How Impossible or Possible Are Moon Hoax Theories?

How Do We Know the Moon Landing Isn't Fake?
Fraser Cain | 14.IV.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHt842u_Yw4

I

1:51 I happen to be fairly undecided on this particular.

Agnostic, except the cancer of one of them who went through van Allen belt suggests he went through the van Allen belt.

I also happen to have taken up a debate with Phil Plaite.

On the issue.

In order to fake, one need certainly not have 40 000 people faking, it's enough, according to your enumeration, 12 faked. Plus some more. Not 40 000 more.

Now, usually, one should trust the evidence of 12 men good and true, but, one of them wasn't, since he was willing to risk sacrilege about the Eucharist in a "Lord's Supper" held where ... wine (if there was no consecration that was valid, clearly the case with him) ... would be spilled.

Also, another of them had a chance of giving sworn testimony, and boxed the man proposing it.

Phil Plaite's narrative is, the moonlanding would have been hoaxed in order to show off before Russians, so 40 000 would have been doing fake tests on things that would not have worked in space. That's not how I would consider a possible fake motivated. Ergo, in a possible fake on my view, the technological testing by the 40 000 would have been just fine.

My main point is, even with the moonlanding, there is no proof for Heliocentrism. If Armstrong et al. saw Earth turn around itself, according to Geocentrism they were on a Moon turning westward around Earth at full circle every 24 h 55 minutes.

So, if the recommendations for me to watch videos arguing for the moon landing being genuine are there to convince me of Heliocentrism, by someone manually recommending, not by algorithm, someone is doing a very foul coverup over my real line of argument. And Phil Plaite certainly knows by now (if he was coherent, has good memory and is honest to himself) that Moonlanding denial is NOT my basis for anything, it's simply an option he has not successfully argued against.

II

2:43 "appearance of hurling metal capsules containing humans"

Metal capsule is real.

Astronomers could have gone in by door and out by secret back door before takeoff.

Takeoff real as to ascent from Cape Canaveral.

Rockets go into space, and cinema is played before TV cameras.

So, the many would have been involved in producing what is real, like metal capsule, the few would have been involved in rigging a back door, receiving the astronomers, etc. In other words, few real conspirators are enough.

III

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Plaite considers a conspiracy would have taken 40 000 humans conspiring, because he argues that the raison d'être for a conspiracy would have been a Potemkin façade of good technology. My point is, technology was real enough, no Potemkin façade involved, a conspiracy would have been due to NASA having insufficient trust in space being what they believed.

If there was no conspiracy, they had sufficient trust, and misplaced, and fortunately, they were at least right on gravity being Newtonian, so Armstrong didn't fall from Moon to Earth.

The maximum a Moon landing can have proven is, gravity is Newtonian rather than Aristotelic. Fine, not enough to debunk Geocentrism, if so.

seigeengine

The only rational conclusion your reasoning can bring is that the USA had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon, but didn't, for no reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine "had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon,"

More or less, adequate protection with Van Allen belt was lacking, I only recently heard one of the 12 got cancer.

"but didn't, "

On that theory.

"for no reason."

Reasons can be other than lack, real or perceived, of adequate technology, like second thoughts on the cosmology behind it.

If I were a Flat Earther, this would be a really strong motive ... I'm not.

seigeengine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Their radiation exposure was negligible.

Yeah, that's more of your moronic drivel. Stop doing that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine My dear, I'm not into taking orders from you.

IV

3:09 400 000 or 40 000?

Either way, you are allowing Phil Plaite to define the Hoaxer's side and what it implies.

V

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:18 Russian astronomers back then were USSR astronomers.

While they had a Cold War loyalty to competing with US, they had a more overreaching loyalty to modernity.

In other words, if they thought a ruse would help proving Galileo right and his judges wrong (which is not the case even with a real landing, but some have illogically twisted it that way) then they would have had a valid motive for collusion with NASA.

Note very well, I am not saying it was a hoax, I am not saying for certain it wasn't, I am saying your argument isn't good enough for proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

A USSR astronomer who didn't see it and honestly said so could have been dismissed as "you missed it" or if insisting "no, I looked where you guys said you were looking, when you did" he could have been put into a Gulag or a mental institution, heavily politicised in Soviet Union.

Someone just said in French on another youtube video, the only empire that hasn't used archaeology to glorify the past, is USSR which glorified the future instead. So, the motive of glorifying future modernity ..

Fraser Cain

It wasn't just astronomers, the whole military complex would have been tracking them in radio waves. They would have been receiving the radio signals broadcast back to Earth. And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it. Can you imagine how good that would have made the USSR look?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Fraser Cain "And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it."

Good alibi against them faking it - except if they did fake, it was for a cause overriding the rivalry USSR and US.

In other words, your proof ain't none.

Fraser Cain

So you're saying there wasn't a space race, that the Soviets were in on the conspiracy too? And the Chinese orbiters at the Moon right now, they're in on the conspiracy too? And when SpaceX sends Starship to the Moon, it'll be in on the conspiracy too?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I perfectly admit there was a space race, but before there was a space race, there was a space project and before there was a space project, there was a modernity project.

And US, Soviets, China are all part of that project.

Ergo, I am not saying there was a conspiracy, but I am saying, a conspiracy would have been possible.

By now there is a conspiracy to use this occasion for making conspiracy theorists look bad.

VI

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:07 The guys who are producing the high resolution pictures are also much fewer than 400 000 or even just 40 000.

The orbiter is in the hands of far fewer people.

Remarcable how you seem to have to fake what someone else's argument means ....

The Moon Hoax is still possible, and that is, to me, still very much beside the point, since if the landing was genuine, that still doesn't disprove Geocentrism one bit.

Though, some think it does.

seigeengine

The moon hoax isn't possible.

And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism... geocentrism is objectively the inferior model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine "The moon hoax isn't possible."

Disagreed, or impossibility was only recently proven.

"And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism..."

Thank you.

"geocentrism is objectively the inferior model."

Ah, in what way, for what reason?

seigeengine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're wrong.

It's a joke.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine Which of my three statements or things alluded to is, and why should I agree it's "a joke"?