MID Registered User
Posts: 16
(8/25/05 10:15 pm) Reply
Re: FOR COSMIC
It's time you heeded your own advice and post on the forum.
In response to your guestbook post stating that I am totally wrong about the authorities not caring what gets said, and all the attendant stuff about one of the top "Ufologists" in the UK...
I am not talking about "Ufologists" and UFOs. I was speaking of the connection between the woman's statements and the Apollo hoax. There are none.
Look...
UFOs exist. They are commonly sighted by pilots, and by astronauts. We called them "Yoo-Foes" (pronouncing the acronym), and you'll often hear references to them. However, UFO means precisely what the acronym stands for: UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. It has no relation to alien spacecraft. Practically everyone sees UFOs. I have, astronauts have. It's not a big deal. But no one can present any credible evidence that they've seen extra-terrestrial craft. This is not to say there are none, nor is this to say there are no aliens. The probabilities are completely in favor of those things. The probabilities are also in favor of the idea that they're not here. Perhaps at one time, one, or more were. But there's nothing substantial to indicate that any have been here in modern history, and I would wonder why they would come here anyway, given the content of what we transmit into space. I also don't understand the big deal about it.
But I was asking, for the umpteenth time, what any of this woman's statements (all of which have been shown to be unsubstantiated) have to do with a moon landing hoax.
No astronaut ever reported an alien, or any evidence of one anytime, anywhere, on any space mission.
But back to the Apollo hoax.
Cosmic Conspiracies is notorious for putting forth "evidence" of this hoax, "evidence" which is simply a matter of a lack of knowledge about the subject matter to which they speak. Many of these evidientiary things have been addressed in the posts I've placed in this forum, and in fact, I've pointed out many fallacies in your arguements directly, all without reply.
Maybe you can addfess some things that puzzle you about Apollo here, and I'll answer them for you.
What conspiracies do you believe in?
MID, you claim that you believe in alot of conspiracies but that the moon landing isn't one of them. I find that rather peculiar since the people on the net I have encountered on the net who trash the moon landing hoax beliefs also trash other conspiracy beliefs: eg: JFK, 9/11 etc. I found this in particular on the old apollo hoax forum which unforutnately has disappeared (a new one has replace dit but the old thread are gone) or badastrnomy.
So...what conspiracies DO you believe in then?
MID Registered User
Posts: 18
(8/27/05 3:02 pm) Reply
Re: What conspiracies do you believe in?
Sorry...see below.
Edited by: MID at: 8/27/05 4:16 pm
MID Registered User
Posts: 19
(8/27/05 4:13 pm) Reply
Re: What conspiracies do you believe in?
I do not claim to "believe" in alot of conspiracies.
What I've said is that conspiracies have existed, do exist undoubtedly, and will in the future, so long as people are mired in the aspects of power and control that characterize much of what many governments and ruling bodies do, and have done in the past.
Belief is conjecture...faith...philosophical contemplation. Knowledge is different from belief. Knowledge is the product of experience. In knowledge, philosophy becomes reality through experience.
I know there have been conspiracies. I do not "believe" in any.
Unfortunately, intellectual laziness has grown in so many in the decades since the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists have grouped themselves into a camp, largely, that assumes everything they don't understand, and certainly haven't honestly investigated, is a plot. Thus we have people poo-pooing the Apollo hoax, despite the fact that some of them (and I've seen this plenty) don't have enough knowledge to actually speak to the hoax arguements. They "believe" we went to the moon and will argue for that despite the fact they don't really understand things as well as they might. They also tend to think that nothing is a conspiracy---even the obvious ones.
On the other hand, you have a faction of people who believe everything is a conspiracy, which tends to render all the actual investigation that's been done into real conspiracies null and void...every conspiracy is grouped into the "kook" mode.
A conspiracy...the idea that there might be one...should be the product of information which surfaces and provides the impetus for someone to investigate and understand that which he or she is seeing, reading, or looking at. If a thourough investigation is done, then one can say whether a reasonable case exists for further investigation into a possible conspiracy.
Take JFK, for instance. People largely believed this was a conspiracy from 11-22-63. That was simply based upon nothing more than emotion. "How could anyone have killed President Kennedy, a man so huge in our eyes--especially this little slug of an upstart commie sympathizer named Oslwald."
That certainly does not make for a conspiracy investigation.
Indeed, in and of itself, it means very little. However, things surfaced which prompted people to make inquiry, and that inquiry led to investigations. The mere fact that the films of the assasination of the President show rather clearly that the "head shot" couldn't have come from behind him was more than enough to cause skilled investigators to dig in (i.e., Weisberg, Livingstone). Medical witnesses to the events caused more than reasonable doubt into the official story line, and of course, the government itself declared that a conspiracy in the death of JFK was probable.
It's really a no brainer. However, that doesn't show "who dunit", and it never will, it merely indicates that a conspiracy took place..which it obviously did.
At the same time, others jumped into the JFK fray and invented all sorts of completely ludicrous notions in support of the official line---red-herrings thrown into the mix, like a Uroligist's invention of the ridiculous "jet effect" idea to explain why physics didn't work the way it always has in the case of President Kennedy's bullet wound to his head.
Add this idiocy to the real investigations and we've come to the point where everyone investigating the Kennedy assassination is grouped into the "crackpot" category--even the real investigative work is relegated to the lunatic barrel. Unfortunate, but true.
People still believe that Sirhan Sirhan is the assassin of Robert Kennedy. This is completely untenable, since from the very start, and the complete autopsy done by one of America's top forensic pathologists at the time clearly showed that Sirhan could not have, and did not shoot the Senator. There was a cover up there, which was obvious from the start.
I know these things. I don't believe them.
The Lunar Landing hoax is different. Its genesis is of course in the fact that conspiracies have existed in the past, the aforementioned two being probably the most prominent ones, but no one who has ever come forth to claim that the American lunar landings was faked has done any real investigation into the matter. They have merely taken things they've seen or heard and extrapolated them into a variety of theories--beliefs, as-it-were.
No proponent has actually investigated any of this in any depth or truth, they've merely made statements of "fact" which are all based on non-investigative speculation, and the bending of everything they see into something that conforms to their fantasies and desires. The originators did this to make a buck on the conspiracy-weary and technically ignorant generation that has grown up since the 1960s, and they have succeeded.
Bill Kaysing, Ralph Renee, Bart Sibrel...these people are ignorant of the facts; in many cases, deliberately so. They've done no investigation. Their theories are akin to the ideas spawned by people like Dr. Lattimer, the Urologist who invented the "jet effect" theory in the JFK assasination(creating a whole new branch of physics at the same time...urologic physics, I believe it's called...obviously, doctors who deal with the reproductive and urinary systems see physics in an entirely different way, and are apparently fully qualified to discuss ballistics and bullet wounds).
The bottom line is that the Apollo hoax did not grow out of the normal mechanics that people have used in the past to uncover conspiracy. There is only belief here, no knowledge. There is no understanding in the hoax proponents, only un-educated speculation and creative, biased fabrication regarding things they do not understand, or elect not to acknowledge.
There isn't even any reasonable doubt about Apollo which would lead anyone to have an inkling that this was a fake. And anyone who actually investigated what they may have had some doubt or curiousity about would swiftly come to the conclusion that there's nothing to substantiate the idea of a hoax. The Apollo hoax is the product of intellectual laziness, period.
I am aware that most all of the hoax proponents are younger people, influenced by a few idiots who were out to make a dollar on their ignorance, and it is not a wonder to me that many young people actually believe this stuff. The only reason I have contributed to this discussion on several sites is to reach out toward a generation that wasn't even born when these things happened--a generation that is not even taught anything about this stuff in schools any more, and perhaps gently guide them into their own investigations of the vast depth of material that's available on the program (it is the most documented series of events in human history). My hope is to stimulate them to learn something, to use their minds, and avoid the laziness that allows them to accept at face value the prattlings of those who put forth this idiocy.
Re: What conspiracies do you believe in?
I think your wrong about the flag MID.
You said ‘There are no movies of the American flag waving in the wind on the moon. Quell thy suspicions. In every film where the flag is waving, someone is manipulating the pole to set the thing in place. Every single time the flag moves, someone is making it move. There is of course no atmosphere, and after the astronuauts finish manipulating the flag, they leave it, and it sits there, not moving one jot.’
But if you watch the video we have on our Apollo Hoax page at www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Wind.gif you’ll notice that even when the astronaut has the flag slung over his shoulder the flag is hardly moving, and yet when its in the ground he’s having a hell of a time trying to get the thing to stay still. I know what your stock reply will be… that the flag had a pole at the top and was covered in starch to keep it stiff – why then does the flag wave about when its in the ground but stays stiff when its on the shoulder of the astronaut?
Also you claim that you have knowledge that Man landed on the Moon - hows that? Do you mean you've been to a few museums and NASA facilities and seen the equipment that supposedly went to the Moon? To claim such a thing is wrong simply because only NASA can release data about the landings because they were the only ones there.
Do you seriously believe that Neil Armstrong landed the Lunar Module on the Moons surface without a clear view of where he was actually landing? Do you believe that he could precisely navigate the craft to land by just looking through a very small triangular window that was situated on the side of the craft? Have you done the calculations to make sure that they had enough fuel to actually return to Earth after the amount of fuel they burned to get down onto the surface?
Lets remember that the eventual Apollo 11 landing was a 'make or break' situation that would have been aborted if Armstrong had not landed the module there and then because of lack of fuel.
Your so called knowledge is based on belief of the data that NASA has released to the general public - nothing more and nothing less.
Unless you were one of the 12 who stepped on the Moon, how sure can you be that they ever went?
Lets remember that it was only a few years ago that Russia finally told the Russian public that Gagarin wasn't the first person to orbit Earth.
Why would the US fake the Moon landings? Because they were keeping the promise of an assassinated president who was the most popular US president in history. They also had to prove to the Russians that they had the technology to do it in the height of the cold war era.
If you sit back and read a few history books about the era of the Moon landings, its not too hard to imagine why they did what they did and why.
And finally, why is it that people like yourself think that people like me are making a quick buck from this conspiracy subject? I havent made anything from this site - in fact it has cost me money to produce - but I do it as a hobby not a money spinner so thats fine.
Perhaps all your frustration is because some people do make money out of the hoax stuff while you make nothing? hmmm Edited by: Cosmic Conspiracies at: 9/5/05 3:06 pm
MID Registered User
Posts: 21
(9/5/05 5:10 pm) Reply
Re: What conspiracies do you believe in?
I am well aware you think I am wrong about the flag.
I have seen all of the film you mention. I was watching these things live as they happened. Your arguements about the flag moving are ludicrous. Of course it's moving. The astronauts are all twisting the pole...their hands are on it, moving it to and fro in order to secure it. The flag will obviously move, and wave, since it's made of material. Air is not required to make it move, all that's required is an impulse. Just as I said, after they're done securing it, it doesn't move at all. This is because there's no impulse to make it move, and certainly no air around moving in currents.
How can you stick to such idiocy?
My "stock reply" is simply basic physics. I have no idea where you get this "starch" idea. It waves about because someone's moving it. That's all. It should be obvious to any intelligent being.
I know these things happened because I was involved. I don't have to be one of the 12 men that landed on the moon to speak to it. There were several hundred thousand people who were involved as well, and they too, if they weren't bored to tears by contentions such as yours, would speak to it as well. Visiting museums is nice, of course, and as to the data released to the public...the public has precious little idea how many tens of thousands of pages is available for them to look at. The sheer volume of material available, making Apollo the most documented scientific endeavor in history, and its largely unknown character (most people wouldn't be interested in, and aren't aware the volume of technical reports that exist), make the idea that the project was faked ridiculous. Why bother writing millions of words and compiling scads of data that are only of interest to people in NASA? You make no sense.
I seriously know that Neil Armstrong piloted the LM to the lunar surface, and I know he had a fairly clear view of exactly where he was going through that "very small triangular window" (which wasn't as small as you paint it. It provided quite adequate forward visibility). I also know that 95% of the landing approach was computer controlled. He actually flew only the terminal phase manually, and looking through the sheet of dust the LM DPS was creating was the only restriction he had...yet, if you read any of the technical debriefs, you'd know that he had surface visibility despite the thin dust sheet.
They had all the fuel that they required to return to orbit after the landing, and to get home. This is because the fuel required to get back into orbit HAD NOT BEEN USED AT ALL DURING THE DESCENT. Your knowledge of these things speaks volumes. Descent fuel was in the descent stage. Ascent fuel was in the ascent stage. Neither supply had anything to do with getting home again, as that fuel was in the SM in lunar orbit...and there was certainly enough left there. Ever hear of mission planning?
Your comment regarding the "make or break" situation makes no sense. I am well aware of what happened on the Apollo 11 landing. The abort call was about 40-45 seconds away when Eagle finally touched town on the moon. The Apollo 11 landing approach went quite a bit longer than in any of the many simulations...due to obvious factors for anyone who knows what they're talking about. I see no relevance in this to your hoax theory.
I can't be ''sure" we ever went to the moon. I also can't be sure that the Sun is not a high powered halogen lamp in the sky, or that New Orleans, Louisiana was essentially destroyed by a hurricane a week ago. I am not there...all I can see are the pictures, which could've been faked! What's your point?
It's not too hard for anyone to fantasize about why we would've faked a moon landing. Many people have, despite the obvious facts.
I never said people like YOU are making a buck. I say that the people who invented this whole thing are making a buck, and they are. Kaysing, Renee, Seibrel, et. al. have made quite a handsome amount propogating their particularly imbecilic claims. People like you simply like to be heard, despite the fact that you make yourself look foolish. Being heard is fine, of course, even though you're wrong.
We did not keep the promise of a dead President. We were fulfilling his mandate. The fact that he was dead was irrelevant. We had proved to the Soviets that we had the technology to do it...as of December 1968, when we did it on Apollo 8. They knew precisely what we were doing, because we broadcast it all live, and they payed very close attention. Perhaps you think that the Soviets hadn't imaged our entire operation from orbit, as we had theirs? Are you that dumb? Do ytou not think that when spoace flights conflicted with each other, that the two governments didn't share data? Are you that naive?
Your arguements are shallow. I am somewhat fulfilled by speaking to young people and guiding them in the direction of self-investigation in this matter. I am less fulfilled by seeing people who should know better propogate their ignorance so that a generation removed from the events actually believes their crap.
Your comment about my frustration at people making money over this is childish...which is what the Apollo hoax is, childish, sensationalistic, often fabricated dribble about something you obviously know nothing about.
Edited by: 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies