RE: What Happened on the Moon? (2000) [eng/срп] Шта се десило на Месецу? (2000)

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

I have been very dubious of moon landing hoax theories, despite I agree that some pics (at least) are faked. I think NASA are hiding things that are on the moon, evidence that people have been there before.

Because it is you that posted it, I will watch this with an open mind.

Thanks!



0
0
0.000
13 comments
avatar

This is not a theory @valued-customer. These are evidence and testimonies.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Proof is not a scientific concept, my friend.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

That sounds like you will rather hold tight to your believes despite the reality @valued-customer.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Insofar as I believe only what I am confident is factually correct, absent your representation that reality is different than what can be supported with empirical evidence, as I did when confronted with evidence that SARS2 was not a fatal plague, I will maintain my skepticism of all narratives.

I do not cling to beliefs that are contrary to verifiable evidence, as you have seen. Neither do I consider evidence to be proof. Science depends on falsifiability, not proof. Newton's cosmology was unfalsified for centuries, and many rational people accepted it had been proved - until Einstein's relativity disproved it.

That does not mean Einstein's theory is proved. Merely that it has not been falsified yet. This is what I mean when I say proof is not a scientific concept.

0
0
0.000
avatar

So, what are the evidence because of which you believe that NASA put the man on the Moon?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sagan stated well the observation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is voluminous evidence of the Apollo program. As you note, not all of the evidence supports every aspect of the official story. I am aware of none that falsifies the central thesis of the moon landing.

What I do believe is that evidence provides clues to events people did not personally participate in, and that's all we can form opinions on. I am confident that I am incapable of stating with certitude this or that thing I did not participate in personally did or did not happen in thus and such a way. However, despite that there is evidence that falsifies some claims made by NASA, there is no evidence that all claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo missions are false. While this does not prove we landed on the moon, neither does it disprove it, and the preponderance of evidence is that we did.

Sadly, almost all that evidence comes from NASA, which seems to me to be shown to be duplicitous, and their claims to be strongly deprecated as a result. Basically, if someone described human anatomy precisely but stated we had six toes and fingers on each appendage, I would only be able to discount that latter claim partially, and not dismiss the anatomical description entirely, and that for something of which I have very personal familiarity, unlike the Apollo missions.

Further, I have very little reason to care if we did or did not land on the moon. I am content to lay this issue to rest as unresolved as is, and find the evidence the CIA assassinated Kennedy of far more significance to me personally than whether NASA completely forged evidence of Apollo missions - which I am sure even you will grant is almost inconceivably impossible, given the almost 100% certainty that they did launch Saturn V's repeatedly, with people in them.

I hope this explains my reticence in declaring certitude regarding this matter.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are basically saying that a massive false info is enough for you to believe that something impossible is actually possible.

And in this movie “What Happened on the Moon?” you have a fact that with the photo equipment and film presented, it was not possible to make a single quality photo on the Moon surface.

Even without a film you have a fact that NASA today is searching a way to go through the Van Allen Belt… And all the fantastic technology that made them doing it in 1969 is now destroyed?! Even blueprints for a ‘second ignition engine’, so Elon Musk must do everything from the scratch?

You have just found your limit, @valued-customer. Just as I did believing in that famous sentence “If they hadn’t landed, the Soviets would have announced it!”.

And then, I’ve start learning from my limitations. Will you be able too?

0
0
0.000
avatar

"...with the photo equipment and film presented, it was not possible to make a single quality photo on the Moon surface...And all the fantastic technology that made them doing it in 1969 is now destroyed?"

I have previously stated there are other reasons for NASA to fake photographs besides not being on the moon, which you have ignored and pretend instead I disagree NASA faked photography. I also agree that NASA's claim to have lost the technology to go to the moon falls flat, and I do not believe it. There is no good reason for you to imply I claimed otherwise.

"You are basically saying that a massive false info is enough for you to believe that something impossible is actually possible."

You are implying that there is no factual evidence at all, and that is as baseless as the lies you oppose. The evidence of the Apollo program is voluminous. Will you descend so deeply into the counter narrative that you would claim Saturn V rocket launches fake? That is the insinuation you make above, that all evidence of the Apollo program is false.

In the film you linked the very first arguments that the images of Earth from space are faked are highly speculative, making claims that are purely conjecture about how the camera was held to a window, and from that initial pejoration of photographic evidence, no attempt is made to be impartial whatsoever. I am averse to that malignant spirit, because it is not seeking to ascertain facts, but to convince viewers of their thesis by any means. It is the model of fraudulent science, of cherry picking data and salting sites - exactly what NASA has done.

Do you intend to mimic those you claim have deceived us by using false insinuations and implications? Why do you leap to conclusions insuperable with factual evidence? The truth does not need to be protected from facts and honest reason. If your purpose is to reveal truth, there is no need to twist my words and put falsehoods into my mouth.

"Apollo Astronauts going through the Van Allen Belts received a very low and non-harmful dose of radiation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

"In 2015-16, NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko remained there for almost a year. As astronauts stay in orbit for longer, their radiation exposure may also increase, leading to concerns about long-term habitation for astronauts in space."
https://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

"...you have a fact that NASA today is searching a way to go through the Van Allen Belt...">

Is the ISS fake, or were Kelly and Kornienko sacrificed by being irradiated? Why do you repeat such obvious misinformation?

I have not said I believe NASA. Indeed, there is a great deal more that I believe NASA lies about. What I did say was that the preponderance of the evidence - and lunar photographs are only a tiny subset of that evidence - indicates that NASA succeeded in landing men on the moon, and that is what I believe: the preponderance of the evidence indicates NASA did land men on the moon.

Please note that is not even a claim of certainty NASA did so.

However, nothing I understand about physics disproves in any way that NASA did do so.

You have so dedicated yourself to the narrative that NASA is duplicitous that you ignore obvious and irrefutable facts and impute arguments to me I do not make. It is unnecessary and directly contrary to reason to descend to such depths of opposition to NASA's duplicity.

I expect better of you.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have previously stated there are other reasons for NASA to fake photographs besides not being on the moon, which you have ignored and pretend instead I disagree NASA faked photography. I also agree that NASA's claim to have lost the technology to go to the moon falls flat, and I do not believe it. There is no good reason for you to imply I claimed otherwise.

I did not say that you have claimed otherwise, I have said that just those two things are enough to conclude it was all a fake.

The evidence of the Apollo program is voluminous.

No, they aren’t, as the movie convincingly show.

…Saturn V rocket launches fake?

No, they were not fake – but that is not a proof that Saturn V went to the moon. It was a good orbit vehicle. It went into orbit, and it has returned from the orbit. The rest is a TV fiction.

Why do you leap to conclusions insuperable with factual evidence?

The movie is full of evidence – if you want to look at it. Far better evidence than NASA ever offered.

Is the ISS fake, or were Kelly and Kornienko sacrificed by being irradiated? Why do you repeat such obvious misinformation?

ISS is at 380 km orbit. Far below Van Allen Belt and protected from the deadly radiation. If you would please to read the links you have send me, you will find this:

“Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi)”

Nobody did go through Van Allen Belt. Russians had sent a protected probe with a various living Earth organisms at 800 km, and I thing only snails survived.

Please check your facts again.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

"ISS is at 380 km orbit. Far below Van Allen Belt and protected from the deadly radiation."

"In 2012, a new set of probes launched. The Van Allen Probes (formerly known as the Radiation Belt Storm probes) have several scientific goals, including...how the belts change during geomagnetic storms. The mission was planned to last two years, but as of May 2018 the probes were still operating at more than double the expected mission lifetime."
"It is known that the belts can swell when the sun becomes more active. Before the probes launched, scientists thought the inner belt was relatively stable, but when it did expand, its influence extended over the orbit of the International Space Station and several satellites."
"The ISS has been permanently inhabited since 2000, with typical astronauts staying there for six months at a time."
"The astronauts on the ISS do not regularly spend time inside the belts, but from time to time solar storms expand the belts to the orbit of the space station. In the 1960s, several Apollo crews went through the Van Allen belts on their way to and from the moon. Their time in that radiation-intensive region, however, was very short, in part because the trajectory was designed to pass through the thinnest known parts."
"Newer findings from the probes show that radiation in certain zones may be less harsh than scientists thought. In March 2017, the Van Allen Probes made a finding showing there is less radiation in the inner belts that previously theorized, which means less shielding is required for spacecraft and satellites in that region."
"Luckily, scientists got the chance to observe a storm up close in March 2015, when one of the Van Allen Probes happened to be situated inside the "right" spot in Earth's magnetic field to see an interplanetary shock."
"...in this case, a coronal mass ejection of charged particles from the sun creates a shock..."
https://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

Kelly and Kornienko were on the ISS in 2015-2016.

"The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii (L values of 1 to 3) or 1,000 km (620 mi) to 12,000 km (7,500 mi) above the Earth.[3][11] In certain cases, when solar activity is stronger or in geographical areas such as the South Atlantic Anomaly, the inner boundary may decline to roughly 200 km[12] above the Earth's surface."
"Apollo Astronauts going through the Van Allen Belts received a very low and non-harmful dose of radiation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

It is not true that the Van Allen belts are an impediment to space travel, or even living on the ISS when the belts are affected by a CME event that immerses the ISS in the lower belt. The ISS has been continuously inhabited since 2000 despite repeatedly being immersed in the lower Van Allen belt. So far as I am aware, there have been no reported injuries or illnesses as a result.

"I have said that just those two things are enough to conclude it was all a fake."

I have pointed out over and over that there are numerous other reasons to fake moon pics. Faked moon pics does not only lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the moon landings were a hoax. It means NASA did not want to show the public what the astronauts were examining on the moon, or were installing, or something else, maybe even that there were no moon landings. That is a possibility, but it is not at all a certainty, or even more likely than other possible reasons.

Similarly the claim they forgot how to go back to the moon has absolutely no bearing on whether they went to the moon or not. It means they're lying (IMHO) for some reason. However, it is not even evidence about moon landings at all. It's even possible they're not actually lying about forgetting how to do it.

Faked pics and lies about forgetting how do not add up to more evidence together than separately, because neither is evidence the moon landings were fake at all.

The movie you linked was not an objective look at facts, but blatantly biased, and implied and insinuated the moon landings were a hoax without surcease, which is why I mentioned the pure conjecture regarding how the camera was held right at the beginning of the movie to try and deny such a picture could have been taken from space. That conjecture is not evidence of anything except the bias of the producers of the movie.

That is not how facts are established. That is how propaganda is made. I do not have an agenda other than seeking to ascertain facts that can falsify the claim that NASA put men on the moon. That movie made claims the moon landings were fake without regard to scientific fact or veracity. The people who made the movie have an agenda to convince people the moon landings were faked, and they clearly dissemble and lie to do that. I do not find that movie more credible than NASA, at all, for that reason.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to falsify the claim that men landed on the moon, you're going to need to provide actual evidence of that, not false claims about radiation, conjecture, insinuation, implication, or putting words in my mouth.

"Russians had sent a protected probe with a various living Earth organisms at 800 km, and I thing only snails survived."

"The Soviet/Russian Bion program provided U.S. investigators a platform for launching Fundamental Space Biology and biomedical experiments into space. The Bion program, which began in 1966, included a series of missions that flew biological experiments using primates, rodents, insects, cells, and plants on a biosatellite in near-earth orbit. NASA became involved in the program in 1975 and participated in 9 of the 11 Bion missions.[2] NASA ended its participation in the program with the Bion No.11 mission launched in December 1996. The collaboration resulted in the flight of more than 100 U.S. experiments, one-half of all U.S. life sciences flight experiments accomplished with non-human subjects."
"In 2005, the Bion program was resumed with three new satellites of the modified Bion-M type – the first flight was launched on 19 April 2013 from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. The first satellite of the new series Bion-M1 featured an aquarium by the German Aerospace Center (DLR)[4] and carried 45 mice, 18 Mongolian gerbils, 15 geckos, snails, fish and micro-organisms into orbit for 30 days before re-entry and recovery.[5][6] All the gerbils died due to a hardware failure, but condition of the rest of the experiments, including all geckos, was satisfactory. Half the mice died as was predicted.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bion_(satellite)

If there's some other such test you refer to please provide a link. A great many biological experiments have been carried out in space, and I am unaware of any that showed unexpected radiation danger that made passage through the Van Allen belts unacceptably risky.

I have long held you in high regard because you provide strong evidence of claims you make. I do not find the highly pejorative conjecture, insinuation, and false claims made in that movie at all convincing. This is why I said I expect better of you. I really do. It was you that falsified the claims of the NEJM and JAMA back in March 2020, when you convinced me Covid19 was not the deadly plague I had read it was in those highly respected journals, and you did this by providing very strong evidence that disproved the false claims of authoritative experts.

I will again point out that I only even looked at these claims because it was you making them, because of my regard for you. I am unconvinced by the very weak evidence provided to show the moon landings were faked, and particularly by the easily refuted claim the Van Allen belts are too radioactive to cross on the way.

Edit: here's something maybe NASA didn't want us to see.

https://odysee.com/@TheLostHistoryChannelTKTC:0/pyramid-discovered-on-the-moon-shorts:6

0
0
0.000
avatar

If you give more value to a few Wikipedia edits, and a pure bull**it about ‘pyramids on the Moon’ than clearly stated facts in the movie, I will rest my case, @valued-customer. You obviously have decided that your position ‘They have faked everything but still they were there‘ is the only true.

Good luck.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hokay mang. You can ignore evidence from half a dozen sources and make pretense that one execrably biased propaganda piece is reliable source all you want. But there's a possible reason for faked moon pics and claims to have forgotten know how I didn't mention: to create this very discussion, to cause doubt and generate a poisoned well in which to drown dissent.

Regarding prior human presence on the moon, are you aware of the levels of Xenon 129 on Mars and the one mechanism potential to generate Xenon 129? I suspect this is why Musk is intent on colonizing Mars rather than Venus, which provides far greater resources for development.

Be well.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340952315_EVIDENCE_OF_A_MASSIVE_THERMONUCLEAR_EXPLOSIONS_ON_MARS_IN_THE_PAST_The_Cydonian_Hypothesis_and_Fermi%27s_Paradox#pf5

0
0
0.000