Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale
Tom Kellum has introduced me to a site, the Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax", http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax which convinces me that others know vastly more than do I about this monstrosity and have proven it many times over. As illustrations, I am citing here some of its most striking passages, but that is no substitute for reading it in its entirety. Among my favorites are "1967 deaths", "Lunar samples", "Splashdown", "18-day quarantine", "Visibility of stars", and "Why is the Saturn V no longer used?" The quotes from famous people are classic, once you know the score.

History

Doubts about the authenticity of Apollo Moon landings appeared first in December 1968 when Apollo 8 was launched.[1] The almost perfectly executed odyssey of Apollo 11 seemed unreal to some who believed it to be a hoax, contrived for mere publicity.[1]

The first book on the subject ("Did man land on the Moon?") was issued in 1970 by the Texas mathematician James J. Cranny.[1][1](2:52–3:03) The suggestive scenes[1] in the films "Diamonds are forever" by Guy Hamilton (1971)[1] and especially "Capricorn One" by Peter Hyams (1978, about a hoaxed flight to Mars in a spacecraft that looks the same as the Apollo craft)[1] gave a powerful boost to the popularity of the hoax theory, coinciding with the increased distrust in official US reports after the Watergate scandal.[1][1][1][1] And today, a sequel to "Capricorn One" is in the "deep development stage", said Navid McIlhargey, Senior Vice President of New Regency Productions in Los Angeles.[1]

In 2006, the Apollo era slow-scan TV and telemetry data tape reels were declared missing.[1] The question of what happened to the tapes "stuck in the craw" of the Moon doubters.[1] And in 2009, NASA revealed that the tapes were erased.[1][1]

Moon sceptics or "conspiracy theorists"?

Moon sceptics are often labelled "conspiracy theorists" (e.g. by Roger Launius, senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum at the US Smithsonian Institution) but they disagree. For example, Bart Sibrel (see below) said:[1]

“I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe in aliens from outer space, and I grew up as a big fan of the Moon missions from age 8 to 14.”

Psychologist Floyd Rudmin writes that "conspiracy theory" is a powerful pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. Its power is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of its advocates. By labelling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory", evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

Keeping it secret

Too many people were involved with the project to keep a secret like this. More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. It would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing.[1]

CON:

NASA engineering-technical personnel was about 13,000.[1] Much fewer people were in the know, and there are examples in history for secrets known by a lot of people but kept for many years (N-1 rocket, cruiser Belfast crashes, Enigma machine message decryption, cargo vessel Rona sinking, operations of British submarines in Swedish waters accusing the Soviets, etc).[1] The Manhattan Project[1] employed hundreds of thousands of people and hardly a word was leaked out.[1](p. 19)

If someone who attended the Apollo programme admits a hoax, he will lose his prestige and risks being declared insane or killed.[1](p. 423)

1967 deaths

On the death of Virgil Grissom,[1] Edward White,[1] and Roger Chaffee[1] (in the Apollo 1 fire), Edward Givens[1] (on a car crash), Clifton Williams[1] (on a T-38 jet trainer), Michael Adams[1] (on an X-15 high-altitude experimental aircraft), Robert Lawrence[1] (on an F-104B combat trainer), Russel Rogers[1] (on an F-105 fighter), and Thomas Baron[1] with all his family (at a railroad crossing) in 1967,[1] the NASA defenders asked: Why remove the disagreeable along with the unique experimental aircraft or the first spacecraft prototype?[1]

CON:

3 of the X-15 were built, and its last flight was a year later (in 1968), out of 9 service years in total.[1] Apollo 1 was not the first prototype but had a serial number of 012.[1]. For many years before and after 1967 both the US and Soviet space industry had from 0 to 3 death cases per year. Only in 1967, a year before the first manned Apollo flight, there were 11 death cases.[1]

The Apollo 1 crew was still alive for at least 15 minutes after the craft caught fire, because their autopsy found that they have managed to develop pulmatory oedema, which cannot happen if they had died earlier.[1](p. 95) Senior NASA astronaut and Apollo 1 commander Virgil Grissom was a sharp critic of the programme. "Quite a number of things are not in order with this spacecraft, he once said. "It's not as good as the ones we flew before." He publicly called the Apollo capsule "a bucket of bolts" and the spacecraft "a heap of old scrap". On 22 January 1967 (5 days before his death), he picked the largest lemon from his lemon garden in Texas, and intended to hang it on the Apollo spacecraft—as a symbol of failure. (In December 1966, a report made by Joe Shea noted that "At least 20,000 failures of all kinds had been logged, more than 200 of them in the environmental control system.")[1](p. 115)[1] Grissom had received death threats earlier, which his family saw as coming from the space programme. "If there ever is a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely to be me", he said to his wife.[1](p. 39)[1](pp. 87–90) NASA quality engineer Thomas Baron died with his family a week after his 500-page report analysing the Apollo 1 incident was deposed before the Congressational committee, and the report vanished.[1](p. 94)

Jump height

Lunar explorers should be able to jump vertical distances up to 12 or 14 ft (4 ± 0.3 m) on the Moon, unencumbered with a spacesuit or other equipment, but will experience difficulty in maintaining their balance. However, falls from these heights under similar conditions are not likely to result in personal injury.[1] The EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit, or the Apollo spacesuit) tested on Apollo 9 and used on Apollo 11–14 weighs about 85 kg fully charged.[1]

CON

Assuming astronaut's body weight of 85 kg, his total weight including the space suit would be 170 kg, so he could achieve jump heights of 2 m. But the maximum jump height shown by an Apollo astronaut was 0.42 m,[1] which is five times less.[1]

Lunar samples

Between 1969 and 1972, six Apollo missions brought back 382 kg of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. Lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators at NASA's Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects. All samples (split or intact) must be returned to the NASA Johnson Space Centre after being studied.[1]

There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon.[1]

CON

Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[1] and non-oxidation,[1] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[1] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[1](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[1][1]

Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[1][1] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[1](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[1] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[1]

Splashdown

At 13:35 P.M., as the [Apollo 11] command module with its human passengers and its cargo of Moon rocks sped on a north-easterly course 80 [nautical] miles above the Gilbert Islands, it slammed into the atmosphere and streaked like a flaming meteor towards a soft landing in the water below. Fifteen minutes later the command ship's three parachutes lowered it gently, at 21 [nautical] miles an hour, into the Pacific 950 [nautical] miles south-west of Hawaii, 2.7 [nautical] miles (5 km) from its aiming point and 13.8 [nautical] miles (25.6 km) from the [aircraft] carrier Hornet, the recovery ship. Man's first expedition to another world was over. President Nixon watched the recovery from one of the Hornet's two bridges. He caught a glimpse of the spaceship's fiery re-entry into the atmosphere, but shared in the disappointment of the crew and millions of television viewers when the craft splashed down out of sight of the ship.[1] [Apollo 11] capsule was first righted by flotation bags.[1](left photo)

CON

If Nixon could see the spacecraft's entry into the atmosphere down its sloping trajectory, the sky must have been exceptionally clear, assuring direct visibleness of hundreds of kilometres. Then the craft descending on three huge parachutes at only 25 km should have been noticeable too: aircraft carrier's bridges are 40–50 m above sea level, corresponding to a horizon of 20–25 km, so the high flying parachutes would be visible. But only a helicopter and the capsule were filmed, without even its parachutes.[1](left photo) And if the splashdown accuracy was only 5 km, why was not the ship at the aiming point but stayed 25 km away? Finally, even today Soyuz spacecraft's landing accuracy (50–60 km)[1] is an order of magnitude worse than the average of 4 km Apollo could achieve back then,[1] which makes such high accuracy unreal.[1] All issues vanish if we assume that the crew did not fly but the capsule with it was dropped in advance far enough (25 km) from the ship. Craft entry into the atmosphere can be imitated by a ballistic missile with a suitable head surface material to produce enough fire.[1](pp. 254–257)

18-day quarantine

As [Apollo 11] astronauts in special isolation suits watched, frogman scrubbed the capsule down with disinfectant.[1](right photo) Apollo crew waved as they entered quarantine trainer aboard Hornet.[1] The astronauts then settled down for an 18-day quarantine to make certain their contact with the Moon had not contaminated or infected them in any way.[1]

CON

What bacteria can there be on the Moon, tilled already for several billions of years every 27 days now by space cold of −150°C, now by Sun heat of +150°C, and irradiated by streams of radiation from the Sun flares? Do Earth medics have such sterilisers? And why scrub the craft down with disinfectant if it had flown through the atmosphere in a cloud with a temperature of several thousands of degrees on its return? And, if lunar bacteria do exist and are so hardy, then what quatantine, and what disinfectant can help against them? But if there was a hoax, the quarantine was important for its success. The black [gas] masks on the astronauts' faces[1] helped them avoid unwanted sights by the welcoming people (and questions from the press during the whole quarantine)[1] while getting used to their most important role (Moon flight stories), having ensured three weeks later that the world public opinion had already believed Apollo Moon landings. It did, so next Apollo crews had no quarantine.[1]

Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

[Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

[Michael] Collins (Command Module pilot): "I don't remember seeing any."[1](1:06:00–1:06:19) (Collins' remark is misattributed to [Edwin] Aldrin in the transcript.[1] In his book "Liftoff", Collins writes "My God, the stars are everywhere, even below me. They are somewhat brighter than on Earth")[1](p. 33)[1]

Alan Bean (Apollo 12): "Oh so carefully, I removed my silver pin, took one last look at it, and gave it my strongest underarm toss out towards Surveyor. I can still remember how it flashed in the bright sunlight then disappeared in the distance. It was the only star I ever saw up in the black sky, the sunlight was just too bright on the Moon's surface to see any of the others."[1]

Stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface.[1]

CON

103:22:54 Duke: "...Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 [Lunar Module] (LM), he could see some stars while he was outside."[1] (Correction on the star visibility issue from the Moon is introduced later.) Astronauts' reminiscences contradict the descriptions of the star sky observed by Soviet cosmonauts (Leonov, Lebedev, Savinykh) on the dayside of the orbit; light from the Earth (Earth albedo 0.367, Moon albedo 0.12) did not hamper them see the stars.[1] For example, Leonov says that "the brightest of the stars can be recognised when they are farther than 30° away from the daylight luminary [the Sun]".[1]

On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]

In fact, the Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system... The Moon reflects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it.[1]

Why is the Saturn V no longer used?

Notwithstanding the great carrying capacity, the Saturn [V] expendable launch systems did not get use—they got nothing to carry. The mass of even the most sophisticated artificial Earth satellites does not exceed 20 t. Yet another obstacle is the complexity and cost of service of the huge rocket.[1]

CON

If we could build it from scratch in a few years in the 60's, and we already have all the plans, why not rebuild it now? Did they really have the load capacity NASA claims they had?[1]

The reason that the Saturn V was quietly forgotten was that it never preformed as stated... If NASA had attempted to correct the problems with the Saturn V it would have become apparent that the rocket could not have sent people to the Moon and that the Moon landings were faked.[1]

If the Saturn V carried the International Space Station (ISS) modules, which are now not heavier than 20 t, their mass could quadruple while their number be reduced four times, along with the number of the docking assemblies for space rendezvous, whose mass is now about one-seventh of the mass of the entire ISS. The number of the dangerous space rendezvous procedures would also be reduced. The cost of the two Proton rockets and one Space Shuttle used to carry three ISS modules is roughly equal to the cost of one Saturn V. And the ISS cost is thousands of times greater than the Saturn V service cost. Also, the launching cost for 1 kg of cargo using the Space Shuttle turns out to be much higher than using the Saturn V.[1](drawing 4) But for some reason, the Americans have money for the "prodigal" Shuttles and not for the "frugal" Saturns. And why is the F-1 engine no longer used but the US Atlas V rocket uses the Russian RD-180 engines instead that are nothing else but one half of the RD-170/171 engines of the Soviet Energia and Zenith rockets?[1][1][1]

The F-1 engine failure modes (especially combustion instability) need substantial research and the Russian RD-180 is recommended as a model for its modification, if it is to be used in future manned flights to the Moon and Mars.[1]

Quotes by famous people

“I can't be 100% sure that man actually walked on the Moon. It's possible that NASA could have covered it up, just in order to cut corners, and to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon.”—Dr Brian Todd O'Leary, NASA astronaut & Apollo programme adviser[1][1][1](5:22–5:45)[1]

“Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time.”—Dr[1] William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America (1993–2001)[1]

“The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when... I ask my friends and readers to get behind Obama's new policy. Join with me and help usher in a new age of space. A space programme that truly goes somewhere!”—Dr Buzz Aldrin (born Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr), astronaut, the Apollo 11 lunar module pilot[1]
Reply
Jump height

If a man can jump 2 foot vertically on earth, and 12 foot vertically under 1/6th the gravity - which I'm guessing is roughly the rationale being used - it doesn't follow that if you double the man's weight he should be able to jump half that height.

If I'm 85kg and can jump 2ft vertically, on earth, and you weigh me down with another 85kg, I am not going to be able to jump 1ft in the air. It is faulty reasoning to think so. I'd be lucky to jump 6 inches if you asked my muscles to lift 2 times the weight they are accustomed to lifting.



Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

The sun was always shining when the astronauts were on the moon. That is, it was daytime. Do we expect to see stars on earth at daytime? No? Then why should we expect astronauts to see stars, or cameras to record stars when looking skyward during the lunar daytime?

*

Why should I trust the reasoning of people who can't figure this sort of thing out for themselves before they submit it to us as evidence that the moon landings were faked?
Reply
A new computer analysis done this morning, with various tones of "solid black sky" revealing anomalies.

Jack


Attached Files
.jpg   A17blackskycomp.jpg (Size: 94.31 KB / Downloads: 15)
Reply
Peter Dawson Wrote:.... Why should I trust the reasoning of people who can't figure this sort of thing out for themselves before they submit it to us as evidence that the moon landings were faked?
I'd like to know just what that is intended to add to the two pieces of evidence critique that preceded it, both of which stand quite validly on their own.
Peter Presland

".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Reply
Wagging the Moondoggie

By Dave McGowan
July 2000

Adolf Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that: "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really fucking big one." OK, my German's not that great so that may not be an exact translation, but it captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was saying.

He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well (which is why, by the way, you should never lie about getting a blow job from an intern). But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper. You know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie.

The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare to utter it if it wasn't in fact the truth. That is the type of lie, according to Hitler, that will fool the great masses of people, even when the lie is so transparently thin that it couldn't possibly stand up to any kind of critical analysis by anyone actually exercising their brain rather than just blindly accepting the legitimacy of the big lie.

Take, for example, the rather fanciful notion that the United States landed men on the moon in the late 1960's and early 1970's. That's the kind of lie we're talking about here: the kind that is so ingrained in the national psyche that it passes for historical fact, despite appearing to fly in the face of everything that transpired before and since the alleged events occurred.

I should probably preface this piece by noting that until fairly recently, had I heard anyone putting forth the drug-addled notion that the moon landings were faked I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. However, while conducting research into various other topics, it has become increasingly apparent that there is almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be.

With that in mind (and with a few hours to kill) I ventured onto a couple of websites that fearlessly claimed that the moon landings were indeed faked. And to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if much of the information presented was scientifically valid. Lacking a background in astronomy and rocket science, the explanations as to why the flights were technologically impossible went right over my head.

[For the scientifically minded, the theory seems to be that it is not possible for man to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt. If any attempt were made to do so, the astronauts would run the risk of returning to a planet occupied by apes speaking with British accents, lobotomized humans, and Charleton Heston screaming "it's a madhouse." But here I digress.]

Many of the arguments seemed convincing, though loading on the technical jargon can frequently convert a dung heap of disinformation into a convincing argument, or at least one that discourages dissenting views, lest the dissenter reveal his ignorance. There was, however, at least one rather provocative anomaly of the moon landings that doesn't require an advanced degree in aeronautics to understand.

This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself. To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed?

Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.

But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.

That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.

The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.

Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.

This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.

The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.

How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.

It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly enough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon, and was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.

The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union - prior to the time that we up and landed on the moon - was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. They launched the first satellite, sent the first man into space, sent the first woman into space, performed the first docking maneuver in space, performed the first space walk, and landed the first unmanned rocket on the moon - a full decade before the Apollo 11 flight.

Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually landing on the moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch Nazi team. The smart money clearly was on the Soviets to make it first to the moon, if anyone was to do so. They had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and national pride riding on that goal.

And yet, despite the long odds, the Americans made it first. Not only did we make it first, but after thirty-one long years the Soviets apparently still haven't figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is: why? Why, even if we grant that the U.S. made it first, did the Soviets never match this feat?

Is it just that they were really poor losers? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:

Boris: Comrade, the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success. And we have so much invested in the effort.
Ivan: Fuck it; if we can't be first, we aren't going.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade. The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share the knowledge they have gained with us.
Ivan: Nyet!

In truth, the entire space program has been from its inception little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the moon, simply for the sake of their own national defense.

In fact, while we're on the subject, why has America not returned to the moon in nearly thirty years? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly forgotten, and for twenty-eight years now not a single human has left the Earth's orbit.

Not a single human, that is, from any country on the planet. Again, the question that comes to mind is: why? Why has no nation ever duplicated this miraculous feat? Clearly, the technology is there. Technology has advanced to such a degree in the last three decades that virtually any industrialized nation currently has technology that is light-years beyond what the United States had in 1969.

And yet no one has made an attempt to once again land a man on the moon. Is this because we already learned everything we need to know about the moon? Of course not. That is an absurd supposition. Would it be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Again, of course not.

And are we to believe that the scientific community has come up with no new questions in the intervening decades that beg for answers? I should think not. Why then has not France, or Germany, England, Japan, or any of a number of other technologically advanced nations made any effort to reach the moon?

Why, for that matter, has not private industry made any effort to reach the moon. In this age of the mega-corporation, there are any number of private firms that have the financial resources to mount such an effort. And quite a profitable one it could be. There are, no doubt, any number of minerals, compounds, etc. that could be mined from the moon that are unavailable here on planet Earth. With the proper marketing, and of course a built-in monopoly, there are vast fortunes to be made, new frontiers to exploit.

But why, you may ask, would anyone go to such extremes to mount such an elaborate hoax? The most obvious answer is to reclaim a sense of pride that had been stripped away by America's having played follow-the-leader with the Soviets for an entire decade. While this undoubtedly played a large role, there are other reasons as well.

But before we look at those, we must first deal with the question of whether it would even have been possible to pull off such an enormous hoax. Could so many people have been duped into believing such an outrageous lie, if that in fact was what it was? Of course.

You have to remember that we are talking about the summer of 1969 here. Those old enough to have been there will recall that they - along with the vast majority of politically active people in the country - spent that particular period of time primarily engaged in frying on acid.

How hard would it really have been to fool all of you? I could have stuck a fish bowl on my head, wrapped myself in aluminum foil, and filmed myself high-stepping across my backyard and most of you would have believed that I was moon-walking. Some of you couldn't rule out the possibility that everyone was walking on the moon.

Returning then to the question of why such a ruse would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the year 1969. Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our new president. His ascension to that position is in part due to his promises to the American people that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam.

But Tricky Dick has a bit of a problem on his hands: he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. In fact, he would really, really like to escalate the conflict as much as possible. But to do so, he needs to set up a diversion, some means of stoking the patriotic fervor of the American people so that they will blindly rally behind him. In short, he needs to wag the dog.

This has traditionally been done by, of course, embarking on some military endeavor. The problem for Big Dick is that a military mission is exactly what he is trying to divert attention away from. What, then, is a beleaguered president to do? Why, send Neil and Buzz to the moon, of course. Instead of wagging the dog, it's time to wag the moondoggie.

Nixon's actions from the moment he takes office belie his pledges to the American people. In May, the press begins publicizing the illegal B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia engineered by Henry Kissinger, arguably the most revered mass murderer of the late twentieth century. By June, Nixon is scrambling to announce the 'Vietnamization' of the war and a concomitant withdrawal of U.S. troops.

In truth, however, only 25,000 of the 540,000 U.S. troops then deployed are brought home. This ruse is, therefore, transparently thin and will buy the president little time. On July 14th, Francis Reitemeyer is granted Conscientious Objector status on the basis of a petition his attorney has filed which explicitly details the training and instruction he has just received in assassination and torture techniques in conjunction with his assignment to the Phoenix Program. The horrors of the war are beginning to emerge.

Just in time to save the day, Apollo 11 blasts off on July 16th, and - with the nation enthralled - four days later the Eagle makes its historic immaculate landing on the pristine surface of the moon. Vietnam is forgotten for awhile as America swells with patriotic pride for having beaten the Evil Empire to the moon. The honeymoon is short-lived, however, for in November of 1969 Seymour Hersch publishes a story about the Phoenix Program's massacre of 504 civilians in the village of My Lai, bringing home to America the full savagery of the war in Southeast Asia.

It's time then for another moon launch, as Apollo 12 lifts off on November 14th, making another picture perfect moon landing before returning on November 24th. The country is once again entranced by the exploits of America's new breed of hero - its astronauts (or - as some websites refer to them - astro-nots).

All is well again until March of 1970, at which time a U.S.-backed coup deposes Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and installs in his place CIA-puppet Lon Nol. Cambodia immediately jumps in the fray by committing troops to the U.S. war effort. The war is further escalated the next month when Nixon authorizes an invasion of Cambodia by U.S. and ARVN ground forces, another move engineered by noted war criminal Henry Kissinger.

Meanwhile, it's time for yet another moon launch. And not just any moon launch, either. This one is going to introduce the element of danger. The first two having gone off without a hitch, the American people are already adopting a 'been there, done that' attitude. The problem is that it looks just a little too damn easy.

In order to regain the attention of the American people, it has to be impressed upon them the terrible danger these men are putting themselves into. And so it is that on April 11th, Apollo 13 blasts off with Tom Hanks and some other guys on board and drifts about for the next six days placing the crew in mortal danger of being forever lost in space.

Now that gets our attention. So much so that when three Vietnam vets hold a multi-city press conference in New York, San Francisco and Rome on April 14th - attempting to publicize the ongoing Phoenix Program in which they had participated and have first-hand knowledge - nobody can really be bothered with it. It's hard to be too concerned about the fate of thousands of Vietnamese women and children when Tom and the boys are in trouble.

Awaiting the fate of the Apollo 13 crew, we all have our eyes glued to the TV as though we are watching the trial of a rich black man accused of murdering a white woman. When they make it back alive, against seemingly impossible odds, we are all so goddamned proud of them that we decide to give Tom another Oscar. And all is well again for the rest of the year.

The new year, however, brings the trial of Lt. William Calley on charges that he personally ordered and oversaw the mass murder of the inhabitants of My Lai. And on January 31st, Apollo 14 is launched and once again makes a flawless lunar landing. On February 9th, the Apollo team returns, and a few weeks later Calley is convicted of murder.

A few months after that, the New York Times begins publication of the infamous Pentagon Papers, revealing American policy in Vietnam to be a complex web of lies. Publication is quickly stopped by the Justice Department, but resumes once again as June turns to July.

This is quickly followed, on July 26th, by the launch of the Apollo 15. After yet another flawless mission that clearly demonstrates that America is the coolest nation on Earth, the astronauts return on August 7th, and the rest of the year passes uneventfully (unless you count the stormtrooping of Attica prison ordered by Governor Nelson Rockefeller that leaves 43 dead - but that's another story entirely).

On March 30, 1972, North Vietnamese troops mount a massive offensive across the DMZ into Quang Tri Province, revealing as lies the pompous statements by numerous Washington hacks that victory is near. Nixon and Co. respond with deep penetration bombing of North Vietnam and, for good measure, the illegal mining of North Vietnam's ports. They also respond by launching, on April 16th, another rocket to the moon - Apollo 16. On April 27th, the crew once again returns to a hero's welcome.

By the end of the year, peace appears to be close at hand. Beginning in October, Kissinger and David Bruce, a member of the Mellon family (as in Richard Mellon Scaife of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'), are secretly negotiating peace terms with Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam. In December, however, the talks break down, but not before Apollo 17 is launched on December 7th.

With the Apollo mission still a few days away from returning, the talks cease and Dick and Henry unleash a final ruthless carpet bombing campaign against North Vietnam, snuffing out countless thousands of civilian lives. Meanwhile, America warmly greets its returning astronauts.

Just five weeks later, the talks having resumed, a peace agreement is announced. A few days later a cease fire is in effect, thereby officially ending America's involvement in Southeast Asia. Though the CIA remains to continue directing the war by proxy, America's men and women in uniform come home. And the Apollo program - despite several additional missions having been planned and discussed - will never be heard from again.
Reply
This is in response to Presland's post, which I take to be endorsing Dawson. But it is appropriate even if that was not his intent.

Jump height

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

Assuming astronaut's body weight of 85 kg, his total weight including the space suit would be 170 kg, so he could achieve jump heights of 2 m. But the maximum jump height shown by an Apollo astronaut was 0.42 m,[1] which is five times less.[1]

Peter Dawson says: "If I'm 85kg and can jump 2ft vertically, on earth, and you weigh me down with another 85kg, I am not going to be able to jump 1ft in the air. It is faulty reasoning to think so. I'd be lucky to jump 6 inches if you asked my muscles to lift 2 times the weight they are accustomed to lifting."

But if you double/triple/. . . the weight, you would still be able to jump six times greater than on Earth. This is going to hold across the board, since the gravitation is only 1/6 of what it is on Earth. The astronaut jumps are fake. This is not rocket science, but someone is trying awfully hard to peddle a bill of goods.

Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

Peter Dawson says: "The sun was always shining when the astronauts were on the moon. That is, it was daytime. Do we expect to see stars on earth at daytime? No? Then why should we expect astronauts to see stars, or cameras to record stars when looking skyward during the lunar daytime?"

Neil Armstrong said: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

"On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]"

Peter Dawson Wrote:Jump height

If a man can jump 2 foot vertically on earth, and 12 foot vertically under 1/6th the gravity - which I'm guessing is roughly the rationale being used - it doesn't follow that if you double the man's weight he should be able to jump half that height.

If I'm 85kg and can jump 2ft vertically, on earth, and you weigh me down with another 85kg, I am not going to be able to jump 1ft in the air. It is faulty reasoning to think so. I'd be lucky to jump 6 inches if you asked my muscles to lift 2 times the weight they are accustomed to lifting.

Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

The sun was always shining when the astronauts were on the moon. That is, it was daytime. Do we expect to see stars on earth at daytime? No? Then why should we expect astronauts to see stars, or cameras to record stars when looking skyward during the lunar daytime?

*

Why should I trust the reasoning of people who can't figure this sort of thing out for themselves before they submit it to us as evidence that the moon landings were faked?

I am sorry, but to issue these complaints when it is he who can't figure this sort of thing out for himself before he submits it to us is more than slightly embarrassing. I can't wait to read his attempt to "explain away" the splashdown and the 18-day quarantine!
Reply
Peter Presland Wrote:
Peter Dawson Wrote:.... Why should I trust the reasoning of people who can't figure this sort of thing out for themselves before they submit it to us as evidence that the moon landings were faked?
I'd like to know just what that is intended to add to the two pieces of evidence critique that preceded it, both of which stand quite validly on their own.

If you are going to use science and reasoning to persuade the scientific community that they have been duped about a particular controversial issue, and to convince the world at large that the scientific community has it wrong, then you really should expect to be held to the highest of standards, at all times.

There are some claims made by moon hoax proponents that aren't easily dismissed - how can I state with certainty that NASA didn't fake the landings and murder any people who wouldn't go along with the plan? Not being a geochemist, how can I speak to claims about there being tell-tale signs that moon rocks from the Apollo missions aren't what they're claimed to be? But when easily dismissed claims are made by hoax proponents, alongside not so easily dismissed claims, I don't see why hoax proponents should be given the benefit of the doubt.

(While writing this post I notice another inconsistency with the moon hoax argument. On the metapedia page they raise some sensible sounding concerns about inconsistencies regarding the accuracy of splashdowns, but to explain the details of the Apollo splashdown they ask that we "assume that the crew did not fly" at all - yet most other moon hoax theories claim that the astronauts were in the Apollo crafts, but never left earth orbit.)
Reply
James H. Fetzer Wrote:This is in response to Presland's post, which I take to be endorsing Dawson. But it is appropriate even if that was not his intent.

Jump height

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

Assuming astronaut's body weight of 85 kg, his total weight including the space suit would be 170 kg, so he could achieve jump heights of 2 m. But the maximum jump height shown by an Apollo astronaut was 0.42 m,[1] which is five times less.[1]

Peter Dawson says: "If I'm 85kg and can jump 2ft vertically, on earth, and you weigh me down with another 85kg, I am not going to be able to jump 1ft in the air. It is faulty reasoning to think so. I'd be lucky to jump 6 inches if you asked my muscles to lift 2 times the weight they are accustomed to lifting."

But if you double/triple/. . . the weight, you would still be able to jump six times greater than on Earth. This is going to hold across the board, since the gravitation is only 1/6 of what it is on Earth. The astronaut jumps are fake. This is not rocket science, but someone is trying awfully hard to peddle a bill of goods.

.42m divided by 6 equals 7cm. That is about as high as I'd expect a reasonably athletic person to be able to jump vertically, on earth, if you loaded them up so they weighed double what they normally do.


Quote:Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

Peter Dawson says: "The sun was always shining when the astronauts were on the moon. That is, it was daytime. Do we expect to see stars on earth at daytime? No? Then why should we expect astronauts to see stars, or cameras to record stars when looking skyward during the lunar daytime?"

Neil Armstrong said: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

"On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]"


None of your links work, and none of the footnotes on that metapedia page work.

What I said is completely consistent with what what Armstrong says.

I see that quote is from a NASA multimedia "Worldbook" page. Their bad for making a blanket generalisation. Astronauts say they could see stars when they were in the shadow of the lunar module, so I guess technically you can "always" see stars, but only if the sunlight isn't blocking them out. Eyes and film have limited sensitivity.



Quote:I am sorry, but to issue these complaints when it is he who can't figure this sort of thing out for himself before he submits it to us is more than slightly embarrassing. I can't wait to read his attempt to "explain away" the splashdown and the 18-day quarantine!

Splashdown:

As I say in my previous post: I notice another inconsistency with the moon hoax argument. On the metapedia page they raise some sensible sounding concerns about inconsistencies regarding the accuracy of splashdowns, but to explain the details of the Apollo splashdown they ask that we "assume that the crew did not fly" at all - yet most other moon hoax theories claim that the astronauts were in the Apollo crafts, but never left earth orbit.

So were they in low earth orbit, or hiding away somewhere on the ground?


18-day quarantine:

First time in contact with a foreign celestial body - I guess they were being overcautious.
Reply
Peter, I have already replied and you don't seem to understand what I have explained. So I will let someone else deal with this. Sometimes when a post is reposted the links are contracted and no longer work. But the Metapedia article is still archived at http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax (I hope you don't seriously think you have dealt with the splashdown or the quarantine.)

Peter Dawson Wrote:
James H. Fetzer Wrote:This is in response to Presland's post, which I take to be endorsing Dawson. But it is appropriate even if that was not his intent.

Jump height

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

Assuming astronaut's body weight of 85 kg, his total weight including the space suit would be 170 kg, so he could achieve jump heights of 2 m. But the maximum jump height shown by an Apollo astronaut was 0.42 m,[1] which is five times less.[1]

Peter Dawson says: "If I'm 85kg and can jump 2ft vertically, on earth, and you weigh me down with another 85kg, I am not going to be able to jump 1ft in the air. It is faulty reasoning to think so. I'd be lucky to jump 6 inches if you asked my muscles to lift 2 times the weight they are accustomed to lifting."

But if you double/triple/. . . the weight, you would still be able to jump six times greater than on Earth. This is going to hold across the board, since the gravitation is only 1/6 of what it is on Earth. The astronaut jumps are fake. This is not rocket science, but someone is trying awfully hard to peddle a bill of goods.

.42m divided by 6 equals 7cm. That is about as high as I'd expect a reasonably athletic person to be able to jump vertically, on earth, if you loaded them up so they weighed double what they normally do.


Quote:Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

Peter Dawson says: "The sun was always shining when the astronauts were on the moon. That is, it was daytime. Do we expect to see stars on earth at daytime? No? Then why should we expect astronauts to see stars, or cameras to record stars when looking skyward during the lunar daytime?"

Neil Armstrong said: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

http://en.metapedia....wiki/Moon_Hoax:

"On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1][1]"


None of your links work, and none of the footnotes on that metapedia page work.

What I said is completely consistent with what what Armstrong says.

I see that quote is from a NASA multimedia "Worldbook" page. Their bad for making a blanket generalisation. Astronauts say they could see stars when they were in the shadow of the lunar module, so I guess technically you can "always" see stars, but only if the sunlight isn't blocking them out. Eyes and film have limited sensitivity.



Quote:I am sorry, but to issue these complaints when it is he who can't figure this sort of thing out for himself before he submits it to us is more than slightly embarrassing. I can't wait to read his attempt to "explain away" the splashdown and the 18-day quarantine!

Splashdown:

As I say in my previous post: I notice another inconsistency with the moon hoax argument. On the metapedia page they raise some sensible sounding concerns about inconsistencies regarding the accuracy of splashdowns, but to explain the details of the Apollo splashdown they ask that we "assume that the crew did not fly" at all - yet most other moon hoax theories claim that the astronauts were in the Apollo crafts, but never left earth orbit.

So were they in low earth orbit, or hiding away somewhere on the ground?


18-day quarantine:

First time in contact with a foreign celestial body - I guess they were being overcautious.
Reply
For Peter D and Jim F

I was not endorsing Peter D's two substantive points, I was simply flagging them as valid pieces of technical/scientific evidence that can be debated on their merits.

What I was objecting to - a bit too soto-voce perhaps but objecting nonetheless - was the personal attack disguised in a (too) clever rhetorical device that comprised the last sentence.

FWIW I have reposted the entire Metapedia article on WikiSpooks here. I haven't tested all 476 footnote links so there may well be a few broken ones. Those I have tested work fine though.

BTW - I intend to incorporate all Jack Whites stuff (duly credited and linked) into the article today - or as and when I get time.
Peter Presland

".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New Massimo Mazzucco documentary on moon landing Tracy Riddle 4 12,378 29-02-2016, 09:41 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Archive of EF Appollo Moon thread Magda Hassan 2 5,606 14-11-2010, 12:59 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)