The Moon landings are a fact

[Joe Newman]

However the moon landings or otherwise are a matter of FACT - refusing to accept facts about them is not "belief" - it is ignorance.

I don't agree, so I would like to know how you or anyone else who believes it has arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Mick West]

I don't agree, so I would like to know how you or anyone else who believes it has arrived at that conclusion.

Did you ever answer the problem of the impossibility of faking a multi hour live TV broadcast from the moon?

 

[Soulfly]

Since you have stated before that you believe the Moon landings happened but that the official story is just not true, perhaps you could point out what official story evidence you think is suspect. There is no point in going over things we agree on, is there?

 

[Joe Newman]

Belief in or acceptance of supernatural claims about deities has nothing whatsoever to do with human spaceflight.

Well, except for the Mason and OTO tie in, along with the connection with the Paperclip crew.

Do you not think the connection is pertinent?

There's no basis for likening the Apollo program and the acceptance of well-established facts demonstrating its accomplishments to religious or theistic arguments.

(I wasn't implying that, at least in the way you think, but that was a different context. My question here is not connected to that, just the thought in this context.)

Do you see no connection between the occult roots of NASA and the theistic narrative those roots spring from?[/quote]

 

[Joe Newman]

Did you ever answer the problem of the impossibility of faking a multi hour live TV broadcast from the moon?

No. I didn't even know anyone asked it.

 

[Soulfly]

By the way this site is called metaBUNK not metaFACT. It is not, explain why you think the official story is true, it is explain away bunk. If after the removal of bunk, anyone wants to believe the official story or not, it is up to them. I think you mistake the removal of bunk with believe anything and/or everything official, you will find that is not always the case.

 

[Mick West]

No. I didn't even know anyone asked it.

From the other thread:

 

[Soulfly]

I made the claim in the other thread that all the Moon landing hoax have been debunked. For the ones I am familiar with that is true to my satisfaction. You then said in this thread...
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-makes-something-debunked.1925/

I'm of the mind that they went there and probably faked some of the footage we saw.

I provided the video Mick posted above, that explains a lot about how film was shot back then. Your response was to try, like you have done many times now, divert the burden of proof to someone else. The way a debate usually works here is by someone making a claim, in this case me and then someone, in this case you, make a counter and so on. It is by my count, your turn now.

 

[cosmic]

Well, except for the Mason and OTO tie in, along with the connection with the Paperclip crew.

Do you not think the connection is pertinent?

No. Now you're attempting to change the argument. You cannot somehow legitimize the logical fallacy you posted previously by adding a layer of conspiracy claims to it.

Do you see no connection between the occult roots of NASA and the theistic narrative those roots spring from?

As usual, I have no idea what you're alleging. Please spell it out explicitly.

 

[Cairenn]

I agree, what 'occult roots' ? You are reminding me of my grandmother that didn't want us up in space, because that is where God and heaven is.

 

[Grieves]

Cairenn, I believe what's being referenced is John Whiteside Parsons and his tendency to quote Aleister Crowley's 'Hymn to Pan' during a launch. Aleister Crowley was a major 'occultist' and a pretty connected individual in his prime. It could be said that it was just that one dude, and there's no trend of Crowleyesque junk in NASA, but then they don't exactly hesitate to keep making shout-outs.

From the other thread:

That's an interesting video. Too bad he insists on being so patronizing. He makes some very fair points, but also some very silly ones. 'Wheres the dust'?

I don't think the moon landings were faked, but I find some of the logistics pretty questionable. He points out how there was apparently a continuous shot of 147 minutes or so for example. That's one hell of a battery for the day, isn't it? Batteries are one of the biggest question-marks I have where the moon-landings are concerned. That and how the astronauts survived, seemingly in more or less good health, when everything else that's gotten into an orbit a trace percentage as high as the distance to the moon has died for the most part. Getting a few critters to live for a month at 350 miles is the best results I've seen from the modern space program, and that's like, 0.99% as far from the earth as it would take to land on the moon, still within the earth's protective field to an extent. Why didn't exposure to solar radiation have terribly adverse health effects/prove fatal, as it frequently has with animals at lower, safer orbits?

 

[Mick West]

Batteries? That's a new one. They used custom silver-zinc batteries for all power after they landed.

Radiation is only a major problem in the Van Allen belt. Just needs a combination of shielding, avoiding the strong bits, and going fast.

There's references and summaries to rebuttals of all the hoax theories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

 

[cosmic]

Batteries? That's a new one. They used custom silver-zinc batteries for all power after they landed

And they were quite substantial... Apollo 11 had four on the descent stage alone. Those which accompanied the LRVs on later missions were good for 121 ampere-hours apiece (and they carried two per LRV). That power allowed the astronauts to travel many kilometers on the lunar surface, so it was rather obviously more than enough for cameras.

That and how the astronauts survived, seemingly in more or less good health, when everything else that's gotten into an orbit a trace percentage as high as the distance to the moon has died for the most part. Getting a few critters to live for a month at 350 miles is the best results I've seen from the modern space program, and that's like, 0.99% as far from the earth as it would take to land on the moon, still within the earth's protective field to an extent. Why didn't exposure to solar radiation have terribly adverse health effects/prove fatal, as it frequently has with animals at lower, safer orbits?

The article you linked states that the animals aboard died from systems malfunctions and equipment failures, not radiation exposure. Why would you use such experiments as examples, anyway? Surely you're not suggesting that the safety engineering or levels of acceptable risk applied to lab rats would somehow be used for humans. Have you ever looked up astronaut exposure statistics?

 

[Joe Newman]

I agree, what 'occult roots' ? You are reminding me of my grandmother that didn't want us up in space, because that is where God and heaven is.

Cool. How did she feel about the occult roots of NASA, or was she unaware of them as well?

 

[cosmic]

...the occult roots of NASA...

Again, please explain what you mean by this.

 

[Landru]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_creation_of_NASA

As a result of the space race between USA and the Soviet Union in the 1950s, NASA was created in 1958 from NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, formed 1915) and other related organizations.

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

I asked you to explain why you think there are occult roots. Why are ignoring that question?

And to Grieves---Why is naming a satellite after Pan, occult? Or are you saying that using mythology to name programs and such is 'occult'?

 

[cosmic]

Why is naming a satellite after Pan, occult? Or are you saying that using mythology to name programs and such is 'occult'?

I see an acronym, not a reference to a Greek deity.

 

[Joe Newman]

Cairenn, I believe what's being referenced is John Whiteside Parsons and his tendency to quote Aleister Crowley's 'Hymn to Pan' during a launch. Aleister Crowley was a major 'occultist' and a pretty connected individual in his prime. It could be said that it was just that one dude, and there's no trend of Crowleyesque junk in NASA, but then they don't exactly hesitate to keep making shout-outs.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009...h-classified-pan-satellite-for-us-government/

Indeed, I was speaking of Captain Jack and Uncle Al. May I ask what you mean by Crowleyesque junk and if you think it's just one dude?

 

[Mick West]

Maybe we could stick to discussing the moon landings here?

 

[cosmic]

That still doesn't offer a coherent explanation. Are you seriously suggesting NASA has "occult roots" only because Jack Parsons had some quirky beliefs?

NASA was formed as a separate agency; JPL was later transferred under its umbrella (link). Never mind the fact that Parsons died several years before Eisenhower signed the The National Aeronautics and Space Act.

 

[cosmic]

Maybe we could stick to discussing the moon landings here?

That would be nice, too.

 

[Joe Newman]

No. Now you're attempting to change the argument. You cannot somehow legitimize the logical fallacy you posted previously by adding a layer of conspiracy claims to it.

I'm not seeking to legitmize that fallacy or adding anything to it. That's over. This is a new context, just like I said.

As usual, I have no idea what you're alleging. Please spell it out explicitly.

Ok. But this has nothing to do with the original context or your statement, which is why it's in a new thread.

You said: Belief in or acceptance of supernatural claims about deities has nothing whatsoever to do with human spaceflight.

So I asked: Do you see no connection between the occult roots of NASA and the theistic narrative those roots spring from?

I'm curious because the roots of NASA seem to spread into the occult rather freely, given the OTO and Masonic connections, never mind the Nazis. That's a rather dense occult thicket and it is tied into a theistic narrative.

When you begin exploring that narrative, the picture is quite different from the one presented to the public. It's that larger framework I'm interested in exploring because without it none of the stuff that gets routinely dismissed here makes much sense, which is why it gets dismissed.

 

[Mick West]

I'm curious because the roots of NASA seem to spread into the occult rather freely, given the OTO and Masonic connections, never mind the Nazis. That's a rather dense occult thicket and it is tied into a theistic narrative.

You can't look at the religion of a few people in an organization, and then say it has "X" roots. Most of the people who worked at NASA were most likely christians. There would have been a wide range of religions, and absence of religion.

NASA is a scientific/military organization. It's nothing to do with religion. It does not have religious roots.

 

[Cairenn]

NASA was formed from NACA. I have actually looked at many of the NACA documents (my university had all of them. I was able to get permission to research in the archive of the them. NO religion, no Masonic links.

Now you were saying that some of the moon footage was faked. What part of it? and why do you think it was faked?

 

[cosmic]

You said: Belief in or acceptance of supernatural claims about deities has nothing whatsoever to do with human spaceflight.

So I asked: Do you see no connection between the occult roots of NASA and the theistic narrative those roots spring from?

If that has nothing to do with the original context or my statement, then why have you brought it up twice? It's not applicable to the current discussion, and the answer is still "no" anyway.

I'm curious because the roots of NASA seem to spread into the occult rather freely, given the OTO and Masonic connections, never mind the Nazis. That's a rather dense occult thicket and it is tied into a theistic narrative.

Joe, when you make statements like this, you'll have to explain them clearly so that other readers may properly understand what you're attempting to convey. Without providing a coherent explanation, your assertions just look like word salad. Whatever dots you're connecting in your mind remain fully unexplored in this discussion. I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately vague.

When you begin exploring that narrative, the picture is quite different from the one presented to the public. It's that larger framework I'm interested in exploring because without it none of the stuff that gets routinely dismissed here makes much sense, which is why it gets dismissed.

What narrative? And what does any of this have to do with the Apollo program?

 

[Joe Newman]

You can't look at the religion of a few people in an organization, and then say it has "X" roots. Most of the people who worked at NASA were most likely christians. There would have been a wide range of religions, and absence of religion.

NASA is a scientific/military organization. It's nothing to do with religion. It does not have religious roots.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. My bad. Again.

Sometimes an acronym is just an acronym and that Greek deity stuff is just the ol' pareidolia flaring up. Got it.

 

[Grieves]

I see an acronym, not a reference to a Greek deity.

lolwut? It's quite obviously both. That's how acronyms more often than not work. If your acronym doesn't have a double-meaning, you really, really suck at composing acronyms. I mean, 'Paladium at night' isn't exactly a scientific term. It's a creative, indistinct label for the project that leaves the intent of the project unstated, meaning that could have said most anything. They -chose- to make the acronym pan, likely as a shout out to this guy and his chanting.

May I ask what you mean by Crowleyesque junk and if you think it's just one dude?

Crowleyesque junk as in Thelema/The Mysteries/all his druggy sex 'magic' will-to-power crap. And no, I'm sure the guy wasn't alone in his fan-club, but I doubt NASA itself is in any way 'deeply rooted' in that stuff.

 

[Joe Newman]

If that has nothing to do with the original context or my statement, then why have you brought it up twice

To start a new discussion.

It's not applicable to the current discussion, and the answer is still "no" anyway.

Ok. I guess that's why all ya see is the acronym and not the deity.

Joe, when you make statements like this, you'll have to explain them clearly so that other readers may properly understand what you're attempting to convey. Without providing a coherent explanation, your assertions just look like word salad. Whatever dots you're connecting in your mind remain fully unexplored in this discussion. I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately vague.

That's the problem with the debunker model right there. Since all you guys do is focus on breaking shit, you don't know how to build anything. It's just "hurry up and gimme something to debunk."

What narrative? And what does any of this has to do with the Apollo program?

See? You haven't even let me establish the foundation to show what I wanted to talk about, yet you are bitching that I am being unclear. So instead of letting something develop so that you know what I am referring to, you have essentially said, "No, there's no connection to a narrative I don't have any information about yet, so what does this have to do with the Apollo program?

What I was seeking to do was establish a foundation for discussion, a step you guys just skip over, which is why so little gets explored.

I would have liked to go into the connection, but Mick has straightened me out that there is none.

 

[cosmic]

lolwut? It's quite obviously both. That's how acronyms more often than not work. If your acronym doesn't have a double-meaning, you really, really suck at composing acronyms. I mean, 'Paladium at night' isn't exactly a scientific term. It's a creative, indistinct label for the project that leaves the intent of the project unstated, meaning that could have said most anything. They -chose- to make the acronym pan, likely as a shout out to this guy and his chanting.

No, it's not obvious in the slightest, despite your assertions to the contrary. "Palladium at night" isn't a scientific term most likely because this intelligence satellite doesn't represent a scientific mission in the public domain. You have no reasonable foundation for reaching these conclusions.

When NASA wants to acknowledge people past or present, they do so with press releases or events, or public outreach -- not cloak-and-dagger nonsense.

 

[MikeC]

However the moon landings or otherwise are a matter of FACT - refusing to accept facts about them is not "belief" - it is ignorance.

I don't agree, so I would like to know how you or anyone else who believes it has arrived at that conclusion.

Either the moon landing happened or didn't - one of those is a fact - how could it be otherwise??

and there are facts about them - the astronauts existed, the rockets existed, Cape Canaveral existed, the moon exists......

 

[cosmic]

That's the problem with the debunker model right there. Since all you guys do is focus on breaking shit, you don't know how to build anything. It's just "hurry up and gimme something to debunk."

No. It's not my fault you have difficulty expressing yourself clearly. If you're simply unable to do so, we have very little to discuss. At this point, I think that if you had an actual argument to present, you'd have done so already.

 

[Joe Newman]

No. It's not my fault you have difficulty expressing yourself clearly. If you're simply unable to do so, we have very little to discuss. At this point, I think that if you had an actual argument to present, you'd have done so already.

I agree with have little to discuss. However, if we did it would probably have something to do with your reply to Grieves about his having no reasonable foundation for his conclusion.

That was the base I was seeking to establish, but you were too busy knocking down what you didn't even comprehend to let me do so. So it goes.

If you actually did know what that foundation was, you would have a better understanding of where Grieves was coming from and then would see how that PAN wasn't just a whim or an accident.

 

[cosmic]

Evidence please, not waffling.

Edit, for clarity: Please state a case, take a position, give us a cogent explanation of what you're attempting to express. It would be especially helpful if you'd provide readers with something other than obfuscation.

 

[Grieves]

No, it's not obvious in the slightest, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Really? It's three letters, dude. Three letters that spell something. Are you seriously suggesting what those three letters spell is an 'accident' or something? Why are YOU suggesting the acronym is PAN?

"Palladium at night" isn't a scientific term most likely because this intelligence satellite doesn't represent a scientific mission in the public domain.

Quite so. None the less, they chose to call the product the creative and nondescript "Palladium at Night", the acronym of which is PAN. If you seriously think creative acronyms are matters of chance, you're flat-out wrong.

When NASA wants to acknowledge people past or present, they do so with press releases or events, or public outreach -- not cloak-and-dagger nonsense.

​

Cloak and dagger nonsense? Its an acronym. There's nothing cloak and dagger about double-meanings in creative acronyms. It's essentially the entire point of composing a creative acronym. ​

​

I think you're all caught up in the notion that NASA referencing Pan is indicative of NASA being some secret occult organisation. I agree with you, that's a silly notion. It's an equally silly notion, perhaps incredibly more-so, to suggest whoever come up the acronym 'Palladium at Night' didn't know/realize/consider the short-hand for that is a reference to the mythological figure Pan. Debunkers often seem to have issues with acknowledging creative intent.

The article you linked states that the animals aboard died from systems malfunctions and equipment failures, not radiation exposure. Why would you use such experiments as examples, anyway?

I used that experiment as an example because it's the most successful test of the prolonged exposure of animals to high orbit that I'm aware of, and was a rather recent experiment. As in that seems to be an accomplishment for us now, getting as many animals to survive as they did, in spite of the technology failures.

Surely you're not suggesting that the safety engineering or levels of acceptable risk applied to lab rats would somehow be used for humans.

Yeah, I mean, when have a lab rats ever been used as a means through which to measure potential health effects on people?

Radiation is only a major problem in the Van Allen belt. Just needs a combination of shielding, avoiding the strong bits, and going fast.

Has another living thing been documented to have survived them since the moon-landings? Get something 1/5th of the way to the moon and back alive and any doubts I have about the ability to just 'blow on through' the Van Allen belt will be gone. I just find it odd that, after all this time, we still have so much trouble keeping things alive in space, and that's nowhere remotely close to as far out as we had to go for the moon landings.

 

[Mick West]

They -chose- to make the acronym pan, likely as a shout out to this guy and his chanting.

Shout-out or joke. I think one thing that theists and atheists both often misunderstand is the degree to which their opposites take things like the occult seriously.

For some theists, it's deadly serious, the work of Satan in the world.

For most atheists, it's a joke. Just another silly superstitious religion.

This leads to cultural clashes. Like Heavy Metal music for example. The satanic imagery there is almost entirely tongue-in-cheek, purely stylistic. The "devils horns" hand sign used by rockers is no more satanic than a thumbs up. Yet deists take it very seriously.

 

[Mick West]

And actually on topic, it seems, Joe, that you are suggeting the moon landing videos were faked because some people who worked at JPL in the 1950s were occultists? Is that it?

Could you actually move on to real evidence of fakery? Not just "sounds like something they would do".

 

[Grieves]

Shout-out or joke. I think one thing that theists and atheists both often misunderstand is the degree to which their opposites take things like the occult seriously.

Agreed entirely. It doesn't have to have been anything more than "hey, y'all remember that crazy dude who used to chant that Pan poem back in the day?" "OoOooOh yeahhh! THAT guy..!" while discussing what to call that particular project. But whether it was a joke, a shout-out, or a ritualistic invocation of the spirit-folk doesn't change the fact the acronym was obviously intentional.

 

[Cairenn]

There are many cases of mythological figures being used to name satellites.

CORONAS (KORONAS) Comprehensive ORbital Near-earth Observations of the Active Sun

DEMETER Detection of Electro-Magnetic Emissions Transmitted from Earthquake Regions

EROS Earth Remote Observation System

GAIA Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics

IRIS (ESRO-2B) International Radiation Investigation Satellite
IRIS (Astro-F) [Japanese version] InfraRed Imaging Surveyor
IRIS (SMEX-12) [US version] Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph
IRIS [Russian version] Inflatable and Rigidizable Structure

JUNO Jupiter Near-polar Orbiter

Aquarius (SAC-D / ESSP-6) environmental-observing
Argos [system, not a satellite; Data Collection and Location System]

Ariel (UK)

Boreas (ESRO-1B)

Pegasus

Pollux

Poseidon

Content from external source

There there is this one.

TERRIERS (Explorer-76 / STEDI-2) Tomographic Experiment using Radiative Recombinative Ionospheric EUV
and Radio Sources

Content from external source

Is someone honoring their DOG in that name?

Now back to FACTS. You said that you thought some of the moon landing footage was fake. What part? and WHY?

 

[Grieves]

Thanks Cairenn. That was legitimately helpful in illustrating my point.