JackStagger
Junior Member
Yes photos can be manipulated. People can be bought. People can be brainwashed. Science can be buried. Consider what proof would qualify as proof in your eyes, though? Would seeing it through a screen in any way validate the historical account for you, or would you still doubt? Would Elon Musk bringing the moon flag back to Earth for it to reside in a museum be good enough, where science at large could test it and confirm resolve your doubt? How then do the moon rocks brought back by Apollo 11 and their confirmation of validity tests not hold water by the same metric? I get the impression that many people will not believe it, many people from foreign nations with different educational programs relating to history and science, unless they literally saw it with their own eyes from five feet away. Sadly, this is not practical in the slightest.
Here's the thing, I'm not saying I know for sure without a doubt. What I'm saying is that to hold a prevailing theory to the contrary is in my own opinion illogical. Whatever the truth is, many doubters on this planet are mistaken to not find evidence in favour of the current historical account to be the most compelling explanation, given that they do not have the proximity of observation needed to prove or disprove it. Is NASA completely honest, no, the agency is a snake just about through-and-through, but that doesn't mean that you can cherry-pick the evidence available. All facts must stand individually and collectively or else there is logical conflict, modulating that with doubt is intelligent I fully admit— but when China, India, Japan, the Soviet Union/Russia confirm the facts that some think were manufactured, I find that compelling confirmation of the historical record basis. It's as good of a peer review as will ever be available to us realistically. Is it still possible these known liars are collaborating, sure, but it would be drastically out of character for them to agree on a falsehood in benefit of America.
Remember the Soviets wouldn't even accept American help for Chernobyl or the Kursk disaster, in fact there are popular conspiracies in Russian modern culture that America is responsible for those disasters. Russia and America are not cool with each other, despite their correlations in science and culture. Both countries have long conspired to manipulate public opinion of the other negatively, mostly predicated on arbitrary sociopolitical divides and downright lies, and all in the aim to shift blame or in the aim of glorifying their own nation. The one constant between them is that they put their own countries first, especially before the counterpart nation at any opportunity. Sure, it's possible that the Russian unmanned mission equipment is reflecting the Earth projected lasers, but no amount of money or coercion in the world would get them to swallow the truth of an American lie. Not going to happen. The one thing I know about Putin and previous Russian leaders after the Romanovs is that they draw their power and credibility by putting Russia first, even though you could argue that both countries are swept up in an autocratic web of deception predicated on national cohesion.
Keep in mind that the ALSEP (Apollo Lander Surface Experiment Package) conducted by the Apollo 11 mission astronauts, which cannot be foreign as the Russian reflector is, has given us data which we know to be reliable and congruent scientifically in regard to moon observations since then. The ALSEP had to be deployed by hand, there is no evidence to the contrary at all. The EASEP (Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package) which was left there for the on-going collection of data has the same timbre of credibility, though it lasted only about 12 days. Both have given us data which could not have come from any other source and are scientifically congruent with the notion that Apollo 11 landed man on the moon before any other mission. Some of the devices literally detected the influence of the astronauts as they slept, and that specific data is not contested as being unreliable by a single person to my knowledge. We can conceivably prove mathematically based on relationships observed since that date that this data is ~100% reliable.
From what I can tell, the belief that America is lying about being the first to put a man on the moon with the Apollo 11 mission (and further Apollo missions) originally came from a man named Bill Kaysing. Kaysing was a Navy midshipman up until 1949 when he failed to complete officer training school. In 1976 he wrote a book called "We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle". The content of his book was founded from his experiences when he worked as a senior technical writer at Rocketdyne in 1956, the company which manufactured parts of the Saturn V rockets. Rocketdyne did not design the rockets, they produced some components for them. This is the difference between Nikola Tesla's work and the ability to manufacture a coil to Tesla's specifications, these are vastly different scopes of specialization. Kaysing does not hold any degree in any science field whatsoever, he has a BA in English literature. He's a writer, not a scientist, not an engineer, not a physicist, not an astronaut, not a naval officer.
His job is to be eloquent and accurate in the written word when describing the manufacturing process of certain components. He does not have to comprehend the purpose of these components or even the materials used, in a sense his job was telling others how to pull a lever or push a button and in what order. All of his claims are anecdotal, none of them require any relative understanding of engineering, mathematics, or aerospace science— in fact, those are the avenues in which they are all disproven. Kaysins also claimed that the Challenger disaster was perpetrated by NASA to keep whistleblower astronauts quiet, though he has literally zero evidence or logical assertions of this. The man who did design the Saturn V rocket, Wernher von Braun, is arguably a man of infinitesimal moral convictions, but this does not make Kaysing an intrinsic or even peripheral element in the pioneering of aerospace rocketry during that time period. It makes him a distant observer within tertiary levels of compartmentalized information relative to the manufacturing of single components. I suspect that is where his confusion and doubt is born and then spread to those who have a bias against American technological pioneering and against the truncation of elaborate scientific data which they themselves cannot comprehend as fact or fiction.
I could outline every claim Kaysing has made in regard to the falsifying of A11 with scientific factual assertions to the contrary from different angles. He has not relinquished himself of the burden of proof, the truth in any case is that science has unilaterally vanquished any avenue through which he might, and with extensive corroborated elaboration. Does this mean he is mistaken? I find it a likely indicator. I think it is wise to be sceptical and give equal consideration to all explanations, but I do not find the A11 moon landing hoax to be compelling due to methods of evidence which are at best conjecture garnished with the requisition of credibility. I have been educated in Great Brittain and America, and I'll be the first one to be critical of the doctrine of western powers, but in this case specifically it is empirically logical to give credibility to the historical record in regard to the landing of A11. Do I invest in much more beyond that point simply because NASA has clearly been deceptive on other points? Not really. I think A11 is when the lies started, and a large element of that rationale dictates that man landed on the moon on July 20th 1969.
Here's the thing, I'm not saying I know for sure without a doubt. What I'm saying is that to hold a prevailing theory to the contrary is in my own opinion illogical. Whatever the truth is, many doubters on this planet are mistaken to not find evidence in favour of the current historical account to be the most compelling explanation, given that they do not have the proximity of observation needed to prove or disprove it. Is NASA completely honest, no, the agency is a snake just about through-and-through, but that doesn't mean that you can cherry-pick the evidence available. All facts must stand individually and collectively or else there is logical conflict, modulating that with doubt is intelligent I fully admit— but when China, India, Japan, the Soviet Union/Russia confirm the facts that some think were manufactured, I find that compelling confirmation of the historical record basis. It's as good of a peer review as will ever be available to us realistically. Is it still possible these known liars are collaborating, sure, but it would be drastically out of character for them to agree on a falsehood in benefit of America.
Remember the Soviets wouldn't even accept American help for Chernobyl or the Kursk disaster, in fact there are popular conspiracies in Russian modern culture that America is responsible for those disasters. Russia and America are not cool with each other, despite their correlations in science and culture. Both countries have long conspired to manipulate public opinion of the other negatively, mostly predicated on arbitrary sociopolitical divides and downright lies, and all in the aim to shift blame or in the aim of glorifying their own nation. The one constant between them is that they put their own countries first, especially before the counterpart nation at any opportunity. Sure, it's possible that the Russian unmanned mission equipment is reflecting the Earth projected lasers, but no amount of money or coercion in the world would get them to swallow the truth of an American lie. Not going to happen. The one thing I know about Putin and previous Russian leaders after the Romanovs is that they draw their power and credibility by putting Russia first, even though you could argue that both countries are swept up in an autocratic web of deception predicated on national cohesion.
Keep in mind that the ALSEP (Apollo Lander Surface Experiment Package) conducted by the Apollo 11 mission astronauts, which cannot be foreign as the Russian reflector is, has given us data which we know to be reliable and congruent scientifically in regard to moon observations since then. The ALSEP had to be deployed by hand, there is no evidence to the contrary at all. The EASEP (Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package) which was left there for the on-going collection of data has the same timbre of credibility, though it lasted only about 12 days. Both have given us data which could not have come from any other source and are scientifically congruent with the notion that Apollo 11 landed man on the moon before any other mission. Some of the devices literally detected the influence of the astronauts as they slept, and that specific data is not contested as being unreliable by a single person to my knowledge. We can conceivably prove mathematically based on relationships observed since that date that this data is ~100% reliable.
From what I can tell, the belief that America is lying about being the first to put a man on the moon with the Apollo 11 mission (and further Apollo missions) originally came from a man named Bill Kaysing. Kaysing was a Navy midshipman up until 1949 when he failed to complete officer training school. In 1976 he wrote a book called "We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle". The content of his book was founded from his experiences when he worked as a senior technical writer at Rocketdyne in 1956, the company which manufactured parts of the Saturn V rockets. Rocketdyne did not design the rockets, they produced some components for them. This is the difference between Nikola Tesla's work and the ability to manufacture a coil to Tesla's specifications, these are vastly different scopes of specialization. Kaysing does not hold any degree in any science field whatsoever, he has a BA in English literature. He's a writer, not a scientist, not an engineer, not a physicist, not an astronaut, not a naval officer.
His job is to be eloquent and accurate in the written word when describing the manufacturing process of certain components. He does not have to comprehend the purpose of these components or even the materials used, in a sense his job was telling others how to pull a lever or push a button and in what order. All of his claims are anecdotal, none of them require any relative understanding of engineering, mathematics, or aerospace science— in fact, those are the avenues in which they are all disproven. Kaysins also claimed that the Challenger disaster was perpetrated by NASA to keep whistleblower astronauts quiet, though he has literally zero evidence or logical assertions of this. The man who did design the Saturn V rocket, Wernher von Braun, is arguably a man of infinitesimal moral convictions, but this does not make Kaysing an intrinsic or even peripheral element in the pioneering of aerospace rocketry during that time period. It makes him a distant observer within tertiary levels of compartmentalized information relative to the manufacturing of single components. I suspect that is where his confusion and doubt is born and then spread to those who have a bias against American technological pioneering and against the truncation of elaborate scientific data which they themselves cannot comprehend as fact or fiction.
I could outline every claim Kaysing has made in regard to the falsifying of A11 with scientific factual assertions to the contrary from different angles. He has not relinquished himself of the burden of proof, the truth in any case is that science has unilaterally vanquished any avenue through which he might, and with extensive corroborated elaboration. Does this mean he is mistaken? I find it a likely indicator. I think it is wise to be sceptical and give equal consideration to all explanations, but I do not find the A11 moon landing hoax to be compelling due to methods of evidence which are at best conjecture garnished with the requisition of credibility. I have been educated in Great Brittain and America, and I'll be the first one to be critical of the doctrine of western powers, but in this case specifically it is empirically logical to give credibility to the historical record in regard to the landing of A11. Do I invest in much more beyond that point simply because NASA has clearly been deceptive on other points? Not really. I think A11 is when the lies started, and a large element of that rationale dictates that man landed on the moon on July 20th 1969.