|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 19:13:35 GMT -4
Another thing. Fireballs, you're asking people here a lot of questions, and I think you'd agree that people are giving you detailed answers. I sent Cosmic Dave an e-mail last October about his timeline here ( www.cosmic-conspiracies.com/apollohoax.html), asking why he chose to ignore the Gemini program. I never got a response. You talk about your suspicions that NASA is hiding things. What do you think about HB's that won't answer a simple question? It does appear they are being dishonest and hiding something On another note- are you the only woman on these boards? I mean no offense here, but the other posters (including me) are all male. Just an observation I made.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 18:14:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 17:00:48 GMT -4
So, in everyone's opinion, does that fact that the transmissions from Apollo 11 came from the moon enough evidence to validate the entire mission? If so, why would HB's deny such simple evidence?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 16:11:27 GMT -4
The following is an interesting story about a documented case of an amateur radio operator who picked up and listened to the radio communications from the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 11 EVA. Eavesdropping on Apollo 11Given what we've said about the impossibility of faking a signal from the Moon without actually being on the Moon, this is some pretty strong evidence that the whole thing was real. So it's really this easy? A11 was validated by the simple fact that the transmissions only came in when dishes were pointed at the moon? It's that simple???
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:58:04 GMT -4
Just a quick question. I'm trying to make sense of everything still.
In effect, we know the moon rocks are authentic because of the sheer number of scientists who examined them, and with little if any dispute among them that they were not from the moon. So the consensus is they are moon rocks. Am I correct?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:32:06 GMT -4
As for the radio tracking and that the russians did it wrong. It is as simple at that: You know those satellite dishes you see all over the country since a number of years? It really is very simple: either you point that dish at the emitting TV-satellite and get a signal or you dont point it correctly and dont get a signal. So all the russians needed to do is point their dishes in such a way that they received a signel and then glimpsed along the dish axis. If they see the moon in the dish axis, then the signal originated along a line in the direction of the moon. There pretty much is not very much one can do wrong. In fact it is very simple to do. Millions of people can do this when mounting there satellite-TV-dishes. What the russians did, was done in Australia, USA, Germany and a lot of radio amateurs all over the globe. In each place the dish has to be oriented differently, because we live on a sphere and the same celestial object is visible in differen sky spots in different places on the globe at the same time. All those line of sights intersected at one point- the Moon. So there really is no doubt that the signal indeed was sent from the moon. Makes sense except that dishes for things like satellite tv don't move. They stay in one spot. But I suppose that's because there are multiple satellites that stream tv to the dish so there's always a constant flow. Don't know if that affects the point of the post I'm quoting from though. Does anyone else agree with kallewirsch here?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:29:15 GMT -4
It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers No, its not. Even today we could not do it. What we can do is to send some rovers to the moon which use a small shovel to dig a little dirt into a container and send that container back. But that is not what the Apollo samples are all about. There are rocks! Large rocks with large masses. There are core samples, which require somebody to drill into the ground. Both things, collecting heavy rocks and drilling 2 meter long core samples, were not possible with rovers in the 60ties and are still not possible with rovers today. This is what I like to hear, however are there any documents/studies/some kind of paper work that backs this up? I can't go by hearsay or personal knowledge. I need some professional backup. This is what I alluded to 2 posts above this. This concept makes sense to me- the concept that robots can only collect a few grams or maybe a single pound of material. But without documentation I can't totally accept it. Do you follow? If there is some documentation I'll be convinced and embrace it. But until then I'll remain skeptical
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:25:26 GMT -4
Forgot to add- you guys really are helping and are chipping away at my skepticism. Thank you! Losing your skepticism is not a good thing. Perhaps you are confusing skepticism with doubt? Perhaps. I think the sentence would better read "You guys really are helping and chipping away at my doubt!"
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:23:45 GMT -4
I'll put a finger on it: preconception. You desire to believe that the Moon landings were hoaxed, and so you're trying to find a way to make it seem true intellectually. Don't feel bad; cognitive psychologists have actually identified a measurable thrill that comes from believing something you think is secret or forbidden knowledge. It must be my nature to question.It's apparently in your nature to question selectively. You've put forward a number of hypotheses that are patently absurd, and you didn't seem to question them yourself before making them. It's your nature to question what opposes your belief, but not what supports it. But they [NASA] are a government agency.So is the Forestry Service. Ad hominem. So I suppose this question really comes down to "how much do you trust your government?How much do you trust the Soviet government? You don't seem to question their retroreflectors or their sample-return missions. Why do you question only NASA? What I'm saying is they can and do hide things from us, especially in the military.Yes, the government hides things from us. So does your employer hide things from you. And your doctor. And the boards of directors of every major company on the planet. And so does your mother. You don't get to single out government agencies as implicit liars. Oddly enough you don't seem to be willing to consider that the hoax authors are the ones hiding something. Why does someone have to work for the government in order to be dishonest? Why is it so hard to believe in a handful of charlatans trying to make a quick buck off the gullible? Thankfully we don't have to trust anyone. We have evidence. You're working on the basis of trust. We're working on the basis of evidence. We believe that the Soviets obtained 300 g of lunar surface material by unmanned means because that's where the evidence points. Similarly we believe that NASA acquired 350 kg of lunar surface material by manned exploration because that's where the evidence points. For some silly, unexplained reason, you want to believe the evidence in one case and ignore it in the other. That double standard indicates a simple unwillingness to believe in manned lunar exploration no matter what the evidence says. That's what you have to get over. You're explaining your position very clearly. The problem is that the position you're explaining is blatantly illogical. why do I remain skeptical? I guess #1 answers this...No it doesn't. You don't answer the question; you just state it. Excellent post. Thank you for 'putting a finger on it'; I appreciate it. Why do I remain skeptical? Perhaps because there is no 'clincher' that does it for me. There's no single piece of evidence that I can look at and say ""A ha! They are telling the truth!" Now I'll admit that the rocks are from the moon, so obviously they had to get from there to here somehow.... But I'm not quite at the step where I can say "The astronauts did it". I'm not at that step for a reason I'll get into in a few posts.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:20:15 GMT -4
Governments and military organizations certainly try and keep secrets but the truth is that they never seem to keep them for very long, especially where they are trying to cover some scandal or deception. Even where you have a genuine national security issue, a dedicated pool of trustworthy people, and the simple requirement to just stay silent rather than tell lies the truth comes out. That's not a theoretical notion by the way, it's what happened with the WWII ULTRA code breaking effort. It was kept secret for several decades but eventually somebody wrote a book about it and now it's a part of the historical record. No secret last forever so why would anyone create a hoax that could never be revealed without causing massive damage to the political and scientific establishment?Good point that makes loads of sense (no sarcasm intended). This gets me thinking.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 0:18:18 GMT -4
Fireballs, would you mind answering my question about whether you believe the Apollo flights prior to 11 were real? And have you looked at the videos/transcripts/photographs/ of the reflector deployments or not? Yes, I do think the flights before A11 were real. But I suppose that invalidates my whole position, doesn't it? When you say "videos/transcripts/photos of the reflector deployments" do you mean the links you posted? If so, yes I did look at them, but I didn't read the whole transcripts.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 19:59:37 GMT -4
Forgot to add- you guys really are helping and are chipping away at my skepticism. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 19:54:24 GMT -4
I'll try to answer these questions. It seems the most popular ones are "where is the evidence for your claims?", "why don't you trust NASA/believe them?" and "why are you (I) still skeptical?" 1) there really is no evidence, yet for some reason (can't put my finger on it) I remain skeptical. It must be my nature to question. Or it's sub-conscience, no joke. But I can't put my finger on it. 2) why don't I trust NASA? I do- for most things. But they are a government agency. So I suppose this question really comes down to "how much do you trust your government?" I trust them, but at the same time they are the government. What I'm saying is they can and do hide things from us, especially in the military. How much do I trust my government... I trust them with the essentials, such as protecting my rights, etc. 3) why do I remain skeptical? I guess #1 answers this... Please keep in mind that I'm not here to troll. Though I can imagine that by now it must sound like I am, and I apologize. Just try to bear with me, but I understand if you can't (no sarcasm intended). Lastly, thanks for the help! I'll reply to the other points raised later, as I'm short for time, but I will get to them.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 18:30:48 GMT -4
I can see where everyone is coming from with their responses. They are all good posts, but I'm not convinced regarding the LRRR and the way we got the rocks. My main objections are the same. It's possible that the rocks were collected by rovers; if NASA 'landed men on the moon' they could very well have landed 6 rovers to collect rocks. Rovers could also have been used for the mirrors. The Russians did it, so could we. Sorry if I sound snotty or something of that sort. I just don't know another way to express my position Here's an update on my views: -Moon rocks are really from the moon - Russians had capabilities to track us, and probably did. For some reason this doesn't seal it for me though. Thank you everyone for all the help so far though
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 21, 2010 12:48:38 GMT -4
Thanks for the links! ;D But the only problem I have is with the moon rock one. How can we trust those people? Could NASA have paid them off? I'm covering all the bases here... Have a look at this five-year-old thread about lunar rocks. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=614&post=9248In the first post, PeterB (an Australian) wrote six important points about the rocks that were brought back, and replies 2 and 3 have the names of some of the scientists who had put their names forward to examine the Apollo 11 samples before the mission flew. I'll bet that like most of us here, you've never heard of most of the tests proposed. Although the list was compiled well before the existence of the internet, it might still be possible to research some of the scientists in it. If you go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (link at the bottom of every page here) you can read for yourself the Apollo 11 Press Kit, from which the list of names comes. In any case, you should probably spend a few hours, days or weeks at the ALSJ if you haven't already. Note also in reply No. 2 the reference to two National Geographic articles about the rocks. Unfortunately the geologist in the September 1973 issue worked for Nasa so perhaps doesn't count, but the article is still interesting. It may be worth wondering whether or not some of the staff of National Geographic were capable of seeing through a hoax if there was one. They have always employed excellent journalists. Have you also spent time on JayUtah's website, Clavius? Link at the bottom of every page here. He covers every major "hoax" claim in a very informative fashion. Thanks! I thought it over and yes, I suppose the moon rocks are genuine. ;D But why is it impossible for 6 rovers to return samples, much like the Russians did? Also, could the reflective mirror on the moon have been placed by a bot? The Russians did that also.
|
|