Was the landing on the moon a fake?

[tsslutboy]

nope

[MrF]

Pretty clever reply by Trish, but I suppose the Apollo telemetry data could be faked (generated by computer) from the known sciences. But I don't think anything was faked. I think it would be difficult to hide a conspiracy in such a large organization as NASA, so any information about that would have leaked out via a large number of reliable sources, more credible than those claiming a fake moon landing.

[deee757]

Certainly a lot of science can be done by unmanned missions. Indeed I prefer we slow down on the plans for manned missions to the Moon and Mars and milk more from robotic missions. But that is not the issue here. You asked how can we confirm the legitimacy of the mission from the data of the mission provided by NASA. The above post is a reply to that question. I’m not suggesting the data from Apollo 11 is necessary for understanding the laws of celestial mechanics, the geology or geography of the Moon, but the reverse. What we know now of those sciences can reveal inconsistencies in the Apollo 11 data if there are any. So far none have been found.

So on the flip side, you also agree that we would still have all that information if the various Apollo's never made a manned tripped. Not to mention various forms of raw video (pre-scanned and before reproduction) exists of all of the Apollo missions with the exception of the manned mission. In addition, the blueprints and schematics of the machines and designs used on the Manned Apollo do not exist. They have been conveniently misplaced.

[deee757]

Pretty clever reply by Trish, but I suppose the Apollo telemetry data could be faked (generated by computer) from the known sciences. But I don't think anything was faked. I think it would be difficult to hide a conspiracy in such a large organization as NASA, so any information about that would have leaked out via a large number of reliable sources, more credible than those claiming a fake moon landing.

I agree, that's why Im not completely sold that it is a hoax. However since the reproduced telemetry data that Houston received was retrieved from Australia, after receiving the original data from the Apollo, than you could minimize the amount of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy. I do agree that someone in on the conspiracy would have come forth by now if it was indeed a hoax.

[trish]

So on the flip side, you also agree that we would still have all that information if the various Apollo's never made a manned tripped.

In the case of the telemetry data, no. Telemetry is the data collected from observations around the world by independent sources of the flight path of the mission. If Apollo 11 never made the trip, this data would have to be invented and the independent observers would have to vouch for the invention, the conspirators would have to also include those who observed from behind the iron curtain. The data would have to comply with the known laws of celestial mechanics.

In the case of raw video footage of the landing sight the answer is also no. We would have no detailed knowledge of that. Though our knowledge of the sight, had Apollo never been there, would improve with the passing of time. Indeed our knowledge independent of the Apollo 11 footage remains consistent with the footage with the passage of time.


In addition, the blueprints and schematics of the machines and designs used on the Manned Apollo do not exist. They have been conveniently misplaced.

I haven’t confirmed this story, but if you’re truly impartial, as you claim you are, shouldn’t you delete the word “conveniently”. If the story’s true, I’m sure there are plenty of people at NASA who think the plans have been inconveniently misplaced.

[deee757]

We have original telemetry data from all of the Apollo missions before reproduction, with the exception of the manned mission. With the manned mission, we only have the reproduced version, which could have been produced in Australia where the scnned versions originated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations (not a big wikepedia fan, but alot of this information is scattered)



There is no raw unedited footage of the space walk.



Point taken, "conveniently" meaning that the availability this information would dissolve any possible hoax theories. So I agree that if this were not a hoax, it would be inconvenient for NASA

[trish]

Okay, you got me. It seems NASA lost not only the original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11, but data itself (i.e. they lost or never made backups)!

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720013191_1972013191.pdf
(page 17)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html

Un-fucking-believable.

But at least I demonstrated that the data would be useful in verifying the flight actually took place, had we access to the data!

There must be partial data sets out there collected and archived by those who relayed the telemetry to NASA. Then again, it was an analog age and backup was expensive and time consuming. I’ll try to check.

Still the laser echo experiments do confirm that the mirrors were placed in their specific orientation at the specified time and coordinates on the lunar surface.

[deee757]

Okay, you got me. It seems NASA lost not only the original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11, but data itself (i.e. they lost or never made backups)!

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720013191_1972013191.pdf
(page 17)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html

Un-fucking-believable.

But at least I demonstrated that the data would be useful in verifying the flight actually took place, had we access to the data!

There must be partial data sets out there collected and archived by those who relayed the telemetry to NASA. Then again, it was an analog age and backup was expensive and time consuming. I’ll try to check.

Still the laser echo experiments do confirm that the mirrors were placed in their specific orientation at the specified time and coordinates on the lunar surface.

Yea, but the only reason im not ready to give my one hundred percent agreement with conspiracy, is because back up data was not viewed as important as it is now, i mean even the back up data they do have was on reels, and vhs tapes. That would be back up blasphemy in 2009

[trish]

Well that's not the only reason against conspiracy. E.g. you have yet to refute the laser echo experiments.

[MacShreach]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Did you ever ask yourself why the flag is floating and blowing around when there is no air on the moon? yeah think about that

Jesus, not again! This fairy-tale has already been dealt with at least once in this thread. Probably better to do some reading before you shoot your mouth off. And yeah I did think about it--you didn't come off well.

:banghead

[MacShreach]

The surface of the Moon is roughly 376000 kilometers from the surface of the Earth at their closest points. Two points on the surface of the Moon one yard apart from each other would subtend an angle of 1yard/376000km =0 .00000000243 radians = 0.0000000696 degrees = 0.00025 seconds of arc. The Lunar Lander itself might subtend angle of one order of magnitude higher, say 0.0025 seconds of arc. So what is the resolution of our best telescopes? The Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 seconds of arc. Even given it’s slightly closer proximity to the Moon, even Hubble wouldn’t be able to confirm the presence of the Lunar Lander, let alone the flag. Future missions to the Moon, which a currently under preparation may be able to observe it from lunar orbit.

But let's suppose we could build a telescope with the resolving power to confirm the presence of the Lunar Lander on the Moon. I don't think it would resolve the issue. The conspiracy theorists will just take the same position the Catholic bishops took against Galileo, namely they will claim the telescope was designed to decieve.

Thank you,Trish. Thank you thank you thank you.

You know where we're going next, don't you?

[lupinIII]

Not sure if this has already gone up, it's only tangentially related to the topic, but I think it's funny.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png

[stephenward]

This topic is simply silly.

The people who promote these views are just looking for their 15 minutes, money or both. The simple fact that a credible independent news source (e.g. The New York Times, CBS News, anything on PBS, etc.) hasn't broken this "story" in 40 years is reason enough to disprove it. It would literally be the story of the century! If it were out there, they would have found and published it.

There have been a total of six successful, manned lunar landings by the US spanning from July 1969 through December 1972. In addition, there have been twelve unmanned landings by the US (eight), the Soviet Union (three) and India.

As far as the comparison's between the complexity of lunar landings and terrestrial landing on Mars, there really is no comparison. Mars has a thin atmosphere which complicates things enormously (e.g. friction, wind) and a gravitational pull of roughly twice our moon (or 38% of Earth's).

P.S. The reason the flag is "waving" is due to Newton's First Law of Physics i.e. The Law of Inertia.

[Dirky]

Since I saw this thread continuing to get bumped up I decided to read the entire thing. Entertaining stuff! Conspiracy theorists are always good for a laugh or two.

[Dirky]

Another thing that makes no sense to me is why would we spent all that money to fake a moon landing? Just to have bragging rights? Even though I don't agree with the JFK assassination and 9/ll conspiracy nuts, at least there's plausible reasons for certain groups to pull off those acts.

[MrF]

Then there's the dueling wikipedia page about independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings:

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

which, of course, by the nature of Wikipedia, could also be an elaborate hoax. :)

[deee757]

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist" I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but I don't ignore facts. If the facts outweigh the opinions than....... u know the rest

[thx1138]

More grist for the mill: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

[deee757]

More grist for the mill: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html


lol, like i said before, im not ready to conclude it was an all out hoax, but Im simply saying im not ignoring all of this shotty information

[trish]

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist"
Doesn't this example kind of defeat your point. There is no devil.

[deee757]

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist"
Doesn't this example kind of defeat your point. There is no devil.

Naw, just meaning the easiest way to resolve a problem is to convince people that there is no problem. If this can be done than you would not have to actually solve the problem.

[yosi]

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist"
Doesn't this example kind of defeat your point. There is no devil.

Naw, just meaning the easiest way to resolve a problem is to convince people that there is no problem. If this can be done than you would not have to actually solve the problem.

this thread is an example of creating a problem when there is no problem actualy .

[MacShreach]

More grist for the mill: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

That is not grist for the mill, it is complete, unadulterated crap. It is bullshit from the first sentence, and trust me, THC, that is the last time I will ever take the trouble to actually read a site you refer me to.

I could go through it point by point and refute every single one, but the fact is, it would make no difference because

a) the people who believe this conspiracy bullshit are utter morons devoid of the slightest capacity for intelligent or logical thought, as has been demonstrated more than adequately by the moron-in-chief, you, and many many others in this thread alone

and

b) the conspiracy theories themselves are promulgated by self-publicising disinformation merchants who know perfectly well that the the aforesaid dunderheads will not only believe any old codswallop that is fed to them, they'll pay to be told it. From Erich von Danichen onwards, these people have been making fortunes from idiots like you.

There is no Bermuda Triangle, spacemen did not build the pyramids, there are no aliens hidden at Area 51, and the Apollo astronauts did go to the moon.

Case closed.

[thx1138]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[thx1138]

I'm glad you didn't mention chem trails. They are quite real.

[deee757]

Nasa launching an unmanned mission to the moon for data. First in 10 years.

http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=10558478

Lol, i thought we already had the data

[trish]

So what's your complaint? The Moon's a large place and data on its geography, surface geology and interior structure will never be complete as long as there are completing theories and hypothesis to test and weed.

What's laughable is that someone thinks one mission a decade ago could provide all the data that we ever need; the implication being that if we still need data that mission must not have ever taken place. lol

[angie]

The new orbiting probe has as one of it's missions, to photograph the old Apollo landing sites. At first, I thought that would settle the issue once and for all, but I'm sure that there are plenty of "sceptics" who will just claim that those photos were faked, as well.

[yosi]

So what's your complaint? The Moon's a large place and data on its geography, surface geology and interior structure will never be complete as long as there are completing theories and hypothesis to test and weed.

What's laughable is that someone thinks one mission a decade ago could provide all the data that we ever need; the implication being that if we still need data that mission must not have ever taken place. lol

trish ,a conspiracy is not something you can contradict by small un-important details known as FACTS :wink:

[deee757]

Yea, i got u, and while we are at it, why doesn't Spain send another ship around the world in search for more land. Lol, and the article says NASA wants to return a man to the moon by 2020, 50 years after the first landing. Also ironic that China says it would take them until 2020 to develop the technology to make it possible for them to send a man to the moon.

[trish]

Deee writes:
yea, i got u, and while we are at it, why doesn't Spain send another ship around the world in search for more land. Lol, and the article says NASA wants to return a man to the moon by 2020, 50 years after the first landing. Also ironic that China says it would take them until 2020 to develop the technology to make it possible for them to send a man to the moon.

You’ve got your own tail. It costs something like $50000 to lift one pound of mass into space. Thirty years ago it was more expensive. Given those costs, visits to the Moon are not going to be lucrative in any sense but the academic sense. There is pressure from scientists for more robotic missions to the solar system, there is pressure from cosmologists for more deep space telescopes and there’s pressure from Earth scientists for more climatological missions. All of these interests and more compete with lunar scientists for a small NASA budget. There’s very little pressure from any scientists to send more humans to the Moon. The general public thinks going to the Moon is a waste of money. Nevertheless there’s lots to learn about the Moon from unmanned missions and indeed there have been many unmanned missions to the Moon since Apollo 11. One of the goals of the latest set of missions is to map the entire surface with greater resolution. The entire surface does happen to include the past landing sights.

By the way Spain, and many other nations around the world do send cartographers, oceanographers, geologists and biologists around the world, not in search of new land, but to carefully collect more data and refine our knowledge of Earth sciences.

[deee757]

Deee writes:
yea, i got u, and while we are at it, why doesn't Spain send another ship around the world in search for more land. Lol, and the article says NASA wants to return a man to the moon by 2020, 50 years after the first landing. Also ironic that China says it would take them until 2020 to develop the technology to make it possible for them to send a man to the moon.

You’ve got your own tail. It costs something like $50000 to lift one pound of mass into space. Thirty years ago it was more expensive. Given those costs, visits to the Moon are not going to be lucrative in any sense but the academic sense. There is pressure from scientists for more robotic missions to the solar system, there is pressure from cosmologists for more deep space telescopes and there’s pressure from Earth scientists for more climatological missions. All of these interests and more compete with lunar scientists for a small NASA budget. There’s very little pressure from any scientists to send more humans to the Moon. The general public thinks going to the Moon is a waste of money. Nevertheless there’s lots to learn about the Moon from unmanned missions and indeed there have been many unmanned missions to the Moon since Apollo 11. One of the goals of the latest set of missions is to map the entire surface with greater resolution. The entire surface does happen to include the past landing sights.

By the way Spain, and many other nations around the world do send cartographers, oceanographers, geologists and biologists around the world, not in search of new land, but to carefully collect more data and refine our knowledge of Earth sciences.

china's project will cost 170 million dollars. Thats 1/10th of what the Cowboys new stadium cost. You telling me NASA wont have 170 million dollars until 2020?

[trish]

Are you telling me China can’t get it together to put a person on the Moon for another decade and yet it’s only going to cost them 170 million??? Just this month NASA’s budget for the manned lunar mission was cut by four times that much!!! Among other things, I’m saying there’s not a lot of pressure from scientists themselves for a manned Moon mission.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moon-mission.html

I kinda side with Weinberg in this debate. There are many better projects to spend our budget on. The Terrestrial Planet Finder Program has recently been completely cut, as well as the SIM Planet Quest project.

[deee757]

This is really going to hurt the feelings of people who swore that the footage was real, lol. I told yall, unless u were there, you never know what is true


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_sc/us_sci_moon_video

[2009AD]

This is really going to hurt the feelings of people who swore that the footage was real, lol. I told yall, unless u were there, you never know what is true

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_sc/us_sci_moon_video

You're "keepin' it real" down in Richmond. Fo sho!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8IQudhlTPM

[deee757]

This is really going to hurt the feelings of people who swore that the footage was real, lol. I told yall, unless u were there, you never know what is true

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_sc/us_sci_moon_video

You're "keepin' it real" down in Richmond. Fo sho!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8IQudhlTPM

Sure hope u are black, if not those three black friends of yours would sure be disappointed of how u think of them.

[HP1000]

Don't believe what you read, high powered telescopes can still see the lunar land rovers still sitting in the places where they were left, and black aliens havn't stole the rims off them yet :D

And the Lunar Missions left lasers on the moon that still to this day reflect back measurements...


I'm fixing to post a similiar thread................

[deee757]

Don't believe what you read, high powered telescopes can still see the lunar land rovers still sitting in the places where they were left, and black aliens havn't stole the rims off them yet :D

And the Lunar Missions left lasers on the moon that still to this day reflect back measurements...


I'm fixing to post a similiar thread................

Has to be liberating to type what u cant say at work. lol

[horndog]

To answer bat1's original question; yes, it was completely staged...

[deee757]

yea, but i have been a nigger, cheese brain, idiot, and all other names just for thinking it possibly could have been a hoax. lol Sanity is an underrated gift

[2009AD]

unless u were there, you never know what is true

Do you think slavery in the U.S. was true?

[AmericanDream]

All I know is something fishies going on here..

[deee757]

unless u were there, you never know what is true

Do you think slavery in the U.S. was true?

I think racism in the us is true. Slavery, i was not there so I don't know. I have read books by white supremacist that says all black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks which would make them indentured servants. This part of time and evolution is critical because it causes a paradox on how people of my kind came to America. I find it very ironic that I can make the same statements online that I can make in reality with no repercussions. You on the other hand can not have this discussion at the bar, at work, at school, at your child's school play, or with any other person of color that respects u. I dont think u are racist, but when u have these thoughts , how else would u get it off accept in an online forum. Is almost emasculating in a sense

[2009AD]

All I know is something fishies going on here..

You sound brilliant, please do share your doubts with us.

[phobun]

All I know is something fishies going on here..

You sound brilliant, please do share your doubts with us.

Heh

[deee757]

I think racism in the us is true. Slavery, i was not there so I don't know. I have read books by white supremacist that says all black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks which would make them indentured servants. This part of time and evolution is critical because it causes a paradox on how people of my kind came to America. I find it very ironic that I can make the same statements online that I can make in reality with no repercussions. You on the other hand can not have this discussion at the bar, at work, at school, at your child's school play, or with any other person of color that respects u. I dont think u are racist, but when u have these thoughts , how else would u get it off accept in an online forum. Is almost emasculating in a sense

plus, you would just call him an ignorant "nigger" what would be the point?

[2009AD]

unless u were there, you never know what is true

Do you think slavery in the U.S. was true?

I think racism in the us is true. Slavery, i was not there so I don't know. I have read books by white supremacist that says all black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks which would make them indentured servants.

You don't know if slavery existed because you were not there? Last question for you. Do you believe that a civil war took place in the United States?

[deee757]

is what they say, I did not see it, there's has never been any evidence against it, so i can assume it happened, but never a 100 percent agreement from me. I thought George Washington was the first president until I was 24.

[trish]

Well, shit everybody knows the first president was Seymour Arghrah. In 200,743 BC Seymour Arghrah organized the first Neanderthal Tool Makers Union and was elected unanimously its first president. This made Seymour the first president of anything anywhere on the Planet. May we all drink to Seymour Arghrah.

[deee757]

Well, shit everybody knows the first president was Seymour Arghrah. In 200,743 BC Seymour Arghrah organized the first Neanderthal Tool Makers Union and was elected unanimously its first president. This made Seymour the first president of anything anywhere on the Planet. May we all drink to Seymour Arghrah.


yea, just looking forward to the day that I dont have to be an ignorant nigger for making that toast

[2009AD]

is what they say, I did not see it, there's has never been any evidence against it, so i can assume it happened, but never a 100 percent agreement from me. I thought George Washington was the first president until I was 24.

Who was the first President of the U.S.? I can't wait to hear this.

[deee757]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

[hippifried]

If they'd landed on the moon, they would have brought back green cheese instead of rocks.

[trish]

I'm not sure my mother's great grandparents ever existed, 'cause I wasn't born in time to meet them. Could be my heritage just doesn't go back that far. I mean, it's possible. Right? I wasn't there to be sure.

[2009AD]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

Sorry, no. You made the statement that GW was not the first President. The burden of proof is on you. Provide a name or a link.

Using your logic: You can't say, for sure, who the first President was cause you were not there.

[deee757]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

Sorry, no. You made the statement that GW was not the first President. The burden of proof is on you. Provide a name or a link.

Using your logic: You can't say, for sure, who the first President was cause you were not there.
so what would the name or link do?

[trish]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

[2009AD]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

Sorry, no. You made the statement that GW was not the first President. The burden of proof is on you. Provide a name or a link.

Using your logic: You can't say, for sure, who the first President was cause you were not there.
so what would the name or link do?

It might help you prove your case, but it seems that you are not interested in that.

Anyways, Geo. Washington was the first President of the U.S. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington/

[deee757]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

Sorry, no. You made the statement that GW was not the first President. The burden of proof is on you. Provide a name or a link.

Using your logic: You can't say, for sure, who the first President was cause you were not there.

Peyton Randolph was the first president elected in 1774 under the newly freed independent states. John Hansen was the first president elected under the articles of confederation of the United States of America. George Washington was not elected until 1789, the first under our current
constitution but like i said what difference does it make, i was not there

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

[2009AD]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

[SarahG]

unless u were there, you never know what is true

Do you think slavery in the U.S. was true?

I think racism in the us is true. Slavery, i was not there so I don't know. I have read books by white supremacist that says all black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks which would make them indentured servants.

The slaves imported to America were almost without exception captured by rival black tribes & nations in Africa, and then sold to either Arabs or Europeans depending on what port we're talking about.

BUT, this is not where "all slaves" came from, we outlawed the slave trade pretty early in our history. Meaning, in order to get a slave, it had to be an American-born slave unless the slave pre-dated the ban, so we basically went from importing slaves via slave ships, to breeding slaves domestically. It was all about the money, outlawing the slave trade was an economic decision rather than a moral one- it was making a lot of families, including a lot of yankee families, a great deal of money.

That's partly why slave owning families actually usually kept a paper trail in log books on their slaves, showing information like DOBs/year of birth, ages, family relations, sometimes purchase/sale prices etc, kind of the way high end dog or horse breeders do today.

This information was very important, because in breeder states like NY- a slave would legally be freed upon reaching a certain age, so they would have to keep record of them to know when to sell them to out of state buyers before the slave could become freed- otherwise they'd lose out on their investment. Thus, before that age limit could be met the slaves close to that limit would be shipped down the river to the southern states and sold aka "sold down the river."

The conspiracy isn't in pretending that slavery existed when it did not, but rather pretending that it was a purely southern practice when it was not. It took the civil war to end the institution of slavery in northern breeder states like NY, and NY was actually later than Virginia to extend suffrage rights to blacks. You'll find it was also the northern companies (shipping companies particularly) that made most the money off of southern slave labor- because they were the middle men in selling slave-generated products abroad (cotton, tobacco, etc). That's why Lincoln initially only intended to end slavery as a revenge tactic to punish states that left the union, initially any slave state that stayed in the union was to continue the practice...

Sure, I wasn't there. But I don't see any other explanation for the documents i.e. log books that still exist. No conspiracy would have managed to create all those documents, and do so with such quality forgeries as to mislead every historian, archivist and genealogist who has used them since, and in many cases these log books are still in the families that had owned slaves in the past. Why would any family fabricate sources that would make themselves look bad?

The white supremacist argument is simply kaput. If I kidnapped one of my cousins and tried to sell them into slavery, ok- sure, that would be a bad thing on my part. But if someone took me up on that offer, purchased one of my cousins, and then enslaved them in a foreign country- that too would be a bad thing, on their part. There's plenty of blame to go around, no excuses, revisionist histories, or fabricated stories could mitigate the indisputable guilt that does exist when talking about the Americans who did use, OR PROFIT, from slave labor... the white slave owners (who, were the vast majority even if some slave owners were black) were wrong, and nothing can change that reality. Bringing up the Arabs, blacks, and other groups that played a role in 18th-19th century slavery just shows there is more blame to talk about, not that there is less.

[deee757]

unless u were there, you never know what is true

Do you think slavery in the U.S. was true?

I think racism in the us is true. Slavery, i was not there so I don't know. I have read books by white supremacist that says all black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks which would make them indentured servants.

The slaves imported to America were almost without exception captured by rival black tribes & nations in Africa, and then sold to either Arabs or Europeans depending on what port we're talking about.

BUT, this is not where "all slaves" came from, we outlawed the slave trade pretty early in our history. Meaning, in order to get a slave, it had to be an American-born slave unless the slave pre-dated the ban, so we basically went from importing slaves via slave ships, to breeding slaves domestically. It was all about the money, outlawing the slave trade was an economic decision rather than a moral one- it was making a lot of families, including a lot of yankee families, a great deal of money.

That's partly why slave owning families actually usually kept a paper trail in log books on their slaves, showing information like DOBs/year of birth, ages, family relations, sometimes purchase/sale prices etc, kind of the way high end dog or horse breeders do today.

This information was very important, because in breeder states like NY- a slave would legally be freed upon reaching a certain age, so they would have to keep record of them to know when to sell them to out of state buyers before the slave could become freed- otherwise they'd lose out on their investment. Thus, before that age limit could be met the slaves close to that limit would be shipped down the river to the southern states and sold aka "sold down the river."

The conspiracy isn't in pretending that slavery existed when it did not, but rather pretending that it was a purely southern practice when it was not. It took the civil war to end the institution of slavery in northern breeder states like NY, and NY was actually later than Virginia to extend suffrage rights to blacks. You'll find it was also the northern companies (shipping companies particularly) that made most the money off of southern slave labor- because they were the middle men in selling slave-generated products abroad (cotton, tobacco, etc). That's why Lincoln initially only intended to end slavery as a revenge tactic to punish states that left the union, initially any slave state that stayed in the union was to continue the practice...

Sure, I wasn't there. But I don't see any other explanation for the documents i.e. log books that still exist. No conspiracy would have managed to create all those documents, and do so with such quality forgeries as to mislead every historian, archivist and genealogist who has used them since, and in many cases these log books are still in the families that had owned slaves in the past. Why would any family fabricate sources that would make themselves look bad?

The white supremacist argument is simply kaput. If I kidnapped one of my cousins and tried to sell them into slavery, ok- sure, that would be a bad thing on my part. But if someone took me up on that offer, purchased one of my cousins, and then enslaved them in a foreign country- that too would be a bad thing, on their part. There's plenty of blame to go around, no excuses, revisionist histories, or fabricated stories could mitigate the indisputable guilt that does exist when talking about the Americans who did use, OR PROFIT, from slave labor... the white slave owners (who, were the vast majority even if some slave owners were black) were wrong, and nothing can change that reality. Bringing up the Arabs, blacks, and other groups that played a role in 18th-19th century slavery just shows there is more blame
to talk about, not that there is less.

still a theory, my point was that with so many theories, how can one person say the theory they believe is the absolute truth?

[hippifried]

Actually, Mr Big made it to the moon first.

Here's photographic proof of the launch.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/31/ed/408cc6da8da098a91b570110.L._AA280_.jpg

[deee757]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

[trish]

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

It's only what "they"[these guys www.marshallhall.org/hanson.htm ] claim. He certainly wasn't the first under the Constitution, which is what most U.S. citizens mean by the phrase First President. But of course, outside of common usage "First President" can mean almost anything, which is my point.

[2009AD]

no need to tell u, just know u need to read more. Google, Yahoo, all this stuff is out there. Or just stick with GW as the first president either way. I did not need to insult your race to make my point

Sorry, no. You made the statement that GW was not the first President. The burden of proof is on you. Provide a name or a link.

Using your logic: You can't say, for sure, who the first President was cause you were not there.

Peyton Randolph was the first president elected in 1774 under the newly freed independent states. John Hansen was the first president elected under the articles of confederation of the United States of America. George Washington was not elected until 1789, the first under our current
constitution but like i said what difference does it make, i was not there

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Did you witness the 1774 election? How do you know it really happened?

[deee757]

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

It's only what "they" claim. He certainly wasn't the first under the Constitution, which is what most U.S. citizens mean by the phrase First President. But of course, outside of common usage "First President" can mean almost anything, which is my point.


yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected

[trish]

Actually, Mr Big made it to the moon first.

Here's photographic proof of the launch.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/31/ed/408cc6da8da098a91b570110.L._AA280_.jpg

You mean the Moon belongs to the communists!!!!

[SarahG]

still a theory, my point was that with so many theories, how can one person say the theory they believe is the absolute truth?

Well, there are the times where it's the only explanation that works.

All of science is just a collection of theories, nonetheless when I flick my light switch my lightbulb comes on. Surely you can't just dismiss everything as "just a theory"?

[deee757]

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.


Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

[trish]

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

[2009AD]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.

[deee757]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

[trish]

Ah, that's the distinction. Very good, 2009AD. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment. But I have to thank deee for the moment of Zen.

[SarahG]

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.


Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.

[hippifried]

Actually, Mr Big made it to the moon first.

Here's photographic proof of the launch.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/31/ed/408cc6da8da098a91b570110.L._AA280_.jpg

You mean the Moon belongs to the communists!!!!Of course not. The moon belongs to Gidney & Cloyd. If Armstrong had actually taken that step, he would've gotten scrootched for sure.

[deee757]

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

[deee757]

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.


Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a
single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.


http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Was called the United States of America when Hansen was elected

[deee757]

Ah, that's the distinction. Very good, 2009AD. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment. But I have to thank deee for the moment of Zen.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Even if we go with Sarah G's argument, his point about president of congress is completely wrong

[hippifried]

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.We don't do "parliament". The President is NOT a member of Congress.

[trish]

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

I can't, I'm going to sleep soon. But what do you think your example shows besides the fact that "President of the United States" is an ambiguous phrase? The issue of the Moon Landing doesn't turn on a point of language or misunderstanding based on a definition or an ambiguity.

[SarahG]

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.


Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a
single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.


http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Was called the United States of America when Hansen was elected

That was the name of the confederation/alliance, that's not quite the same as saying we were all integrated into one big federal government.

"Germany" called itself Germany at times when there was no legal entity of Germany, just a collection of states, kingdoms, and so forth. When our ambassador Gerad was sent to Germany in 1913, "Germany" as a legal entity didn't exist yet, consquently the kings of several German countries like Saxony were quite pissed off at us for not also giving them diplomatic recognition.

[deee757]

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

I can't, I'm going to sleep soon. But what do you think your example shows besides the fact that "President of the United States" is an ambiguous phrase? The issue of the Moon Landing doesn't turn on a point of language or misunderstanding based on a definition or an ambiguity.

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

[trish]

But I'm asking you about your analogy. It doesn't seem to apply.

[2009AD]

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

Are you 100% sure? You were not there.


yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,

1774? Where did you go to school?

[deee757]

But I'm asking you about your analogy. It doesn't seem to apply.


We have argued alot about different things trish, so u should know, i dont do analogies, I gather so called facts than speak on them. Once again I cant definitively say that the moon walk was BS, but u have to agree that u cant definitively say that it actually happened

[trish]

The link you provided was a YAHOO news, not from NASA. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What do you mean by the original footage? The transmissions were picked up and recorded simultaneously by NASA and many different television stations. So there are many original recordings. So what if NASA lost theirs.

[hippifried]

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

[trish]

But then what was your point of bringing up John Hanson, if it wasn't to point out the epistemic analogy that in both cases you weren't there to observe what went down. My claim is the epistemic parallels breakdown once one realizes the Hanson issue turns on a definition of a word (president) and the Moon Landing issue does not.

[deee757]

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

Are you 100% sure? You were not there.


yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,

1774? Where did you go to school?

Are you 100% sure? You were not there. Already said no

ea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,[/quote]

Sorry, 1776, but 74 is when randolph was elected

[deee757]

But then what was your point of bringing up John Hanson, if it wasn't to point out the epistemic analogy that in both cases you weren't there to observe what went down. My claim is the epistemic parallels breakdown once one realizes the Hanson issue turns on a definition of a word (president) and the Moon Landing issue does not.

I brought that up to point out the fact that what we have been taught to definitively believe does not make it the definitive truth

[trish]

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

[2009AD]

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

[deee757]

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.

[trish]

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

[deee757]

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

[deee757]

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

Is my point, in the words of Robert Wuhl, "if legend sounds better than history, teach the legend"
.

[hippifried]

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.
Huh? My reference was about the original TV coverage of the landing.

[trish]

Why would sounding better be a better recommendation than truth? That GW was the first president under the constitution is the truth, not legend. That Hansen was first under some other definition of "first president" is also true. No one's has been shown by your arguement to be teaching legend.

The only thing your example shows is that ambiguous phrases can be interpreted different ways. That little lesson, though true, has no relevance to the issue of the Moon Landing. It not as if you and I have different meanings of the "the Apollo 11 Moon Landing" and under one interpretation it happened and under another it didn't.

[trish]

sorry, Hippiefried. my misunderstanding.

[hippifried]

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.
He was. Prior to 1787, the United States of America wasn't a nation. It was a confederation of independent states. Like the EU.

[2009AD]

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

No, again you need to work on your reading comprehension. You did not understand the AP article, that's obvious.

[deee757]

Why would sounding better be a better recommendation than truth? That GW was the first president under the constitution is the truth, not legend. That Hansen was first under some other definition of "first president" is also true. No one's has been shown by your arguement to be teaching legend.

The only thing your example shows is that ambiguous phrases can be interpreted different ways. That little lesson, though true, has no relevance to the issue of the Moon Landing. It not as if you and I have different meanings of the "the Apollo 11 Moon Landing" and under one interpretation it happened and under another it didn't.

Ok, you were taught GW was the first president of the united states, I dont know about u, but no one said, the first president under our current constitution, they just said first president. That is legend, it sounds better than saying he was the 9th president since the US was established. Moon landing is what we were taught, but as technology gets more advanced this event has always lost footage, lost data, can not reproduce the specs involved, now we have a NASA article talking about how they lost the tapes and required studio reproduction. In this case its better for us if we believe the legend that we actually walked on the moon

[hippifried]

sorry, Hippiefried. my misunderstanding.
Really? I wouldn't have known it by your answer. I was replying to Deee. There was no Yahoo or RSS or internet in '69. It was live TV, via translator towers. Even cable was in it's infancy & only available in rural areas.

[yosi]

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

No, again you need to work on your reading comprehension. You did not understand the AP article, that's obvious.

deee757 understands only what he wants to understand, don't let some minor details like FACTS fool him :wink:

[trish]

Okay, then you admit, in the Hansen vs GW issue it's just a matter of definition of "first president", but the Moon Landing issue is a matter of evidence. The two are epistemically unrelated.

The footage of the Moon Landing still survives because NASA wasn't the only entity recording the original broadcast. The same is true of the telemetry. The most compelling evidence is the physical evidence. Anyone, if they go to NASA and get the lunar coordinates, can bounce a laser beam off the mirrors that were left at the Apollo 11 site. U.S. used to make measurement every day using those mirrors. Even though[] that program was recently cut, other observatories around the world are still dedicate[d] to using laser ranging to monitor the dynamics of the lunar orbit.

[edits in square brackets]

[hippifried]

NASA recorded over their tapes of the landing. Geezle! How bonehead is that? & these are the clowns that are supposed to have pulled off the biggest hoax in histiory with 1969 technology???

[hippifried]

Oh BTW: Those were reel to reel tapes. There were no VCRs in '69. I wonder if the people looking for the originals realize that. For christsake, these bozos might be looking for a cassette or a Betamax.

[trish]

Well that's what the YAHOO news link reported. Who knows if they were taped over, misplaced by the Smithsonian or sitting on the shelf alongside some old Marilyn Chambers porno reels.

[trish]

Well, I want to get some work done tomorrow morning, so I'm calling it a night. Nice to "see" you Hippiefried. Night everybody. And no deee, my leaving doesn't mean I relinquish my position.

[JerseyMike]

Looks like some people need to watch the Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.

[hippifried]

Somebody might have just mislabeled the cans. It's a conspiracy to see who can be the most stupid.

[trish]

As you probably remember, a few years ago Moon rocks, stolen from the Smithsonian Institution, showed up on ebay.

Now I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories. Here’s a conspiracy that I find a hundred time[s] more believable than any of the others I heard in this thread: Several decades ago, a couple of self-styled “entrepreneurs” working as sorters and stackers in the NASA archives decided to steal the reels documenting the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. Once in their possession they sold them to some really fat cat self-styled entrepreneur who also owns a wall of stolen pieces of Art from the British Museum, the Louvre etc. He shows the reels once in a blue moon to his wealthy asshole friends while gloating over the fact that only he is rich enough, powerful enough and selfish enough to own the original NASA reels.

Now it’s just a story. I made it up. I have no evidence. I don’t believe it’s true. It’s probably not true. Given all that, it still has more credibility than the allegation that the Apollo 11 Moon Landing never happened. For one thing: if you believe that the missing reels are evidence that the Moon landing was faked you have to explain why their absence is not evidence that they were simply stolen by two louts who sold them to a wealthy collector.

[edits in square brackets]

[trish]

double post...one deleted :cry:

[tommymageeshemales2]

double post...one deleted :cry:

and you're happy to leave the other??

[trish]

Ouch! Aren't we snippy?

[tommymageeshemales2]

snippy! moi?........................yeah, you're right

[trish]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter takes first photos of the Apollo 11 Landing Site.

[tg4me]

Those closeups mean nothing. They could be a black/white photo of a dustmite on Manual Noriega cheek. The footprints however are harder to explain..

[trish]

The laser ranging experiments, which can be performed by any one at any time and are performed everyday to monitor the Moon's orbital dynamics, are the best physical proof of the existence of the cubical mirror arrays placed on the Moon by the Apollo 11 crew.

I realize the pictures taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will not be convincing to the die-hard hoax theorists. But just because they're not clear enough or close enough to be persuasive to everyone doesn't mean they "mean nothing." The exact coordinates of each single dustmite matches the exact coordinates of where it's supposed to be. The photos are the start of a progression. With future missions ( perhaps not all of them sponsered by NASA) and future photos, those dustmites will become larger and clearer. What will happen when the resolution of the photos makes it indisputable that we're looking at a lunar landing module? The hoax theorists will claim it's not the real lunar landing module. They will claim it was just now placed there and photograhed. But the dustmite photos and the progression of closer and closer photos bringing the blurred site into resolution will dispute that claim. Now all we have to do is wait.

But hey, you don't really have to wait for proof. We already have the laser ranging experiments.

[tg4me]

I really didn't think it was a dustmite. I do believe we landed on the moon...for the record.

[trish]

Thanks for the clarification, but also thanks for your prior post because it did raise an issue I wanted to address.

[deee757]

I have more stuff for you trish, but I don't have the time to go back and forth today, so Imma save it for a day that i will be home

[yosi]

I do believe we landed on the moon...for the record.

some poeple believe that we landed on the record ......"for the moon" :wink:

if it didn't happen in their lifetime , it doesn't exists , never happened , it's just a conspiracy.

[deee757]

'Moon rock' in Dutch museum is just petrified wood

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_not_moon_rock