Doubts about the moon landings

Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t happen the way we were told. It was aliens. The Aliens hated Imperial Japan with a passion.
There was a discussion a while back about the idea that atomic bombs don't work. It is probably not true, but any proof would be quite obscure.

For example the calculation of the critical mass would probably depend on quite a lot of solid state properties of the U235 or plutonium which are not obvious. In particular, if you brought two sub-critical pieces together, they would start to release a lot of energy that would end up blowing the two pieces apart. That is why a sphere of explosive is needed to push the pieces together with great force - but I can't imagine how one would calculate the exact force that would be sufficient - can you?

David
 
Have you seen the videos of the supposed atomic explosions? It doesn't take much of a brain to see that they are as phoney as they can get. So, probably not true, and so quite obscure, again?? Huh?
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=452&sid=21aa78d3242483f02168049df70c50d1
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
So all the accounts of the survivors in Japan are all fabricated. In both cities (Nagasaki and Hiroshima). All the pictures of the people with radiation poisoning. All fake. The pilots who dropped the bomb are in on the plot. All the eye witnesses are in on the plot. The Japanese government must’ve been in on the plot too.
There’s a declassified document from the Japanese government detailing the quality of the blast and its affects. That’s part of it.
Theyre in on the conspiracy too. All of The thousands of military personnel all around the world from different countries who have Participated in the hundreds of testings of these weapons, they’re all in on it too. The people who developed the bomb in these different countries, they’re also in on it. All of the generals and military personal across the world and the pilots who were tasked with and trained in the delivery of nuclear weapons if need be were lied to. It’s all fake. The Cold War threat was just a hoax. That’s quite the profound wordwide conspiracy. It’s amazing that none of them have come forward and admitted to this greatest hoax of all time. Not even a death bed confession. Truly remarkable that the world has kept this under wraps.
 
Last edited:
This argument from incredulity is usually one of the calling cards of the shill. So, spare me this! It is also beyond ridiculous a shallow way of thinking.
If you aren't a shill, by chance, then you are just taking advantage of an avenue of virtue signaling.

Seeing the truth as it is uncoloured or tainted by emotions is one of the highest virtues one can aspire to. (I do not deny the emotions, though they should be in perfect harmony with the intellect. )
 
Last edited:
Remember you will know them 1) by gaslighting/ad hominem fallacy 2) argument from incredulity or appeal to emotion fallacy. It seems they can't help it! Super dumb shit if you ask me. I've seen them on ShillTube in hordes. When it comes to arguments, they usually have prepared answers to known problems -- all based on sophistry and smoke and mirrors. Their farm is Operation Earnest Voice -- look into it.

Forgot to add 3) bluffing that they have it all sorted out.

I don't know who you are, but the more people know their game, and by extension the governments' ones, the better.
 
Last edited:
Remember you will know them 1) by gaslighting/ad hominem fallacy 2) argument from incredulity or appeal to emotion fallacy. It seems they can't help it! Super dumb shit if you ask me. I've seen them on ShillTube in hoards. When it comes to arguments, they usually have prepared answers to known problems -- all based on sophistry and smoke and mirrors. Their farm is Operation Earnest Voice -- look into it.

Forgot to add 3) bluffing that they have it all sorted out.

I don't know who you are, but the more people know their game, and by extension the governments' ones, the better.
OK - start to write something constructive without resort to sneering or you are out.

Final warning!

David
 
OK - start to write something constructive without resort to sneering or you are out.

Final warning!

David
No hard feelings, David. None of it is meant to be taken personally but earnestly. My way of fighting the absurdities of life is by satire. This allows the message to usually get through in no uncertain terms and without logomachy ensued.
 
This argument from incredulity is usually one of the calling cards of the shill. So, spare me this! It is also beyond ridiculous a shallow way of thinking.
If you aren't a shill, by chance, then you are just taking advantage of an avenue of virtue signaling.

Seeing the truth as it is uncoloured or tainted by emotions is one of the highest virtues one can aspire to. (I do not deny the emotions, though they should be in perfect harmony with the intellect. )
There’s no ad hominem in my response anywhere. Though you did suggest what I’m a shill. That sounds ad hominem like you me. I called you nothing but instead went straight to the point. My points are are all valid ones. They rely on logic, not emotion. Address them directly if you’d like instead of resorting to some vague and general response. You are the one virtue signaling talking about your special ways of knowing truth. I’m bringing up valid points and You’re suggesting that I’m relying on emotion. Such nonsense. Address each of these.

1) Pictures of the victims from Nagasaki and Hiroshima showing the clear signs of radiation poisoning.

2) The accounts, thoroughly documented by Japanese citizens, (literally thousands of
Them) who experienced and survived the blast.

3) Documents straight from the Japanese government from their own intelligence agency describing the quality of the blasts and their affects

4) The hundreds/thousands of military personal from the USA and USSR’s accounts of the hundreds of test blasts as they occurred in different sites.

5) The nations around the world currently who have developed nuclear weapons and have them in stock and the men/women amongst these nations who were key in their development and implementation. If this is all a hoax, how and why has this hoax grown to include all of these other countries?

6) The well documented Manhattan project and all of the men and women Involved who worked on the bomb and wrote about it afterwards. The documented development in the 6 or so nations who have since developed these weapons. Part of the conspiracy?

7) How the The complex geopolitics of nuclear weapons (including the Cold War), nuclear arms treaties, efforts to prevent other countries from obtaining these weapons, and INTERNATIONAL conversations and regulations from virtually every country in the world, are all part of this bizzare hoax?

8) The Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and officers from around the world who are tasked and trained in handling and delivering these weapons, are all trained for what? Just to keep this multinational co-operative hoax perpetuated?

9) Despite this colossal effort and the hundreds of thousands of people involved, has one ever come forward claiming that they suspect this all to be a hoax?

Feel free to answer. This time, without ad-hominem or virtue signaling.
 
Wormwood has been an active, contributing member (with multiple insightful posts) for almost three years here.

Whereas "VIG" has just arrived, has a half dozen posts or so and has appeared to behave disruptively from the get go.

There's a feature here, Wormwood, called "Ignore" and I find it quite useful.
 
There’s no ad hominem in my response anywhere. Though you did suggest what I’m a shill. That sounds ad hominem like you me. I called you nothing but instead went straight to the point. My points are are all valid ones. They rely on logic, not emotion. Address them directly if you’d like instead of resorting to some vague and general response. You are the one virtue signaling talking about your special ways of knowing truth. I’m bringing up valid points and You’re suggesting that I’m relying on emotion. Such nonsense. Address each of these.

1) Pictures of the victims from Nagasaki and Hiroshima showing the clear signs of radiation poisoning.

2) The accounts, thoroughly documented by Japanese citizens, (literally thousands of
Them) who experienced and survived the blast.

3) Documents straight from the Japanese government from their own intelligence agency describing the quality of the blasts and their affects

4) The hundreds/thousands of military personal from the USA and USSR’s accounts of the hundreds of test blasts as they occurred in different sites.

5) The nations around the world currently who have developed nuclear weapons and have them in stock and the men/women amongst these nations who were key in their development and implementation. If this is all a hoax, how and why has this hoax grown to include all of these other countries?

6) The well documented Manhattan project and all of the men and women Involved who worked on the bomb and wrote about it afterwards. The documented development in the 6 or so nations who have since developed these weapons. Part of the conspiracy?

7) How the The complex geopolitics of nuclear weapons (including the Cold War), nuclear arms treaties, efforts to prevent other countries from obtaining these weapons, and INTERNATIONAL conversations and regulations from virtually every country in the world, are all part of this bizzare hoax?

8) The Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and officers from around the world who are tasked and trained in handling and delivering these weapons, are all trained for what? Just to keep this multinational co-operative hoax perpetuated?

9) Despite this colossal effort and the hundreds of thousands of people involved, has one ever come forward claiming that they suspect this all to be a hoax?

Feel free to answer. This time, without ad-hominem or virtue signaling.
The concept here is a bit more subtle than you may think, and does answer a number of those points. It is buried in the threads here somewhere.
It isn't an idea I really want to explore further, but it is there.

David
 
I came across this on another website - I don't really know what to make of it.


David
What I make of it is that it's the best presented case against the moon landings I have so far seen. As for me, I remain agnostic. Maybe the landings happened and maybe they didn't. Whatever, a lot of what's been, and continues to be, going on, seems to be quite fishy. The whole unvarnished truth doesn't seem to be being told, but I'm hesitant to speculate about motivations of people involved (putatively astronauts, film crews and a central cadre of NASA bigwigs).

Whether astronauts went to the moon or not, it would appear that there's still points that haven't been resolved. Maybe they could be resolved if some non-NASA private agency tried to mount a manned mission to the moon and succeeded (or failed, perhaps because the Van Allen belts injured or killed crew members). They wouldn't be relying on film stock, I assume, but rather digital image processing and maybe the required equipment could be shielded againsts cosmic rays, at least whilst it's passing through the belts. There'd presumably still be the cosmic radiation on the moon to contend with, though.
 
What I make of it is that it's the best presented case against the moon landings I have so far seen. As for me, I remain agnostic. Maybe the landings happened and maybe they didn't. Whatever, a lot of what's been, and continues to be, going on, seems to be quite fishy. The whole unvarnished truth doesn't seem to be being told, but I'm hesitant to speculate about motivations of people involved (putatively astronauts, film crews and a central cadre of NASA bigwigs).

Whether astronauts went to the moon or not, it would appear that there's still points that haven't been resolved. Maybe they could be resolved if some non-NASA private agency tried to mount a manned mission to the moon and succeeded (or failed, perhaps because the Van Allen belts injured or killed crew members). They wouldn't be relying on film stock, I assume, but rather digital image processing and maybe the required equipment could be shielded againsts cosmic rays, at least whilst it's passing through the belts. There'd presumably still be the cosmic radiation on the moon to contend with, though.
I was very upset by the bit at the end, where all three astronauts refused to swear on the Bible that they had gone to the moon. There was also clips of a press conference where someone asked about seeing the stars. Even Collins (the man is supposed to have stayed in orbit round the moon) said he didn't see any stars. At some point the spacecraft was in the shadow of the sun and the earth, at which point there must have been a magnificent visible star field. All three also looked extremely awkward.

I guess the damage from the radiation belts would depend on the speed they travelled through them, because it is the total dose that matters.

David
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
I came across this on another website - I don't really know what to make of it.


David
Skimming through the movie, at about 2h 50min i saw them using the long debunked argument of the parallel shadows.
This phenomenon was clearly explained by the Mythbusters in their famous "NASA Moon Landing Hoax" episode.

As you can see here:


The fact that the makers of "American Moon" use such an old chestnut, does not bode well for it's credibility.
 
Skimming through the movie, at about 2h 50min i saw them using the long debunked argument of the parallel shadows.
This phenomenon was clearly explained by the Mythbusters in their famous "NASA Moon Landing Hoax" episode.

As you can see here:


The fact that the makers of "American Moon" use such an old chestnut, does not bode well for it's credibility.
I very much hope the lunar landings were real.

I guess that argument sounds reasonably convincing - thank goodness - but what shocked me was that all three astronauts behaved so gauchely when asked to swear they went to the moon, and that they were very wooden when asked about visible stars.

David
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
I very much hope the lunar landings were real.

I guess that argument sounds reasonably convincing - thank goodness - but what shocked me was that all three astronauts behaved so gauchely when asked to swear they went to the moon, and that they were very wooden when asked about visible stars.

David
About this swearing on the bible, keep in mind that Bart Sibrel would have been a pain in the behind to them for a long time.
When he asked them to swear on the bible, how should they react? They probably simply tried to ignore him as much as possible.
And if you know Sibrel mostly approached the astronauts under false pretense, of course this is all going to be very awkward.

About the "wooden" performance of the astronauts at the press conference, the fragment in the movie is just seconds from a 1h 23min event:


You can judge for yourself, it is actually a pretty interesting piece of history.
The fragment shown in the movie starts at about 47minutes, it also shows the fragment in the movie is heavily edited to single out the statement about seeing the stars, make of that what you want.
If you watch the whole of the interaction with Patrick Moore it looks a lot less wooden to me.

In my impression, these are three men who are not used to be at the center of attention, in the beginning of this presser they are indeed very wooden, but as soon as they start the presentation they get more comfortable, and we even see some banter.

We also have to remember the time this occurs, we can not compare this to the slick media events we are used to now.

The idea of simply putting the three of them on a podium, without any support, seems ludicrous now.
Can you imagine a similar press conference happening a this moment?
The format would be undoubtedly very different.

My guess it would look much more like a talk show, probably moderated by a highly experienced media figure, someone who can put them more at ease.
 
The van allen belt thing that moon landing conspiracy theorists always bring up is pretty much nonsense, and the reasons that they believe this specific one, is generally in most cases, based on people's limited comprehension of subjects that they are not studied in (funnily enough, how ironic for me to say, isn't it). In recent years having done a little of physics, engineering and other STEM subjects in college, it really helps to have this background because it trains your mind to think about things that actually have real effects in the world. Every little thing has to make logical sense, and you have to put effort into thinking about all of it in your mind, otherwise you will fail the class from your lack of understanding!

As I understand it, the concentration of radiation contained is not of the same magnitude in all places. It is not equally distributed. Thus, there are areas where there exist hardly any harmful radiation in an amount that would kill astronauts, and/or the amount of time spent transitioning them on the way to the moon, is negligible.

I'd be very surprised if the moon landing were hoaxed. Man most certainly did walk on the moon. There are far too many things that exist to disprove this.
 
Top