HB Contradictions

[Bob B.]

I was just thinking about some of the contradictions that exist in the usual hoax arguments. I thought perhaps we could compile a list of these contradictions.

The purpose of this thread is not to debunk the arguments, but only to point out the contradictions between mutually exclusive arguments. I’ll start off with the following:

------------------------------

Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities.

Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax.

Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist.

------------------------------

Argument #1 – Insufficient computing power existed in the 1960s to land on the moon. Vertical takeoff and landing under rocket power is inherently unstable.

Argument #2 – The LRRRs were placed on the moon using robotic landers. The lunar rock and soil samples were collected using unmanned robotic spacecraft.

Contradiction – The ability to land a spacecraft on the moon was beyond 1960s technology, yet NASA used that same insufficient technology to land on the Moon. The contradiction is obvious.

------------------------------

Argument #1 – Objects in space cannot be cooled by the vacuum of space.

Argument #2 – The moon’s temperature varies from +250 degrees F in the sun to -250 degrees F in the shade.

Contradiction – The moon is an object in space. If objects in space cannot be cooled by space, then how can a +250 sunlit surface cool to -250 when it moves into shade?

------------------------------

That’s enough for now. Do you have any to add?

[bughead]

"They" are all-powerful and capable of perpetrating the largest and longest-running hoax you've ever heard of, and yet they are incapable of hiding all the evidence, eliminating leaks and whistleblowers, etc.

[gwiz]

... and US gubmint can fool the world for 40 years over Apollo, but they couldn't manage to fake finding a little nerve gas to justify the invasion of Iraq.

What I'd really like to see is a debate between the HBs who say we never went to the moon and the HBs who say we did but the records were faked to remove all signs of the alien moon base.

[BertL]

Perhaps you could call it a contradiction, but I'm not sure. The HBs don't seem to agree what lens flares are: some say it's studio spot lights, others say it's alien spaceships, others say it's holes in the studio roof...

OFFTOPIC: I just don't see why HBs don't form a big team with each other, and set up a theory plan describing exactly how it was done according to them. I mean, you can't debate a theory together if you don't agree on the theory you're discussing.

Let's play devil's lawyer for a second. Dear HBs, please team up and discuss your theory until you have a big steady theory ready to launch off. After you got your theory, make sure it is the most likely by proving the 'original story' false.

Teamworking can get you further than "omg no stars".

[Bob B.]

bertls said:

OFFTOPIC: I just don't see why HBs don't form a big team with each other, and set up a theory plan describing exactly how it was done according to them. I mean, you can't debate a theory together if you don't agree on the theory you're discussing.

This is a big problem for the HBs because there doesn't seem to be any single theory that makes sense in the big picture. The best they can do is try to develop a theory that, at least on the surface, sounds plausible for part of the evidence. But when they take these individual parts and try to mesh them together it just doesn't work. This is when they get all the unavoidable contradictions and inconsistencies.

What I find funny is that the reason there are so many different versions of the hoax theory is because there is no real evidence for any of it. If the slightest bit of real evidence existed, then there would be a tendency to gravitate toward a single dominate theory. But what we have are a bunch of conspiracy theorists proposing every possible explanation they can think of in the hope that maybe one of them is right.

[snakeriverrufus]

It's not a contradiction but I've always been amused by the people who think that they are clever enough to "prove" that the moon landings were faked after all the evidence has been looked at by educated, technical, trained, experts in their fields

[Jason Thompson]

Argument 1: The astronauts are never seen jumping, bounding, or generally being any more athletic than they are on Earth, so they cannot be in 1/6th gravity as they would be on the Moon.

Argument 2: The astronauts were held on wire rigs to simulate the low gravity on the Moon.

Contradiction: If they were simulating low gravity, why did they still not jump and bound around as the HBs seem to think they should if they were really in low gravity?

[Bob B.]

Argument #1 – If the technology existed in 1969 to go to the moon, why haven’t we been back since?

Argument #2 – The lunar rock and soil samples were collected and returned to Earth by robotic probes.

Contradiction – Why hasn’t the sample collection technology been used since? On one hand the HBs argue a technology wouldn’t go dormant, and on the other hand they argue a technology was used that hasn’t been replicated since Apollo.

[bughead]

How about the contradiction of believing anything Bart Sibrel says, but insisting that Apollo Believers are the victims of disinformation or mind control?

Or that some random website has a photo "proving" it was fake, yet insist NASA and university photo archives are untrustworthy.

[PhantomWolf]

Bart Sibrel - The Astronauts took too few Photos.
Jack White - The Astronauts took too many Photos.

Cosmic Dave - Apollo never when to the Moon
Cosmic Dave - Apollo lnded on the moon but covered up the aliens there.

[Data Cable]

gwiz said:

What I'd really like to see is a debate between the HBs who say we never went to the moon and the HBs who say we did but the records were faked to remove all signs of the alien moon base.

And Cosmic Dave could represent both sides.

phantomwolf said:

Cosmic Dave - Apollo never when to the Moon
Cosmic Dave - Apollo lnded on the moon but covered up the aliens there.

Yeah... like that. ;D

[Mr Gorsky]

My favourite contradiction is the self-contradiction inherent in the "Apollo went to the moon but faked all the photos because the found aliens there" argument.

Apollo was grounded because of a reduction in public interest, leading to a reduction in political will, leading to a reduction in funding.

Nothing would be more guaranteed to provide NASA with the public interest, political will and funding necessary to continue missions of this nature than finding alien life on the moon (or Mars for that matter.

Surely the argument should be ... given that fact, why didn't they fake finding aliens in order to protect their future funding?

[dwight]

Bart Sibrel: The only place you can see the entire uncut footage of the Post Flight Press Conference is through his site
NASA: Order the uncut Post Flight Press Conference footage at their site.

Bart Sibrel: Armstrong never gives interviews
Bart Sibrel: Armstrong mentions XYZ in this interview

[nomuse]

My favorite inherent contradition appears across various conspiracy beliefs;

That the fakery is good enough to fool the experts, yet lousy enough to be obvious to the layman.

[JayUtah]

Or the even more inherent and baffling:

1. NASA's colossal budget and unbridled skill allowed them to do whatever was necessary to create a convincing hoax.
2. NASA wasn't able to do what it takes to get to the moon.