gone beyond “possibility” and I’m looking for evidence. I don’t see evidence of due diligence and until I do I say it hasn’t been done.
Please, please, Wolf, at this stage I will not engage in further discussion until you provide at least a single point for your case for the moon landings being faked. I say to you, Wolf, “Put up or shut up.” No more discussion about discussion. Put your case forward – in the absence of your case I have no further response to you.
LikeLike
Read McGowan. He is an agent, still alive, but a good writer. Once you read his work, you do not “forget” it.
LikeLike
Otherwise known as the “stormout”, the “I will have no further response to you” is a rhetorical retreat tactic. I have seen it time and again on this blog, otherwise stated as “I am losing and getting the hell out of here,” but restated as a false defense as “Dammit, I am right! I will not be reduced to discussion of whether I am right. I am right, dammit!” You’re trying to build a fortress around yourself. Once you carped on about Occam, but then inexplicably dropped him, and became a self-described “critical thinker.” I think it safe to say, given evidence in your comments, that you do not address the reasoned debate of skeptics about the moon landings except through the lens of “debunkers”, the hired apparatchiks put out by NASA to literally say anything, but that is their job. Your job is to use your own evidence and reasoning (there is no “prove” in our world outside of mathematical theories) to show us where, in clear and uncluttered evidence and reasoning, the moon landings really happened. As you are alone on this forum, you can easily see you have not succeeded. But you have given us fun.
LikeLike
By the way, I do not for a second think you are a NASA hired gun. It more appears that you mounted a horse, got thrown off, and due to sheer stubbornness get back on again, time after time. It is an admirable quality. It would help if you were backed by evidence.
LikeLike
I have spent the last few minutes getting rid of comments to the effect that the the universe is static and standing still and also that Paul McCartney had a half brother name William, that sort of thing as Macca would say. Your comments are safe, and I will never rise up like a priest and take them down. After all, I could be wrong. You’ve never been censored here, never will be.
LikeLike
OMG. I didn’t realize I made so many comments in relatively small time period. My writing skills are improved a lot. But unfortunately those comments were still mostly waste of my time. That’s how the deceiving works apparently. I leave that special agent and her stupid writings behind now and maybe read some books instead of “discussing” with her. I Like to discuss with You Gaia very much. I’m sorry I don’t know enough about that important food thing in other topic, that I could write anything about it. Maybe I should study that.
All that work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All that work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All that work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All that work and no play makes Jack a dull boy….
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, I send Yesterday a quite original comment where I connected the name Petra with the Not A Space Agency. I get some kind of notification that they check my comment before releasing it or something like that. I don’t see it released here yet. It was my best comment here so far IMO, but something in it seems to trigger automatic censorship systems. Are there NASA agents monitoring our comments and maybe I hit in something too sensitive matter? Let’s wait for a little more.
LikeLike
It was there after all, I just didn’t notice it. Sorry again.
All that work and no play……
LikeLike
I do see that if you comment once, two, three, four more will follow in short order. Contain yourself, please.
LikeLike
Yes, You are right. I was over keen, or how You say it in English. My hands are sometimes quicker than my brains too, sorry. I’m taking a little break in writing comments anyway, because my laptop is not working very well now and there are too nice weather outside to play with computers. Walking in the fresh spring air and sawing firewood are healthier things to do. I read Your block with my tablet still, but I’m too slow to write anything with it. I return when I have repaired my laptop and have something more important to say than those poor short comments of mine. However I made a few good comments too in my opinion.
By the way. Have You ever studied if the Neil Armstrong and Juri Gagarin are the same person, like some say. I was planning to do a comparison like You use to do with photographs.
LikeLike
Suominen
send me an email
just click on my name – agenda 2020 [youknow] protonmail [.] commiespleaseno
will you promise me that please ?
to quote one of the greatest
we can both agree
Shut up, I know what I am doing
Kimi Räikkönen – racing legend & F1 World Champion
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Gaia, but my comment was there after all, I just didn’t notice it. Sorry again.
All that work and no play……
It feels a good idea when I was writing it, but same time my brain is too quick to me, just like when I wrote about that song about satellites (I Believe in Satellites.) I don’t really BELIEVE in satellites, so much anyway. “Satellite believer” sounds so absud in my ears. That’s like one going door to door telling the people about the wonders of the satellites. This is how my twisted imagination works. I can’t always be able to keep aboard with it myself. “The space travel was good, but the sleigh was too quick for me” If You know what I mean. I’m beginning to understand your point of view about the possibility/impossibility of the space travelling, I’m not just as quick as my imagination is.
LikeLike
Thanks, Gaia, but my comment was there after all, I just didn’t notice it.
….
so that is suddenly a reason not to communicate with me, makes total sense
alright, I got the message, enjoy your time wasting with Marks then
I tried
LikeLiked by 1 person
No no, I misunderstood the point of Yours. I thought it was about my comment about ancient Petra not showing. I will contact You when I go to my table computer, which works better in emails than this laptop. I so rarely send emails to anybody. I have just now other things to do, but I try to make it before I go sleeping. I do want to communicate with You but I’m afraid I have so little to say to You.
My field of information is quite narrow after all.
LikeLike
I send You a mail about half an hour ago. I check my emails tomorrow.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if I get the address right, but I try tomorrow again if not. I’M Too tired now to think or work clearly.
LikeLike
I made it wrong somehow when trying to send You mail. What You meant by “just click on my name”? There happens anything when I click Your name. This is how stupid I am in some subjects.
LikeLike
https://yle.fi/a/3-12665728 It’s about the Rally English of the Finnish people.
LikeLike
Kimi: fantastic driver; fantastic person; fantastic quote.
F1: going down the toilet with all other “professional” sporting.
LikeLike
What’s Your thoughts about the ancient city of Petra and the Moon Valley of it’s? Has it something to do with the Apollo missions perhaps or does that tell a sign about our lady of Occam here? Or is that all just a coincidence? I think I just scratch the surface and it takes more time to study the subject, but on the other hand it might be nothing more than my little bit crazy imagination.
LikeLike
Now I did my third attempt to send You a message via email. I do something wrong every time.
LikeLike
I try to send emails to Gaia. This comment went in the wrong place. It’s not my day today. NASA is not paying me enough,…I mean… ops…Hey everybody look to the sky. What’s that thing flying there! Is it a bird, is it a plane… No it’s the OCCAM’S RAZOR!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kimi: fantastic driver; fantastic person; fantastic quote.
F1: going down the toilet with all other “professional” sporting.
LikeLike
Apollo reality, how and where NASA faked it –
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/
LikeLike