HB Contradictions

[PhantomWolf]

1) NASA is full of whistleblowers that secretly manipulated photos to give hints as to the hoax.
2) These same whistleblowers are too scared to anonymously contact the media and blow the whole thing open.

[bughead]

How about 1) you (apollo believers, hoax skeptics) are all government disinfo agents
2) Yet the accusing HB returns to post again.

[Bob B.]

Argument #1 – The Soviets led the Americans in space technology having achieved many important space milestones. Yet the Americans claim to have beaten their technologically superior rivals to the Moon.

Argument #2 – The Americans were able to fool the technologically advanced Soviets into believing they landed on the Moon. The Americans returned over 1,200 times the quantity of rock and soil samples and were able to place laser reflectors with far greater accuracy than the Soviets.

Contradiction – The technologically inferior Americans apparently had far better technology than the technologically superior Soviets.

[Jason Thompson]

One of Bill Kaysing's: 'The media is 100% controlled to feed you all this conspiracy crap so you all go on believing that men landed on the Moon and people have even had their radio transmitters destroyed to prevent the hoax from being exposed.' He then thanks the radio station for interviewing him and broadcasting his words to the millions of listeners....

And another: 'People are being killed by government agents to prevent this conspiracy from being uncovered. I've been talking loudly about this for twenty or thirty years now. By the way, here's my address and forthcoming interview schedule...'

[iamspartacus]

Argument #1 – Many HBs do not believe that rockets can work in space because :

margamatix said:

When the module descended, braking by firing its rockets, what did the thrust from these rockets react against, if there is no atmosphere?

(I believe that BS has made a similar goof during a TV interview???)

Argument #2 – Apollo did not go to the Moon but went in orbit while robot landers returned Luna samples.

Contradiction – If rockets don’t work in space then how did Apollo achieve orbit/de-orbit. How did the robot landers achieve TLI, Luna orbit etc. etc, etc.

PS. If the BS goof is true can anybody point me to a transcript?

[gwiz]

One from Dark Moon:
p45 Space suit was too inflexible for an astronaut to bend down to take the Apollo 17 flag and earth shot (AS17-134-20384)
p389-390 In low gravity an astronaut should be able to leap six feet off the ground, why don't they?

Exactly how flexible do they want the suit to be?

[JayUtah]

Aulis: We do not dispute that astronauts may have gone to the moon, just that the record we have is forged.
Aulis: The astronauts couldn't have gone to the moon because the Saturn V didn't actually work.

[JayUtah]

Aulis: Terrain has only a negligible effect on the appearance of shadows, and besides that the terrain at the Apollo 11 landing site was flat.
Aulis: Computations done on the shadows cast in the crater in which Aldrin stands show that the "classic" shot was impossible.

[lenbrazil]

Jack White contradicts himself in his “time/motion study”

But the thousands of honorable workers at NASA will be shocked and saddened to learn of the dark secrets of forty years ago...the Apollo Moon missions. Examination of NASA records reveals a terrible skeleton rotting away in their own files, a monumental deception. Very few NASA employees knew about the ruse…

[…]

2. Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success".

www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

He says that “Very few NASA employees knew about the ruse” but complains that the LM was an “unproven” untested “flimsy craft” that somehow mysteriously took off six times with spectacular "success".

Contradiction – If the LM was so unspaceworthy that it is obvious even to a layman like Jack it’s hard to believe that any of the aerospace engineers would have been fooled, if they were all “in on it” then more than a “few NASA employees knew about the ruse”

[lenbrazil]

iamspartacus said:

Argument #1 – Many HBs do not believe that rockets can work in space because :

margamatix said:

When the module descended, braking by firing its rockets, what did the thrust from these rockets react against, if there is no atmosphere?

(I believe that BS has made a similar goof during a TV interview???)

Argument #2 – Apollo did not go to the Moon but went in orbit while robot landers returned Luna samples.

Contradiction – If rockets don’t work in space then how did Apollo achieve orbit/de-orbit. How did the robot landers achieve TLI, Luna orbit etc. etc, etc.

PS. If the BS goof is true can anybody point me to a transcript?

Unless one buys the Van Allen Bets' radiation was too strong argument, one would have to wonder if they could land probes and have them return why couldn't they send people.

Another contadiction is that HBs who post on this forum say that they "don't care about" some issue or that "its not important" and then say they want to look at all aspects of the question of whether or not we went to the Moon.

It's interesting that no HB's have posted on this thread yet.

[iamspartacus]

I find it strange that HBs in this forum mostly seem to hunt in a pack of one. There is more than one HB registered here. Why don't they support each other?

[gwiz]

The title of this thread might be a clue to that...

[iamspartacus]

There’s two types of contradiction. One where HB beliefs contradict each other (ie. Area 51 Vs NASA’s Impact Dynamics Research Facility) and the other where HB beliefs contradict reality, logic, physics etc. I would have thought that HBs could at least have rallied round the latter.

[hplasm]

Don't forget the third type- where the lone HB contradicts themselves..

[Bob B.]

hplasm said:

Don't forget the third type- where the lone HB contradicts themselves..

This is actually what I had in mind when I started this thread. I think self-contradictions usually occur in one of two ways:

(1) The HB is simply parroting what he has read in the conspiracy literature. When the various sources contradict each other, the HB is unable to recognize it because he hasn't thought things through. He just mindlessly repeats the conflicting arguments.

(2) As the debate evolves and the hoax claims are discredited, the HB is forced to modify his theory so he doesn't have to alter his preconceived belief. This usually results in all sorts of contradictions because the HB must adopt new arguments that are incompatible with his earlier statements.