Japanese Orbiter Finds No Evidence Apollo Missions

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

And yet your precious NASA still cannot go back to the Moon.

There's a saying, Congress is the opposite of progress. Guess who writes Nasa's annual budget?

I asked for proof and you bring none to the table. So my point stands. You dont KNOW for sure so stop trying to convince yourselves and others that you do.

What we DO know for sure is the evidence, of which there are literal tons, exists and has been examined by thousands of subject matter experts in hundreds of disciplines all around the world. Not one piece of Apollo program science data or hardware design has been questioned by anyone with a clue in over 40 years. We know for sure the only people who question the data or designs haven't any clue about the subjects they question.

What we know for sure is no single piece of "hoax evidence" withstands scrutiny by subject matter experts.

What we know for sure is the Apollo program scientific data, hardware documentation, film, video, photographs, recordings and transcripts present a coherent and consistent story.

What we know for sure is every single "alternate explanation" fails to describe the entire mission and explain all of the other elements of information, and creates more logical or logistical problems and contradictions than it purports to solve.

What we know for sure is every single time we present well researched and well documented information with pictures, small words, explanations my children comprehend and links to our sources, those posts are dismissed with glib "substitute for thinking" statements like "Nasa = nazi" instead of competent, intelligent analysis.

What we know for sure is that 1, 2 or 12 weeks later some goomer will come along and ask the exact same question or raise the same "points" we've just discussed in this or another thread, but fail to rise to the occasion by responding intelligently to the information presented.

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Awwww, don't get upset about it. Stelios chose to raise that point, one I had ignored, so I gave my take on it.



Yet not one single one of those claims has been copied and pasted and sent viral in CT cyberspace. No such reports exist.



What utter pish. You are the one making the claim, yet because I can't "remember" your made-up-shit" you say that?



I'm not angry, I'm having fun. I feel sorry for the people I debate, who are so stuck in defending something, with such unyielding stubborness, that it disables their critical thinking (if indeed they ever had such an ability) and enables them to believe stuff so far fetched it beggars belief.

No doubt some part of you enjoys it in some perverse way but I wouldant call posting thousands of times on one subject, saying the same basic thing over and over again, and being insulting to everyone who does not tow the line anyone's idea of fun.

And still you bring no proof to the table.

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

What we know for sure is that 1, 2 or 12 weeks later some goomer will come along and ask the exact same question or raise the same "points" we've just discussed in this or another thread, but fail to rise to the occasion by responding intelligently to the information presented.

If you do not like that then why are you here. There are noobs to conspiracy and the website here every day, I would not treat them with ill manners just because the dont agree with me if they were cordial.

And again you keep saying you have proof but you present none. Where is this proof you keep insisting you have?

[philthy53]

The main trouble here is.......the Hoax Believers seem, for some weird and odd reason, that the burden of proof is on the fact that the Apollo missions weren't hoaxed.

It's exactly opposite.

The burden of proof lies ONLY on the Hoax Believers.

ALL the evidence proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Apollo missions landed 12 men on the moon. Not just a bit of evidence here, and a bit there.
ALL of the evidence proves it, well beyond any doubt.

If you think you might have evidence that proves Apollo was a hoax, how about, finally, actually providing it?

By the way, opinions, incredulity, isn't proof.

Phil

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by philthy53

The main trouble here is.......the Hoax Believers seem, for some weird and odd reason, that the burden of proof is on the fact that the Apollo missions weren't hoaxed.

It's exactly opposite.

The burden of proof lies ONLY on the Hoax Believers.

ALL the evidence proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Apollo missions landed 12 men on the moon. Not just a bit of evidence here, and a bit there.
ALL of the evidence proves it, well beyond any doubt.

If you think you might have evidence that proves Apollo was a hoax, how about, finally, actually providing it?

By the way, opinions, incredulity, isn't proof.

Phil

So wheres this proof at? You keep talking about proof, yet you show no proof. Wheres the proof?

[stelios]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

We may not "know for a fact" the missions were not faked

Very gracious of you to concede the point.
As i keep reminding you it boils down to a matter of faith.
You believe in the authenticity of the Apollo Moon Landings Theory but you cannot prove they were not faked.
Hopefully one day the truth will come out like it always does.
Maybe Armstrong will make a confession or maybe the Russians and Chinese will finally spill the beans.
Or maybe a FOI request or a Wikileaks expose will put the matter to bed once and for all.

[stelios]

Originally Posted by philthy53

ALL the evidence proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Apollo missions landed 12 men on the moon. Not just a bit of evidence here, and a bit there.
ALL of the evidence proves it, well beyond any doubt.

Phil

You have been saying the same thing for months and months.
Yet you have not revealed your hand and shown us any of this evidence you believe exists.
I reckon you got nothing.
So go ahead and prove us all wrong.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

So wheres this proof at? You keep talking about proof, yet you show no proof. Wheres the proof?

I would ask you to show proof that:

• the hundreds of geologists around the world who have examined lunar rock and soil samples are wrong
• the thousands of engineers who worked on the Apollo/Skylab/STS hardware didn't create hardware capable of doing the job described
• the millions of pages of documentation for the hardware are false
• the hundreds of photos and hours of video and 16mm film have are false

instead of arguing from a position of uninformed preconceived notions.

[moving finger]

Anyone who actually puts some effort and thought to their arguments and is prepared to back up their ideas with facts gets respect. Rodin, for example, with whom I fundamentally disagree on pretty much every aspect of his world view, at least tried to do his own work on this topic and come up with his own thoughts on it.

What goes on with Apollo threads is that landing deniers will copy & post wholesale tripe from proven fraudsters and liars without applying any kind of critical judgement as to whether the arguments they are posting actually make any kind of sense or might have another agenda (usually: buy my DVD/Book).

The same evidence is posted on a lucky dip basis several times, presumably in the hope that people will have forgotten it's been disproved already. Occasionally they will try and walk on their own and that's when their lack of education and understanding gets exposed (see pretty much anything stelios, brucel or ianw haven't copied & pasted from somewhere else).

Try and post actual facts, links to documents and analyses of the topic and you are just parroting the party line. No need to try and understand the argument there, all you need is to just dismiss the source and you're done. Evidence shmevidence, , who needs it when you have the immoral high ground. Your arguments are linked with offensive and repugnant political views purely because you disagree with posters on a single topic. Believe in the landings? You must be a Nazi sympathiser. And people wonder why offence gets taken.

A few links. Prove yourself better than the other usernames, and actually post evidence you've read them.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

Lunar Samples curator:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

Lunar Module Documentation:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

Space suit documentation:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf

These might start you off into some research directions. If you ask intelligent questions I'll take the time and give intelligent answers. You've seen the response stupid comments earn.

It's not just the 'official' sources of evidence that present the Apollo story as a completely consistent one. Every source of evidence backs up the landings. Take any direction you like, follow whichever pathway you want, it is all 100% consistent.

Even when you go out on a limb and produce your own research that hasn't been done before, like looking at the weather patterns in Apollo photos, this also backs up the story. TV footage, newspaper headlines, photographs and videos in mission control showing Earth are all backed up by satellite photos and other meteorological evidence that was freely available at the time. Do we get serious attempts to look at that evidence to disprove it? No, it's dismissed as fake and planted evidence by people who point blank refuse to actually read the documents..

Independent tracking of Apollo missions? Bit inconvenient really, having people who have nothing to do with Apollo confirm that Apollo happened as recorded. How to dismiss it? Well all you need is to imply some sort of Jewish ancestry and claim that the receiving equipment looks inadequate. This despite the bent wire on the side of your house being capable of receiving high definition digital TV.

So yes, sometimes people who defend the Apollo missions can get a bit annoyed at the waves of crap launched at them by people who largely aren't prepared to do anything other than launch waves of crap. The answer to it all is simple: post your proof. Not just "I don't believe it", but your actual proof.

[noobcybot]

Just reading the Apollo 7 mission report now.....

"Manual control of the spacecraft by the crew was
good. Even though somewhat hampered by head colds and upper respiratory
congestion, the crew satisfactorily performed all flight-plan functions
i
and completed the photographic experiments.
A normal deorbit, entry, and landing sequence"

Why are astronauts allowed to fly with respiratory congestion? It is ill advised to even go scuba diving with a head cold. Pretty expensive hardware to leave in the company of someone who wants a hot water bottle and a Lempsip

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I would ask you to show proof that:

• the hundreds of geologists around the world who have examined lunar rock and soil samples are wrong
• the thousands of engineers who worked on the Apollo/Skylab/STS hardware didn't create hardware capable of doing the job described
• the millions of pages of documentation for the hardware are false
• the hundreds of photos and hours of video and 16mm film have are false

instead of arguing from a position of uninformed preconceived notions.

1. The Moon rocks do not have to have been collected by humans do they now. Thus no proof even if they are correct.
2. No doubt the great majority of the hardware worked, still not proof they went.
3. Paper is cheap and millions of dollars are good. They arent going to get money if they dont produce something. Are you also saying computers could not have simply simulated the effects on hardware? Again, this does not constitute proof.

4. If you bring forth something that could not be easily faked with the techniques described in 'Kubrick's Odyssy' I would be sincerely interested.

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

Yep, all of that.

Anyone who actually puts some effort and thought to their arguments and is prepared to back up their ideas with facts gets respect. Rodin, for example, with whom I fundamentally disagree on pretty much every aspect of his world view, at least tried to do his own work on this topic and come up with his own thoughts on it.

What goes on with Apollo threads is that landing deniers will copy & post wholesale tripe from proven fraudsters and liars without applying any kind of critical judgement as to whether the arguments they are posting actually make any kind of sense or might have another agenda (usually: buy my DVD/Book).

The same evidence is posted on a lucky dip basis several times, presumably in the hope that people will have forgotten it's been disproved already. Occasionally they will try and walk on their own and that's when their lack of education and understanding gets exposed (see pretty much anything stelios, brucel or ianw haven't copied & pasted from somewhere else).

Try and post actual facts, links to documents and analyses of the topic and you are just parroting the party line. No need to try and understand the argument there, all you need is to just dismiss the source and you're done. Evidence shmevidence, , who needs it when you have the immoral high ground. Your arguments are linked with offensive and repugnant political views purely because you disagree with posters on a single topic. Believe in the landings? You must be a Nazi sympathiser. And people wonder why offence gets taken.




It's not just the 'official' sources of evidence that present the Apollo story as a completely consistent one. Every source of evidence backs up the landings. Take any direction you like, follow whichever pathway you want, it is all 100% consistent.

Even when you go out on a limb and produce your own research that hasn't been done before, like looking at the weather patterns in Apollo photos, this also backs up the story. TV footage, newspaper headlines, photographs and videos in mission control showing Earth are all backed up by satellite photos and other meteorological evidence that was freely available at the time. Do we get serious attempts to look at that evidence to disprove it? No, it's dismissed as fake and planted evidence by people who point blank refuse to actually read the documents..

Independent tracking of Apollo missions? Bit inconvenient really, having people who have nothing to do with Apollo confirm that Apollo happened as recorded. How to dismiss it? Well all you need is to imply some sort of Jewish ancestry and claim that the receiving equipment looks inadequate. This despite the bent wire on the side of your house being capable of receiving high definition digital TV.

So yes, sometimes people who defend the Apollo missions can get a bit annoyed at the waves of crap launched at them by people who largely aren't prepared to do anything other than launch waves of crap. The answer to it all is simple: post your proof. Not just "I don't believe it", but your actual proof.

Do you have the links to these photos of the Earth from the Moon with relevant weather patterns?

[philthy53]

Originally Posted by stelios

You have been saying the same thing for months and months.
Yet you have not revealed your hand and shown us any of this evidence you believe exists.
I reckon you got nothing.
So go ahead and prove us all wrong.

As usual, you have this backwards.

It's up to YOU to provide evidence or actual proof of a hoax.

You are challening proven historical facts. You, have chosen, for some obscure reason to challenge proven facts.

The burden of proof is on you, to prove your assertion. Good luck.

Phil

[Ian2day]

I wonder if there is a correlation between those who believe there were no planes used on 9/11 and no moon landings taking place. lol

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

Do you have the links to these photos of the Earth from the Moon with relevant weather patterns?

Well yes, since he wrote the document and has presented it here in small chunks and complete 20-30 times.

http://www.ka9q.net/Clouds-Across-the-Moon.pdf

That is the direct PDF 120mb big.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

Why are astronauts allowed to fly with respiratory congestion? It is ill advised to even go scuba diving with a head cold. Pretty expensive hardware to leave in the company of someone who wants a hot water bottle and a Lempsip

They didn't have colds or symptoms before take off. The mission took 11 days and medicine even now cannot predict whether somebody contracts a cold in a few days time.

1. The Moon rocks do not have to have been collected by humans do they now. Thus no proof even if they are correct.

Magic moon-rock collecting equipment noted. Equipment that would had to have been designed, built, launched, tracked, returned and recovered by a whole team of people for each mission and without anybody noticing the launch/orbit/landing. Technology like that, available THEN?

Yeah right

2. No doubt the great majority of the hardware worked, still not proof they went.

Okay, so it all works, what exactly is the problem then?

3. Paper is cheap and millions of dollars are good. They arent going to get money if they dont produce something. Are you also saying computers could not have simply simulated the effects on hardware?

Hmmm, that sounds a tad ridiculous. One the one hand you people say the computers weren't up to the job, then you come along and tell us how fantastic they were and how they could simulate hardware. I don't even fully get what it is you are suggesting.

4. If you bring forth something that could not be easily faked with the techniques described in 'Kubrick's Odyssy' I would be sincerely interested.

I'd like to test that sincerity.....

Moon Hoax? Apollo 15 Rover Traverse - YouTube

Moon Hoax? Apollo 15 Rover Traverse - YouTube

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

Just reading the Apollo 7 mission report now.....

"Manual control of the spacecraft by the crew was
good. Even though somewhat hampered by head colds and upper respiratory
congestion, the crew satisfactorily performed all flight-plan functions
i
and completed the photographic experiments.
A normal deorbit, entry, and landing sequence"

Why are astronauts allowed to fly with respiratory congestion? It is ill advised to even go scuba diving with a head cold. Pretty expensive hardware to leave in the company of someone who wants a hot water bottle and a Lempsip

Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. No proof provided that Apollo 7 did NOT happen as described.

[quote]

1. The Moon rocks do not have to have been collected by humans do they now. Thus no proof even if they are correct.

But the moon rocks have to be collected and returned to earth, don't they now? No proof provided that a secret, parallel space program existed, launching ginormous rockets with elaborate, complicated hardware for which there is no record of design, engineering or manufacture. The hardware required to take 12' core samples and return them would be particularly interesting to discuss, as even today this is not within the scope of unmanned mission hardware.

Further, during the missions with the heaviest sample return cargo (15, 16, 17) there were teams of geologists at mission control watching the video taken by the LRV camera and giving requests for specific samples to the CapCom. The rocks requested were many times photographed in situ prior to collection, bagged and tagged, and then examined by those same geologists on Earth after the collection was unpacked.

2. No doubt the great majority of the hardware worked, still not proof they went.

Good! Glad to have your expert opinion weighing in on this. Many moon hoax arguments hinge on doubting the efficacy of some piece of equipment. So if it all worked, why would the missions be faked?

3. Paper is cheap and millions of dollars are good. They arent going to get money if they dont produce something.

The "cheap paper "is documentation for the design, manufacturing, testing, use, and subsequent analysis of the utility of every single piece of man-rated hardware. Quite a number of pieces of mission hardware were changed from one mission to the next based on the input of the astronauts.

Also, there are hundreds of scientific papers written based on the geology samples, lunar photographs, UV telescope images, biomedical monitor data, telemetry data, and the science data returned by the ALSEP equipment, some of which (seismometers, in particular) transmitted data back to earth for YEARS after the missions.

Also, the seismometer data from each mission's ALSEP records the impact of that mission's deorbited LM ascent stage as well as the lunar impact of subsequent missions' 3rd stage rockets. The "moon rang like a bell" thing? That's how that data was collected. And every single one of the impacts is recorded to have happened at the correct time.

The "cheap paper" is a voluminous paper trail of unprecedented scope, complete, coherent and corroborated by every other bit. There are no internal or external inconsistencies. None. Not one.

Are you also saying computers could not have simply simulated the effects on hardware? Again, this does not constitute proof.

Yes. Computers could not have simulated the effects of things like the biomedical monitors on all the astronauts for the entire mission. Nor could computers fake the transmission of S-band multiplexed telemetry and voice from orbit around the moon receivable only with highly directional antennas pointed directly at the moon. Nor could computers fake the abrasion and dirt of lunar missions on the space suit components brought back.

4. If you bring forth something that could not be easily faked with the techniques described in 'Kubrick's Odyssy' I would be sincerely interested.

If you bring forth something in "Kubrick's Odyssy" (sic) that accurately represents the lunar environment, I would be sincerely interested.

[stelios]

Originally Posted by Ian2day

I wonder if there is a correlation between those who believe there were no planes used on 9/11 and no moon landings taking place. lol

Good point but no.
Most of the people who believe in the Moon landings also believe 9/11 was 19 highjackers controlled by a Bin man in a turban in a cave.
People who dont accept the official 9/11 story which by any yardstick is a pack of lies are usually the same people who realise that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.
USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, Global Warmng, Chemtrails, WMDs etc

[stelios]

Originally Posted by philthy53

As usual, you have this backwards.

It's up to YOU to provide evidence or actual proof of a hoax.

You are challening proven historical facts. You, have chosen, for some obscure reason to challenge proven facts.

The burden of proof is on you, to prove your assertion. Good luck.

Phil

Thanks for being honest and agreeing that you have nothing.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by stelios

Thanks for being honest and agreeing that you have nothing.

Oh, bullhockey. It's YOU that has nothing. Every bit of "evidence" you've posted is nothing more than Argument from Incredulity, unsupported conjectures and ludicrous Poisoning the Well Fallacy.

By responding in this way to phil's demand you present YOUR proof, you simultaneously prove YOU have no proof, and you tell a lie about phil.

For shame!!

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by Ian2day

I wonder if there is a correlation between those who believe there were no planes used on 9/11 and no moon landings taking place. lol

Sure there is. I'd wager most folks who accept the official story of Anything do so across the board.