Fake Moon Landings

[theo102]

38 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

So what?

 

So you were wrong when you said that none of the arguments were fallacious.

 

41 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Besides, just because the video maker makes no case for this....it is not presumptive to point out the bloody obvious.

 

What, exactly, do you think is "bloody obvious"?

 

[Comedy Time]

Just now, theo102 said:

So you were wrong when you said that none of the arguments were fallacious.

 

Christ, this is tedious. I said ...

 

"None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious. "

 

Then you use his introduction to his arguments to supplement this piffling irrelevant side issue. His introduction is NOT an argument, he is talking about what he thinks the idea for the video is. His OPINION!

 

FFS. To clarify......his ARGUMENTS made to the transcribed questions....ya know, relative to the actual video?

 

Just now, theo102 said:

What, exactly, do you think is "bloody obvious"?

 

So many things it would frighten you! But in the case you quote, that the hoax would need a ridiculous number of people to be in the know. I gave you a link that you ignored.

 

You are ignoring large replies here. That always happens with hoax believers.

 

Any chance you could...

a) respond to posts properly

b) supply 2 or 3 key points in your video "evidence" for me to address directly 

c) actually read and respond to where somebody has spent hours already writing responses to most of it already!?

[Enforcement]

Why does Armstrong always get aggressive and violent when asked to swear on the bible that he did set foot on the moon?

 

 

[theo102]

9 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Then you use his introduction to his arguments to supplement this piffling irrelevant side issue.

 

No, you don't get a free pass because the claim didn't refer to a specific question from the video. It's relevant because it relates to the practicality of the hoax.

 

You're saying that "the hoax would need a ridiculous number of people to be in the know", and your document implied that "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" would have to be in on the hoax. This isn't true because it's possible to have a parallel project in which everyone is working towards Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon, with only a small group of upper management an technical people substituting the video and telemetry of the landing with that from the simulations and shielding the astronauts from difficult questions.

 

[Comedy Time]

1 hour ago, Enforcement said:

Why does Armstrong always get aggressive and violent when asked to swear on the bible that he did set foot on the moon?

 

 

 

Because Bart Sibrel is a tosser who stalked him for months. "Knowing you Mr Sibrel that's probably a fake Bible"

 

He isn't violent or aggressive ... you are lying. Welcome back to the forum btw.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Comedy Time

[Enforcement]

11 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

He isn't violent or aggressive

Your statement has no credibility, the video shows him punching someone in the face.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Enforcement

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

10 minutes ago, Enforcement said:

Your statement has no credibility, the video shows his punching someone in the face.

 

Armstrong was not violent in that video.
Buzz Aldrin was though...

Buzz Aldrin acting like a bit of a Reetard.

[Enforcement]

Correct -genuine error it was Aldrin.

[Enforcement]

Just now, Enforcement said:

Correct -genuine error it was Aldrin.

So why would that be?

Edited October 8, 2020 by Enforcement

[theo102]

14 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

 

 

1. THE HUGE CONSPIRACY SCENARIO

This variant presumes that relatively many people knew about the conspiracy, be they NASA employees or employees of the prime contractors. 

 

Straw man, far too much unnecessary risk of exposure which could be avoided by simply not using the end product from the NASA contractors.

 

 

2. THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO
At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy.

 

Straw man since some technical people who were not legitimate contractors would have been involved.

 

 

3. THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO

By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in.

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

 

This scenario avoids the possibility that the high level NASA insiders who were in on the hoax paid people outside of NASAs administrative framework, or bribed a select group of people within that group by awarding them with lucrative contracts that where goods of relatively little value were delivered. The second scenario is more likely, since it's apparent that such a strategy has been applied within the military domain.

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-story.html

 

http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by theo102

[serpentine]

4 hours ago, Enforcement said:

Why does Armstrong always get aggressive and violent when asked to swear on the bible that he did set foot on the moon?

 

 

 

It's cheaper than employing someone to do it for him.

[Comedy Time]

7 hours ago, Enforcement said:

So why would that be?

 

Well, same answer. He stalked him the whole day and he was out with his stepdaughter!

 

If some arsehole poked me lured me to a hotel on false premises, followed me around the whole day and then poked me with a bible in front of a relative. I wouldn't be happy. If the imbecile then called me liar, cheat and a coward - I'd knock his teeth out. Sibrel got away lightly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel#Aldrin_incident

 

SO WHAT anyway?

[Comedy Time]

10 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

No, you don't get a free pass because the claim didn't refer to a specific question from the video. It's relevant because it relates to the practicality of the hoax.

 

You're saying that "the hoax would need a ridiculous number of people to be in the know", and your document implied that "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" would have to be in on the hoax. This isn't true because it's possible to have a parallel project in which everyone is working towards Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon, with only a small group of upper management an technical people substituting the video and telemetry of the landing with that from the simulations and shielding the astronauts from difficult questions.

 

 

A free pass dude? I want you to actually respond to the debunks to your bloody video, not fart around with some side issue that you are simplifying to a ludicrous degree! I'll elaborate in the other post.

[Comedy Time]

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

1. THE HUGE CONSPIRACY SCENARIO

This variant presumes that relatively many people knew about the conspiracy, be they NASA employees or employees of the prime contractors. 

 

Straw man, far too much unnecessary risk of exposure which could be avoided by simply not using the end product from the NASA contractors.

 

I don't think you quite get what a straw man is do you! Setting out all viable scenarios is addressing all variations of an argument. And your dismissal of this is ridiculous - you've not thought this one through have you

 

The whole shebang of people needing to create fake goods WERE employed by NASA. For you to claim they should have used their "own" fake shit does two things. 

 

1/ It doesn't negate that the vast army of contractors WERE actually employed by NASA and would have to know if their product was fake!!

 

2/ Now we would need a second team to create the fake goods - the problem in the first place.

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

2. THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO
At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy.

 

Straw man since some technical people who were not legitimate contractors would have been involved.

 

 

This is some seriously badly thought out nonsense. The whole point of NOT involving the correct people means you are now involving significant people who don't know what they are doing. But...

 

1/ NASA did employ those contractors and they DID supply equipment fit for purpose.

2/ Employing extra people to do unspecified things is a variation on the NEED-TO-KNOW.

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

3. THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO

By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in.

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

 

This scenario avoids the possibility that the high level NASA insiders who were in on the hoax paid people outside of NASAs administrative framework, or bribed a select group of people within that group by awarding them with lucrative contracts that where goods of relatively little value were delivered. The second scenario is more likely, since it's apparent that such a strategy has been applied within the military domain.

 

 

Shakes head in bafflement. You are basically suggesting that to keep all the engineers out of the loop, they built equipment fit for purpose, capable of flying them to the Moon.....THEN they employed a bunch of people who MUST have known what the hell was going on to create faaaaaake versions?

 

That is so totally absurd it beggars belief. Can you even honestly say you believe that ridiculous post you just made?

Edited October 9, 2020 by Comedy Time

[theo102]

33 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

A free pass dude? I want you to actually respond to the debunks to your bloody video, not fart around with some side issue that you are simplifying to a ludicrous degree! I'll elaborate in the other post.

 

Your own source identifies the claim about involvement as a straw man. You also said that this straw man fallacy was "bloody obvious" in the sense of being a valid argument. The original text was:

 

"The idea is that because their moon program was running a bit behind schedule all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about space exploration and went into showbiz."

 

And from your other source:

 

"By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics"

 

The claim about involvement is a straw man because it is true and it doesn't address the real issue.

 

It's true because if "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo" were in on the hoax the risk of exposure would so great as to be silly.

 

It doesn't address the real issue because it's possible to carry out the hoax with only a small subset of these people.

 

Once you acknowledge this point I'll be happy to point out the fatal flaw in the debunking of "American Moon".

 

[Comedy Time]

18 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

Your own source identifies the claim about involvement as a straw man. You also said that this straw man fallacy was "bloody obvious" in the sense of being a valid argument. The original text was:

 

"The idea is that because their moon program was running a bit behind schedule all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about space exploration and went into showbiz."

 

And from your other source:

 

"By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics"

 

The claim about involvement is a straw man because it is true and it doesn't address the real issue.

 

 

It "identifies" it as a straw man BECAUSE it apparently doesn't have the middle ground option, but then demonstrates that there can BE no middle ground for valid reasons given! This exchange is painful and you are totally ignoring most of my post! There are two choices. Make the stuff to go to the Moon or fake it all.

 

18 minutes ago, theo102 said:

The claim about involvement is a straw man because it is true and it doesn't address the real issue.

 

It's true because if "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo" were in on the hoax the risk of exposure would so great as to be silly.

 

 

Ok, so they MUST have built stuff capable of going to the Moon!!

 

18 minutes ago, theo102 said:

It doesn't address the real issue because it's possible to carry out the hoax with only a small subset of these people. Once you acknowledge this point I'll be happy to point out the fatal flaw in the debunking of "American Moon".

 

Dude, if that is your ridiculous attempt to point out that low numbers were used, your "fatal flaw" is going to be comedy time.

 

Thousands of images to faaaake.

Fifty hours of often UNFAKEABLE surface video to faaaake.

842lbs of UNFAKEABLE lunar samples to faaaake.

Thousands of hours of dialog to faaaake.

Tracking stations to be faaaked.

Reflectors to be placed in 3 locations....teams to do this....that is massive numbers of people.

ALSEP experiments  with gigabytes of data to be faaaake.

 

Since I have no idea what level of nonsensical belief you have, just that for starters involves a fair few people. I could make that list go on for pages.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Comedy Time

[theo102]

15 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

It "identifies" it as a straw man BECAUSE it apparently doesn't have the middle ground option, but then demonstrates that there can BE no middle ground for valid reasons given!

 

Wrong, the identification isn't conditional on the middle ground option.

 

You're ignoring what I already posted on the "middle ground argument".  Again:

 

"This scenario avoids the possibility that the high level NASA insiders who were in on the hoax paid people outside of NASAs administrative framework, or bribed a select group of people within that group by awarding them with lucrative contracts where goods of relatively little value were delivered."

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by theo102

[Comedy Time]

3 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

Wrong, the identification isn't conditional on the middle ground option.

 

You're ignoring what I already posted on the "middle ground argument".  Again:

 

"This scenario avoids the possibility that the high level NASA insiders who were in on the hoax paid people outside of NASAs administrative framework, or bribed a select group of people within that group by awarding them with lucrative contracts where goods of relatively little value were delivered."

 

 

 

Talking to a brick wall.

 

AGAIN...

You are basically suggesting that to keep all the engineers out of the loop, they built equipment fit for purpose, capable of flying them to the Moon.....THEN they employed a bunch of people who MUST have known what the hell was going on to create faaaaaake versions?

 

Avoided...

 

Thousands of images to faaaake.

Fifty hours of often UNFAKEABLE surface video to faaaake.

842lbs of UNFAKEABLE lunar samples to faaaake.

Thousands of hours of dialog to faaaake.

Tracking stations to be faaaked.

Reflectors to be placed in 3 locations....teams to do this....that is massive numbers of people.

ALSEP experiments  with gigabytes of data to be faaaake.

[theo102]

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Talking to a brick wall.

 

 

You can't address the actual point about the straw man.

 

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

You are basically suggesting that to keep all the engineers out of the loop, they built equipment fit for purpose, capable of flying them to the Moon.....THEN they employed a bunch of people who MUST have known what the hell was going on to create faaaaaake versions?

 

 

No, that is not what I am suggesting.

Edited October 9, 2020 by theo102

[Comedy Time]

6 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

You can't address the actual point about the straw man.

 

 

No, that is not what I am suggesting.

 

You cannot have a middle ground!! There. Addressed.

 

You either have equipment delivered that works. Or pay people to pretend.

 

Your solution is to do both!!!! All the companies WERE subcontracted to do the work, they were paid accordingly.

 

Are you suggesting they didn't and faked employment and payments?

 

Your pitiful claim here makes no sense at all and you are deliberately ignoring highly significant responses. 

 

 

Ignored by you, that is the stuff that doesn't involve the thousand odd engineers!

Thousands of images to faaaake.

Fifty hours of often UNFAKEABLE surface video to faaaake.

842lbs of UNFAKEABLE lunar samples to faaaake.

Thousands of hours of dialog to faaaake.

Tracking stations to be faaaked.

Reflectors to be placed in 3 locations....teams to do this....that is massive numbers of people.

ALSEP experiments  with gigabytes of data to be faaaake.

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Comedy Time

[theo102]

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

You cannot have a middle ground!! There. Addressed.

 

Sure you can, for example the middle ground of two different strawman arguments, as described in your own source.

 

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

You either have equipment delivered that works. Or pay people to pretend.

 

No, you can have equipment delivered that doesn't work, like the capsule that killed  Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom.

 

In reality some of it worked (the Saturn V heavy lifter), some didn't (the first capsule) and some wasn't used (the lander).

 

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

All the companies WERE subcontracted to do the work, they were paid accordingly.

 

That's probably how the hoax was administered, by overpaying select contractors for good of little value in return for help with faking it in the interests of "national security".

 

[Comedy Time]

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

Sure you can, for example the middle ground of two different strawman arguments, as described in your own source.

 

How can anyone not get this? The third middle ground choice tells us why it isn't viable and then you say it is....because of some ludicrous and invalid nonsense??

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.

It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.

 

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

No, you can have equipment delivered that doesn't work, like the capsule that killed  Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom.

 

It DID work but had development problems. It was also used in a way that would never occur in space. But you astonishingly miss the damn point!!

 

North American Aviation built the thing and delivered a perfectly working model. So either their engineers were instructed to do this, produce equipment fit for purpose or they were instructed to faaaaake it. NO MIDDLE GROUND!

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

In reality some of it worked (the Saturn V heavy lifter), some didn't (the first capsule) and some wasn't used (the lander).

 

It all worked, otherwise the people who made the things that didn't work were instructed to faaaake it! So you are doubling down on this "capsule" Command Module crap are you? You now claim that NAA supplied equipment not fit for purpose for the successful missions, then they MUST have known. NO MIDDLE GROUND!

 

And Grumman supplied a lander not fit for purpose you claim? Here they are....

 

 

You are wrong, be honest enough to admit this!

 

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

That's probably how the hoax was administered, by overpaying select contractors for good of little value in return for help with faking it in the interests of "national security".

 

What a crock of unfeasible crap. Then there is NO MIDDLE GROUND. National security my arse and not one of these people told anyone, confessed it, death bed confessions, leaked documents etc!

 

Now YOU are only talking about the hardware components and keep avoiding the rather large herd of elephants in the room....

 

Thousands of images to faaaake.

Fifty hours of often UNFAKEABLE surface video to faaaake.

842lbs of UNFAKEABLE lunar samples to faaaake.

Thousands of hours of dialog to faaaake.

Tracking stations to be faaaked.

Reflectors to be placed in 3 locations....teams to do this....that is a massive number of people.

ALSEP experiments  with gigabytes of data to be faaaake.

The LROC team must ALL be in on the hoax with highly specialist image editing teams.

 

 

Since I have no idea what level of nonsensical belief you have, just that for starters involves a fair few people. I could make that list go on for pages.

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Comedy Time
info edit

[theo102]

1 hour ago, Comedy Time said:

How can anyone not get this? The third middle ground choice tells us why it isn't viable and then you say it is.

 

You've changed your position. First you said there was no middle ground, now it's part of your argument.

 

1 hour ago, Comedy Time said:

It DID work

 

No, the first capsule killed three astronauts. According to the American Moon it was redesigned from top to bottom, so the next capsule was a new work.

 

[Comedy Time]

21 minutes ago, theo102 said:

You've changed your position. First you said there was no middle ground, now it's part of your argument.

 

Can you read properly? It isn't part of my argument - THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND - you even quote where I says this....... and yet again you ignore 90% of my post. Typical moon hoax believer behaviour. Sigh.....

 

21 minutes ago, theo102 said:

No, the first capsule killed three astronauts. According to the American Moon it was redesigned from top to bottom, so the next capsule was a new work.

 

It was not redesigned from "top to bottom" as such, the basic shape and exterior design were not changed. Actual modifications were made, highlighted by the problems experienced from the fire. The door was changed, wiring changed, environmental gassing was changed etc.

 

You are tip-toeing around the facts with irrelevant bullshit. How long are you going to run away from debating properly. Go back to that last post and answer it IN FULL!

 

The capsules USED ON THE MISSIONS worked just fine....as I said!

 

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Comedy Time

[alexa]

@Comedy Time

 

What do you think about these lot ? I reckon they have it right!