Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
WTF?
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
- Status
Keefe
Well-Known Member
That's basically a Dutch Rudder. Which is ironic mind you because Dutch is the biggest handjob this site's ever seen.
Welocme.
I was about to resign my membership on Jazzfanz. alternate theories are too hard for some folks to assimilate. This is where vast calculations of improbabilities far beyond the computing capacities of commenters is sufficient refutation of misunderstood facts however documented and proven.
Obviously, you've hit on something here, as demonstrated by the way JF community steered your concerns straight to the talk about hand-jobs, Dutch rudder, and similar values.
That's what I like about JazzFanz.
Relevant discussions.
You and me both brother
Well, all I can say is that the Van Allen radiation has nothing to do with any real conspiracy, theory or fact.
Space capsules were re-designed to prevent meaningful effects, fairly easy to do with a layer of plastic under the metal can shell. Early on, flight trajectories minimized the time and intensity of exposure.
All that said, why would any sensible person suppose we would televise the real event and give the Russians or others clues about our technology. It is out of character for our government to risk a catastrophic failure on live TV, so of course NASA filmed a version for public release.
Space capsules were re-designed to prevent meaningful effects, fairly easy to do with a layer of plastic under the metal can shell. Early on, flight trajectories minimized the time and intensity of exposure.
All that said, why would any sensible person suppose we would televise the real event and give the Russians or others clues about our technology. It is out of character for our government to risk a catastrophic failure on live TV, so of course NASA filmed a version for public release.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
What is the benefit to making people believe we landed on the moon if we actually didn't.
My life would be no different if never landed on the moon. Who cares if we did or didn't? Why try to trick us?
My life would be no different if never landed on the moon. Who cares if we did or didn't? Why try to trick us?
Red
Well-Known Member
At the time, we were involved with "the space race" with the Soviet Union, so I guess someone could argue we were trying to fool the Russians: we beat you! And I guess it could be good for domestic consumption during the Cold War: we beat the Russians!
The moon rocks should be enough to demonstrate we made it to the moon. Planetary geologists can at least know with certainty that NASA's moon rocks could not have originated on any other body in the solar system other then the moon. Obviously, I cannot reproduce that proof here. We do have meteorites that originated from the moon, knocked off by impacts, and eventually landing on Earth. I even own some samples of lunar meteorites myself(most meteorite collectors try to add such planetary samples to their collections). So, actual moon rocks collected on the moon, and lunar meteorites are our only two sourcrs of lunar samples. But it's also not hard to demonstrate NASA's moon rocks collected during actual lunar missions are not themselves meteorites.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Red
Well-Known Member
Comic sans. I hope, lol...
Red
Well-Known Member
FWIW....
https://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]"
https://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]"
So I've been thinking of illustrations suitable to show your logical deficiencies.
You have the wrong model for what you imagine to be a "conspiracy", so your thinking is really messed up.
You're a military man, you seem to be thinking in strict military logic of organization. Actually, "conspiracies" are commonplaces of human collective actions, and usually they are not monolithic, but acquire incidental support from other like-minded or like-interested folks who want to work for the common good, of themselves sometimes, but sometimes in idealistic terms, for the good of the world.
A traditional Marxist simply following the advices of early Marxist thinkers, would consider it good and necessary for the world to benefit from some covert little action cells here and there, all functioning in pretty complete isolation from the others.
I have no doubt that the Van Allen Radiation belts have been in place since before Marx, or even the British Empire. I understand we have actual moon rocks collected from sites on the surface of the moon. It wouldn't take a human to go there to get them, though.
Some of the Apollo TV footage seems to have some questionable aspects. Would be answered if the footage were filmed in studio, on earth, with appropriate stage backdrops and sand and rocks, for example.
Using some of that for the public TV while the real mission actually did go there, collect rocks or stuff, and come back is just one of many possible explanations, and for reasons like I said above.
One very universal facet of all public opinion "psy-op" efforts is called "compartmentalization". The pieces are separated, isolated, and very few people can make all the connections. As a military man, you should apprehend such possibilities as the military uses this strategy in everything it does. You follow your orders, you really don't know much else.
Personally, I doubt anyone has been killed over the Apollo "conspiracy". I think all those folks in Mission Control, all in the same building, the same room full of monitors, would suggest it was such a coordinated and open effort, a lot of people knew a lot about what others were doing and why.
But as a sort of stubborn free thinker, when folks come out with impossible film clips released from NASA files. . . . well, what the hell do I know anyway?
I presume the moon is quite a dusty surface, and I know the "lunology", so to speak, includes a somewhat different mineral composition with a tilt toward elements lighter that the earth average. . . lots of titanium, not so much iron, for example. Probably no gold to speak of, for example. I would expect a huge cloud of dust to be kicked up as the landing module settled down, and I can't explain why there was none evident in the film footage. Lunar gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's, so even without an atmosphere to speak of, it probably would have risen to some height and taken a while to settle.
So I have to give one to the lunatics with the crazy illogical studio footage.
And, really, there is still a serious effort to design some capsules capable of carrying humans through that high-velocity positively-charged particle cloud called the Van Allen Belt. The problem hasn't been solved yet.
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03...s-were-real-then-why-is-nasa-stumped-by-this/
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
The absurdity of the required scenario is completely off the charts. A scientist, 40 years after the lunar missions, submits a proposal to NASA, requesting lunar samples for his /her proposed study. He/she is taken aside: "these are not moon rocks, but it's important that your study support the belief that they are. So you will need to agree to falsify your results. We are creating a science of lunar geology based on make believe lunar samples. You OK with that?"
We went to the moon because JFK was a pathological narcissist that wanted to build his own pyramid. The Lizard shapeshifters thought it funny to create a race between JFK and Khruschev's Regime. Which ever got to the dark side first got the alien technology hiding there. That was the promise anyway.
The dust was thick and silty, greyer than any old wolf you would cross in the high northern latitudes. We did not expect that. Tales of everything from milkshakes to hot white ash from from the close proximity to the sun abounded. What can I say it was the 60's.
The dark dirt was not uniform. There were different shades of greys just like we see different shades of colors in are mountains, or more closely, different shades of colors of green in plant leafs. The moon is sort of a tropical paradise chattering to emos.
There was one outlier. A dust so dark grey it was almost as black as the night sky. If you saw it you might think The Devil himself got interrupted in his creation of it. It was so dark yet not blackened by pure evil.
are astronauts found this soil from newly erected satellite systems but when they saw the dirt they knew they did not need directions. Something felt off about it. They knew there suits were fastened tight but these areas seemed to suck the oxygen or life out of them. When they approached they got drained an when they receded they felt replenished.
That is when Neil Armstrong reported back to NASA. With no answer returned...
The dust was thick and silty, greyer than any old wolf you would cross in the high northern latitudes. We did not expect that. Tales of everything from milkshakes to hot white ash from from the close proximity to the sun abounded. What can I say it was the 60's.
The dark dirt was not uniform. There were different shades of greys just like we see different shades of colors in are mountains, or more closely, different shades of colors of green in plant leafs. The moon is sort of a tropical paradise chattering to emos.
There was one outlier. A dust so dark grey it was almost as black as the night sky. If you saw it you might think The Devil himself got interrupted in his creation of it. It was so dark yet not blackened by pure evil.
are astronauts found this soil from newly erected satellite systems but when they saw the dirt they knew they did not need directions. Something felt off about it. They knew there suits were fastened tight but these areas seemed to suck the oxygen or life out of them. When they approached they got drained an when they receded they felt replenished.
That is when Neil Armstrong reported back to NASA. With no answer returned...
conspiracy deniers believe humans are rational beings who can't be exploited by liars playing on ignorance, vanity, or paid to do things with money. They also place faith in politicians who promise to do the good stuff.
Most "leaders" who want to get things done, who learn to be effective at that, have learned already not to count on a fully-informed public. They say what they need to say, when they need to say something, and they don't tell much of the truth.
Not too hard to get people to do what's needed, really.
Throw in a few real dreamers who believe in some cause, or share a common interest, and you have possibly fairly large cohesive crusades to save the whales, of do anything else that needs doing. . . even get a carbon tax to fund the UN>
what's not true, the line you bolded?
I'll rephrase it and say it with more precision, since you are hard to please, if not hard to reason with. . . .
"conspiracy deniers" usually have some motive for the denial, perhaps along the lines of William Shakespear'e "Me thinkest thou deniest overmuch" was one way of saying the effort to deny isn't worthwhile, doesn't justify the effort, unless there's a reason you particularly need to sell the denial. . . .
Moi?????? Who me"???????
Well, for all I know you're busy doing a good brew and working at McDonalds, and are not actually planning a sting operation to take in some Mormon crooks with a Ponzi Scheme.
So, here you go. . . .
Conspiracy Deniers utilize the argument that it would take too much organization, involve too many uncontrolled actors, and cost too much to pull of a particular "Conspiracy", and in making that argument they are actually positing the assertion that the Public is intelligent, rational, and committed to moral truth in the Public arena. I simply say enough people don't care, and won't pay attention, and will believe the stuff they're told with minimal questioning effort expended. And for most practical "conspiracies" there's enough willing helpers who will cooperate for the good of some cause or another, hoping to change the world in some way they believe is beneficial to themselves, or to the world as they idealize it should be.
But on the line of doing the Sting on the Mormons, here's some stuff you can conjure with.
https://www.sltrib.com/home/3528330-155/biofuel-company-with-polygamous-ties-spent
I'll rephrase it and say it with more precision, since you are hard to please, if not hard to reason with. . . .
"conspiracy deniers" usually have some motive for the denial, perhaps along the lines of William Shakespear'e "Me thinkest thou deniest overmuch" was one way of saying the effort to deny isn't worthwhile, doesn't justify the effort, unless there's a reason you particularly need to sell the denial. . . .
Moi?????? Who me"???????
Well, for all I know you're busy doing a good brew and working at McDonalds, and are not actually planning a sting operation to take in some Mormon crooks with a Ponzi Scheme.
So, here you go. . . .
Conspiracy Deniers utilize the argument that it would take too much organization, involve too many uncontrolled actors, and cost too much to pull of a particular "Conspiracy", and in making that argument they are actually positing the assertion that the Public is intelligent, rational, and committed to moral truth in the Public arena. I simply say enough people don't care, and won't pay attention, and will believe the stuff they're told with minimal questioning effort expended. And for most practical "conspiracies" there's enough willing helpers who will cooperate for the good of some cause or another, hoping to change the world in some way they believe is beneficial to themselves, or to the world as they idealize it should be.
But on the line of doing the Sting on the Mormons, here's some stuff you can conjure with.
https://www.sltrib.com/home/3528330-155/biofuel-company-with-polygamous-ties-spent
- Status