Of Fake News and Conspiracy Theories

[Judas Maccabeus]

Unfortunately I think this authors approach assumes way too much and seems dualistic. Conspiracy theories and real stories can both have so many problems and not always because they are fake or true but because of the way they presented and sometimes information inserted to prove a point.

For example: I am not saying they landing on the moon or they didn't - but I have looked at pictures of the moon landing and have not seen stars in the background - Why? I've seen pictures of dust flying up from the moon rover but yet heard on the radio an experiment a few years back where they intentionally flew a space ship into the moon and there was no dust because it has no atmosphere - so how did the moon rover kick up dust? How come space scientists in Europe recently claimed that the moon is in earths atmosphere? - So what does this mean to the original moon landing? And what I heard on the radio?
For me there are too many contradictions for me to say that we landed on the moon but neither do I run around saying that they didn't and they are lying. However just because I am unwilling to say one way or the other I get called a conspiracy theorist is what often happens? It seemed like the writing leaned that way a bit... Unless I misunderstood?

I'd rather just say I don't really know for sure and I have questions about many things, while still believing most main stream science - I hope that is okay.

Wade, here is the only explanation about the moon landings that makes sense to me:

They really went to the moon, and there are artifacts on the lunar surface to prove it.

But they lacked the bandwidth to send back real-time video, and this was unacceptable to Richard Nixon. This was the biggest "live" TV event in history and Nixon made them come up with a solution. If you were alive then, you would remember - that even crime was lowered during that time, as everyone was glued to the TV to watch the moon landing.

But the bandwidth technology to transmit the video just wasn't there in 1969. And Nixon demanded a solution.

So they got Stanley Kubrick to open up his studio in London, where he had filmed "2001 - A Space Odyssey". For this service, NASA later let Kubrick use their advanced imaging cameras to film "Barry Lyndon" using only candlelight as NASA said it was "payment for services rendered." You also see references to Apollo 11 in "The Shining" (the sweater the kid wears) and other Kubrick films. Kubrick thought the US governemnt would kill him if the truth got out, and lived as a hermit the rest of his life. He would not leave London, and every set Kubrick used and every film Kubrick made was produced in London after this point.

Kubrick was meticulous and left very few holes in the original Apollo 11 videos, but the later Apollo film makers did have errors.

So that is why you see an Astronaut skipping past the American flag on the "moon" and causing the flag to wave from the wind coming off his body. I believe that was Apollo 12. There are other "light logic" and many other errors in the videos.

The moon videos are slowed down to make it look like there is less gravity on the moon so that the astronauts "float" over the surface as they skip around. Speed the video up, and they are just skipping around normally. No one is jumping 10 feet off the ground in 1/6th of the gravity.

By slowing the videos down to mimic less gravity, many times the activities of the astronauts do not match their conversations, as the slowed down video has to lag the real time conversations. It is quite embarrassing, really.

But yes, they did actually go to the moon, the moon rocks they brought back are real, and they left reflectors on the lunar surface that will still bounce a laser. And they made some legitimate videos of the actual landing from inside the lander - that are really awesome. It was quite an achievement.

But the supposed "real time" videos that everyone saw, they are a complete hoax. They had to be.

John

Bandwidth is a more of a digital concept. There were only analog images in that period, so speed (how fast you can send images, number of frames per second) and resolution (number of lines in the image) are the only parameters they needed to worry about. Also, analog images are notoriously hard to alter or fake, without leaving tracks. With his people in London, you could have more or less counted on someone getting a few to many pints in em’, and spilling the beans.

Also those images were not encrypted, they were sent in the clear.

J.M.

[Ken]

You are forgetting about the cold war which was still at a peak in the late 1960s with Vietnam, the Czech uprising in 1968, the 6-Day war and so forth. The Soviets had a space program that nearly the rival of NASA as well as all the same deep-space radio-telescopes and monitoring equipment. Had the US tried to fake the moon broadcasts and send it from terrestrial location it would have been immediately and gleefully exposed as a fraud by the Soviets. Who were, of course, monitoring every step of every Apollo mission. Just as we monitored theirs. The Soviets, as well as many other scientific installations around the world had the technological capacity to monitor the source of radio broadcasts. That isn't something you can fake. With just three antennas you can pinpoint the exact location of any transmission in space. Any university physics department could easily do it. Many of them were.

You are also calling the astronauts and many hundreds of scientists at NASA liars and frauds. Every single one of them decided to participate in a massive fraud on the say so of Richard Nixon? Who wasn't even particularly popular in the scientific community at all? That's not even remotely plausible.

Ken,

You made some really good points.

So why did the flag on the moon wave in the wind when the astronaut skipped past it?

Google is your friend: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48774080

Also

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97589&page=1

The flag was deployed at 4 days, 14 hours and 9 minutes into the mission and it wasn't easy.

In Edgar M. Cortwright's book, Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, astronaut Buzz Aldrin recalled what happened when he and Neil Armstrong tried to set the flag up.

"It took both of us to set it up and it was nearly a public relations disaster," he wrote, "a small telescoping arm was attached to the flagpole to keep the flag extended and perpendicular. As hard as we tried, the telescope wouldn't fully extend. Thus the flag which should have been flat had its own permanent wave."

The wrong coating had been applied to the telescoping rod, so it wouldn't fully extend, which is why the flag looks like it is waving in the wind. Ironically, that famous picture of Buzz Aldrin posing next to the flag is often cited as evidence by conspiracy theorists as proof the mission to the moon was a hoax.

They claim the rippled flag could not have actually been on the moon since there is no breeze on the moon. The flag's waves, they argue, were created by a breeze in some top secret NASA stage set depicting the moon's surface.

[JohnHurt]

I don't think Google or YouTube is really our friend. I checked on YouTube and nearly every good video about the moon landing videos that contradicted the official government line had been taken down. Five years ago, there were several good videos.

One video showed that after the flag had been planted on the moon and was stationary, and when the astronaut skipped by the flag about a foot away from it, the wind from the astronaut's body caused the flag to sway back and forth.

This video has been eliminated down the memory hole, and replaced with a video of the flag being installed and waving - that is easily explainable to anyone with common sense. Yes, it did sway in this second video as it was being installed. So this second video was "disinformation" to cover up when people searched for the first video.

The other video I could not explain was when they put a piece of paper with a circular hole in it over one of the portholes in the capsule - to make the earth look much further away than it really was. I found only part of this video, with the evidence of where the paper was removed at the end of the video and the earth much closer, cut out from the clip. The partial clip is found at 7:58 in this YouTube video:

And that one video is the only a single "moon hoax" video I could find on YouTube that was contrary to the government line.
And the video wasn't that good. YouTube and Google are really getting good at censoring ideas they don't like.

The argument about the Russians must have verified the video transmission from the moon - which is "proof" that the videos are authentic- would be so, if there were evidence of it. Yes, we really went to the moon, and yes the Russians probably monitored the telemetry and audio data. But if they did not collect the video signal - would they tell the world that they could not find something? That they just did not get a signal? You really cannot prove a negative, or offer a negative as proof. And the Russians knew that we really went to the moon, so why would they worry about American propaganda? They do the same things too.

The video portion supposedly came from the moon to the radio receivers in Australia and elsewhere. If the video did not originate at the moon, then one possibility is that the video originated by being played at these radio receivers, and patched in as authentic. Who would know?

Ken, I won't argue with you on this. I worked with someone that worked at NASA during this time. I was friends with someone that worked with Von Braun. I know we went to the moon. No doubt about it.

But I cannot logically explain some of the wacky errors I have seen in the original NASA moon videos. Videos that now no longer exist. There is something wrong, or perhaps something too "right", when certain items are censored.

I like what Wade said, that when there is information on both sides, perhaps we should "sit on the fence" and not take a side. Otherwise, we will be forced to believe that Oswald could really shoot 4 shots from a bolt action rifle in 6 seconds, or that jet fuel, which is kerosene, can melt a steel girder so quickly that 3 buildings can fall down into their own footprint after being hit by only two planes.

My brain just won't believe some of these things.

Sitting on the fence sounds much safer.

Very nice discussion. Thanks. John Hurt

[Valerie]

I saw this post and there was something that I called attention to in this proclamation- but was met with vehement opposition in not agreeing with this-
Is there anything that you see in this 'connecting the dots' that you don't agree with? I'm running it by here because sometimes y'all straighten me out on things


Connecting the Dots.
•Gates
•Walmart stock holder 11 million shares
•Costco, stock holder investor in Costco Poultry Center 1.7million chickens slaughter a week in Nebraska
•Raikes, Microsoft, former CEO Gates Foundation, Costco, AAGR
•Komi Annon , World Health Organization AAGR + GATES
ARE WE SEEING WHY BIG BOX STORES STAYED OPEN AND
SMALL BUSINESSES CLOSED??!!

What you are observing is very real, the economy is increasingly given over to the powerful to make themselves even more powerful. But this was the trend for decades. COVID has only illuminated and accelerated the reality that has been playing out in slow motion. So slow that most don't notice. BUT, correlation is not causation. Just because two events occur simultaneously does not prove one cause the other.

I would say the economic aristocracy are opportunists, narcissistic, blind to the plight of the common man, and God will judge them for all that, but I don't yet see evidence they are intentionally creating, promoting or sustaining plague for economic dominance.

Thank you for your insight. I agree, I had started the post before on Denny Kenaston & conspiracy theories because I am being hit with so much of things like this right now- and it's true that some are theories, some are fact- conclusions can be made or misguided, etc. I'm truly getting tired of seeing Bill Gates being talked about more than Jesus but I understand that a lot of Christians feel the need to warn because they care about people-

What I disagreed with the above statement was the last line. SMALL BUSINESSES CLOSED?
During these months of lockdown, we saw a lot of stores, small ones- opened. The criteria was met to remain open. It wasn't just Costco & Walmart- there were lots of stores open that sold essentials, even some small business in my town that remained open just because they had 'some' essentials-when we went down to Holmes County, we witnessed lots of stores open because they sold food.
I guess to me, to state small business closed was a false statement. It really depended on what they sold as to whether they could remain open or not. Government was trying to discern what could remain open, what was essential, determine the criteria, all based on what they were being told about the spread, or slowing down the spread of 'the virus'.
As soon as you make points that include a false statement (at least I saw it as false) then you have to question other statements- I think it makes those trying to, as they say, 'open eyes' look to have their own thinking misguided. IMHO

[Ken]

I don't think Google or YouTube is really our friend. I checked on YouTube and nearly every good video about the moon landing videos that contradicted the official government line had been taken down. Five years ago, there were several good videos.

One video showed that after the flag had been planted on the moon and was stationary, and when the astronaut skipped by the flag about a foot away from it, the wind from the astronaut's body caused the flag to sway back and forth.

This video has been eliminated down the memory hole, and replaced with a video of the flag being installed and waving - that is easily explainable to anyone with common sense. Yes, it did sway in this second video as it was being installed. So this second video was "disinformation" to cover up when people searched for the first video.

The other video I could not explain was when they put a piece of paper with a circular hole in it over one of the portholes in the capsule - to make the earth look much further away than it really was. I found only part of this video, with the evidence of where the paper was removed at the end of the video and the earth much closer, cut out from the clip. The partial clip is found at 7:58 in this YouTube video:

And that one video is the only a single "moon hoax" video I could find on YouTube that was contrary to the government line.
And the video wasn't that good. YouTube and Google are really getting good at censoring ideas they don't like.

The argument about the Russians must have verified the video transmission from the moon - which is "proof" that the videos are authentic- would be so, if there were evidence of it. Yes, we really went to the moon, and yes the Russians probably monitored the telemetry and audio data. But if they did not collect the video signal - would they tell the world that they could not find something? That they just did not get a signal? You really cannot prove a negative, or offer a negative as proof. And the Russians knew that we really went to the moon, so why would they worry about American propaganda? They do the same things too.

The video portion supposedly came from the moon to the radio receivers in Australia and elsewhere. If the video did not originate at the moon, then one possibility is that the video originated by being played at these radio receivers, and patched in as authentic. Who would know?

Ken, I won't argue with you on this. I worked with someone that worked at NASA during this time. I was friends with someone that worked with Von Braun. I know we went to the moon. No doubt about it.

But I cannot logically explain some of the wacky errors I have seen in the original NASA moon videos. Videos that now no longer exist. There is something wrong, or perhaps something too "right", when certain items are censored.

I like what Wade said, that when there is information on both sides, perhaps we should "sit on the fence" and not take a side. Otherwise, we will be forced to believe that Oswald could really shoot 4 shots from a bolt action rifle in 6 seconds, or that jet fuel, which is kerosene, can melt a steel girder so quickly that 3 buildings can fall down into their own footprint after being hit by only two planes.

My brain just won't believe some of these things.

Sitting on the fence sounds much safer.

Very nice discussion. Thanks. John Hurt

I know this stuff is fun to chew on. But to believe any of it means you are calling hundreds of good people liars and frauds. Based on....some grainy YouTube video of unknown provenance? And to what end? Simply to make an unpopular president happy?

One of the classic characteristics of a conspiracy theory is that lack of evidence is put forward as evidence.

[Robert]

I see no reason to doubt the moon landings. We had/have the technology to do it.

[Wade]

I know this stuff is fun to chew on. But to believe any of it means you are calling hundreds of good people liars and frauds. Based on....some grainy YouTube video of unknown provenance? And to what end? Simply to make an unpopular president happy?

One of the classic characteristics of a conspiracy theory is that lack of evidence is put forward as evidence.

This is why I struggle with the attitudes on here and the OP.

So you really think that if someone has questions about blaring inconsistencies in moon landing pictures, or questions about building 7 falling out of no where, or why the ocean doesn't round off on from side to side they are calling people liars or frauds...?

Why suspect and assume peoples motives are wrong? Does anyone else see that that is the exact same things they speak against? And could we not be guilty of: "Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." if we are not careful?

[Ernie]

Google is your friend:

This quote could easily become the beginning of either a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory.

[silentreader]

Google is your friend:

This quote could easily become the beginning of either a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory.

"It is a weird."

[Ken]

I know this stuff is fun to chew on. But to believe any of it means you are calling hundreds of good people liars and frauds. Based on....some grainy YouTube video of unknown provenance? And to what end? Simply to make an unpopular president happy?

One of the classic characteristics of a conspiracy theory is that lack of evidence is put forward as evidence.

This is why I struggle with the attitudes on here and the OP.

So you really think that if someone has questions about blaring inconsistencies in moon landing pictures, or questions about building 7 falling out of no where, or why the ocean doesn't round off on from side to side they are calling people liars or frauds...?

Why suspect and assume peoples motives are wrong? Does anyone else see that that is the exact same things they speak against? And could we not be guilty of: "Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." if we are not careful?

If people are claiming that the moon landing never happened. Or that maybe it did happen but part of it was faked, then yes, the people making those claims are indeed saying that many thousands of scientists are liars and frauds.

There were over 400,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians involved in the Apollo missions. https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... ck-up-team

They are exactly who is being accused of perpetrating a massive lie, fraud, cover-up, or whatever you want to call it.

You can't have it both ways. If the moon landings were a lie and a fraud, then someone (many thousands of people) had to have been doing the lying and committing the fraud.