The Moon landings are a fact

Joe Newman

Active Member
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.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
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

Active Member
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]
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
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.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cosmic

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member
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?
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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'?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
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/2009/09/live-atlas-v-launch-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?
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
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.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Closed Account
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

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member
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? o_O


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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Senior Member
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

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


There there is this one.
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?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Strange lights on picture of the moon during "Blood Moon" [Stuck Pixels] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
I Moon moving "faster" than clouds Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Getoffthisplanet [Fake] UFO's Casting Shadows On The Moon - "OVNI sur la Lune , 2020-03-26" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 23
Nandude Light Fall Off in Apollo Missions - American Moon Documentary Conspiracy Theories 16
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Recording ISS Transits of the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 4
mudr0 Claim: Australia was not visible from the moon for Apollo 11 Broadcasts Conspiracy Theories 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Moon Passing The Meridian Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
Astro Identifying Sun and Moon Transits Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Multiple UFOs Fly Across Moon- Birds? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Leifer "Mars will be as big as the Moon" no, it won't. Science and Pseudoscience 11
F WHAT IS THIS LINE? (on my Super Blue Blood Moon Photo) - Smarter Every Day 188 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Plane Flies in Front of Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Rory Dublin Moon and sun in same sky disproves Spherical Earth Flat Earth 16
txt29 Apollo 17: alleged inconsistency of shadows Conspiracy Theories 34
Jared Some proof The Moon is not it's Own Light Source Flat Earth 2
nickrulercreator [Debunked] Apollo 14 Flag Waving Before Ascent? Science and Pseudoscience 21
HoaxEye 6 Giant Towers discovered on the Moon [Digital Artifacts/Glitches] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 33
Mick West Explained: Moon Terminator/Shadow UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Trailblazer Measuring the distance to the moon with laser reflections and the speed of light Flat Earth 5
Abishua The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions Flat Earth 54
drhex Explained: Apollo 17 Photo of Earth from Moon Seems too High Conspiracy Theories 16
C Interesting observation of moon light phenomena i can't find the answer to ???? General Discussion 4
Whitebeard Contrail on Moon Disc? Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Explained: Why Clouds Appear Behind the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 58
G Needs debunking: Video of a solar eclipse is fake because we cannot see the moon covering the sun Flat Earth 5
Tony_Sigel Debunked: Chang'e-2 photos of Alien Base on Moon [Hoax] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 14
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Josh Heuer Debunked: UFO in NASA live feed [The Moon] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 14
John X Moon anomalies UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 37
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
derrick06 Bunk: SyFy: Aliens on the Moon UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 29
lamentiraestaahifuera.com A pyramid on the Moon UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Mick West Solved: "Alien" with "shadow" on the Moon [Debris in Camera] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 59
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
derrick06 Another Google Moon Anomaly General Discussion 1
C What is this on Google Moon? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Grieves Moon Stuff: Stereoscopic examination of Photos Conspiracy Theories 16
ki_cz "Boomerang" Moon UFO video [Bird] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 45
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on the Moon, Triangle of Dots [photo artifact] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 56
Mick West Debunked: China's Moon Rover exhibit showing a nuclear mushroom cloud over Europe. General Discussion 10
Hama Neggs Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 22
TWCobra Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 283
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top