"Moreover, in the 1990s high-resolution computer analyses revealed that the world-famous “Zapruder film” showing the 1963 JFK assassination was in fact a sophisticated fabrication. Thus, passing off simulated moon landings as real would not constitute a unique or inconceivable accomplishment."
Seriously? You don't need high-resolution computer analyses to know that the Zapruder film was a fake and the evidence for the fakery of the JFK assassination abounds.
The thing is even if you can fake certain things without detection, the notion that you can fake absolutely everything for the moon landings without detection is absurd ... and it hasn't been done.
It's not enough to show that something could have been faked, you need to show evidence of fakery ... and there simply isn't any. Moreover, reality is manifested in ways utterly alien to fakery, eg, just the faintest radial exhaust pattern under the lunar module and tiny amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads only visible in high-res photos using the magnifying tool.
What the skeptics need is coherence of fakery, not isolated elements that they think could have been faked or couldn't have happened the way they're portrayed. Virtually all arguments claiming anomalies have been addressed.
I don't know. I think there are still several arguments on both sides that haven't been addressed or refuted. Have you looked into the gravitation anomalies or the rocket engines? They claim they can't build them anymore. I guess it'd be easier to accept Apollo if they could repeat it, but Nasa has failed to do so for over 20 years. And why block others from visiting the sites? The Apollo landing modules look fake as f###, too.
The fact that they have totally faked other events doesn't help, either. The Boston bombing one blew my mind. To my knowledge they still haven't admitted that the Zapruder film is a forgery. This goes much deeper than the magic bullet or frame 313.
There's loads of faked events ... and they are all obviously faked. The abundance of fakery is misleading because it makes people think it's easy. Well, it is easy but it's not easy to fake things without detection. Faking and faking without detection are two entirely different phenomena, especially for something on the scale of the moon landings. Yeah, they fake stuff really sloppily and get away with it - that's just the Emperor's New Clothes effect that's worked like a charm for centuries.
The most important thing is the evidence for going. There's mountains of the stuff so the fact that they can't make the same rockets now is irrelevant. The evidence says they went, end of. If you go into a banquet in an isolated venue and there's delicious food on the table but you know there's no food source for 2,000km and you don't know of any way the food could have got to the venue you don't say, "Oh there's no way for this seeming food to get here, it can't be real," do you? Obviously, there's a way it got there and you just don't know about it.
What gravitation anomalies? Just because someone says they see an anomaly doesn't mean there is one. So many supposed anomalies alleged by people who have too little knowledge to be declaring something an anomaly have been explained.
The Apollo LEMs look as fake as f*** to people who know little about them. Here's an explanation for why they look fake. It's one of the Dave McKeegan videos you can find at the link I put above in the article. I highly recommend his videos for explaining quite a number of alleged anomalies. If you saw a Ferrari with a dust cover on it would you say, "That looks like a pile of crap."?
The video by McKeegan also begins poorly with a false comparison to airplanes crossing the Atlantic. He even thought Lindbergh was the first person to do it. Later he notes that "these days, there are 1000s of people crossing the Atlantic every day", not realizing what this implies. He even acknowledges the landing and starting sequences could never be tested before Apollo 11. So again, this won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that many arguments made by "deniers" were weak or flawed or wrong. It's just that I think there's still a lot of strangeness and unanswered questions in this case. Out.
Yes. Even McKeegan acknowledges that it looks fake, he simply tries to explain why, but that's quite hypothetical. It was an untested device that allegedly performed flawlessly, and yet modern lunar landers crash regularly. The fact is that Nasa was simulating these missions so realistically that even their own staff couldn't tell if something was real or not. And today they aren't able to do it anymore. And they won't let anybody visit these sites. It's all very strange.
I understand your view, but you have to understand that claims such as "the fact that they can't make the same rockets now is irrelevant" or "the evidence says they went, end of", or "they look fake because they were real" won't convince any doubters, ever. Comparing it to a food banquet in the desert won't help, either.
In the article there are links to other articles and videos checking the acceleration in the Apollo footage, finding lots of anomalies. They say these haven't yet been addressed, I don't know if it's true. Same with the acceleration of the Saturn V. I still think it's weird they allegedly built all of this in just a few years, after the program almost ended in 1967.
I saw the Mythbuster piece about Apollo, but it was just laughable. This type of "debunking" makes me even more suspicious. People wanted to visit the landing sites with robots and Nasa told them no. Why?
I recently discovered this fascinating article, they provide arguments from both sides of the debate: https://swprs.org/the-moon-landing-debate/.
Can you identify one debunking claim that stands up to scrutiny?
https://swprs.org/the-moon-landing-debate/.
"Moreover, in the 1990s high-resolution computer analyses revealed that the world-famous “Zapruder film” showing the 1963 JFK assassination was in fact a sophisticated fabrication. Thus, passing off simulated moon landings as real would not constitute a unique or inconceivable accomplishment."
Seriously? You don't need high-resolution computer analyses to know that the Zapruder film was a fake and the evidence for the fakery of the JFK assassination abounds.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/jfk-the-magic-bullet-theory-john
The thing is even if you can fake certain things without detection, the notion that you can fake absolutely everything for the moon landings without detection is absurd ... and it hasn't been done.
It's not enough to show that something could have been faked, you need to show evidence of fakery ... and there simply isn't any. Moreover, reality is manifested in ways utterly alien to fakery, eg, just the faintest radial exhaust pattern under the lunar module and tiny amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads only visible in high-res photos using the magnifying tool.
What the skeptics need is coherence of fakery, not isolated elements that they think could have been faked or couldn't have happened the way they're portrayed. Virtually all arguments claiming anomalies have been addressed.
I don't know. I think there are still several arguments on both sides that haven't been addressed or refuted. Have you looked into the gravitation anomalies or the rocket engines? They claim they can't build them anymore. I guess it'd be easier to accept Apollo if they could repeat it, but Nasa has failed to do so for over 20 years. And why block others from visiting the sites? The Apollo landing modules look fake as f###, too.
The fact that they have totally faked other events doesn't help, either. The Boston bombing one blew my mind. To my knowledge they still haven't admitted that the Zapruder film is a forgery. This goes much deeper than the magic bullet or frame 313.
There's loads of faked events ... and they are all obviously faked. The abundance of fakery is misleading because it makes people think it's easy. Well, it is easy but it's not easy to fake things without detection. Faking and faking without detection are two entirely different phenomena, especially for something on the scale of the moon landings. Yeah, they fake stuff really sloppily and get away with it - that's just the Emperor's New Clothes effect that's worked like a charm for centuries.
The most important thing is the evidence for going. There's mountains of the stuff so the fact that they can't make the same rockets now is irrelevant. The evidence says they went, end of. If you go into a banquet in an isolated venue and there's delicious food on the table but you know there's no food source for 2,000km and you don't know of any way the food could have got to the venue you don't say, "Oh there's no way for this seeming food to get here, it can't be real," do you? Obviously, there's a way it got there and you just don't know about it.
What gravitation anomalies? Just because someone says they see an anomaly doesn't mean there is one. So many supposed anomalies alleged by people who have too little knowledge to be declaring something an anomaly have been explained.
The Apollo LEMs look as fake as f*** to people who know little about them. Here's an explanation for why they look fake. It's one of the Dave McKeegan videos you can find at the link I put above in the article. I highly recommend his videos for explaining quite a number of alleged anomalies. If you saw a Ferrari with a dust cover on it would you say, "That looks like a pile of crap."?
Why the Lunar Module "looked fake" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD49-n3jZaw
The video by McKeegan also begins poorly with a false comparison to airplanes crossing the Atlantic. He even thought Lindbergh was the first person to do it. Later he notes that "these days, there are 1000s of people crossing the Atlantic every day", not realizing what this implies. He even acknowledges the landing and starting sequences could never be tested before Apollo 11. So again, this won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.
So do you still think the LEM looks as fake as f***?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that many arguments made by "deniers" were weak or flawed or wrong. It's just that I think there's still a lot of strangeness and unanswered questions in this case. Out.
Yes. Even McKeegan acknowledges that it looks fake, he simply tries to explain why, but that's quite hypothetical. It was an untested device that allegedly performed flawlessly, and yet modern lunar landers crash regularly. The fact is that Nasa was simulating these missions so realistically that even their own staff couldn't tell if something was real or not. And today they aren't able to do it anymore. And they won't let anybody visit these sites. It's all very strange.
I understand your view, but you have to understand that claims such as "the fact that they can't make the same rockets now is irrelevant" or "the evidence says they went, end of", or "they look fake because they were real" won't convince any doubters, ever. Comparing it to a food banquet in the desert won't help, either.
In the article there are links to other articles and videos checking the acceleration in the Apollo footage, finding lots of anomalies. They say these haven't yet been addressed, I don't know if it's true. Same with the acceleration of the Saturn V. I still think it's weird they allegedly built all of this in just a few years, after the program almost ended in 1967.
I saw the Mythbuster piece about Apollo, but it was just laughable. This type of "debunking" makes me even more suspicious. People wanted to visit the landing sites with robots and Nasa told them no. Why?