Wednesday, 26 August 2015

I Said CMI Often Makes Good Articles

Now, John Gideon Hartnett is really eager not to get Creationism, which he promotes, conflated with the theory that Moon Landing was a hoax. Very possibly it was not. Geocentrism does not depend on calling it a hoax. Seeing Earth turn from Moon, if it happened, doesn't prove Earth turns any more than it proves Moon turns around Earth. So, Lunar mission, even if genuine, is not a refutation of Geocentrism.

However, that does not mean it cannot possibly be a hoax. Here is how John Gideon Hartnett argues it cannot be:

NASA did land astronauts in the moon in 1969, and after that. That is a historical fact.

Well, it is at least a historical fact we were shown they did.

That even the hoax theory does not dispute.

The conspiracy theory claims that it was all faked in a Hollywood film studio.

I would, if opting for hoax, be more inclined to say it was filmed in Egypt : desert looks like moon landscape a lot (colour can be manipulated), and a pyramid could have been briefly reflected onto a face shield of some astronaut.

This hoax had developed to such a point that NASA used its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to take new photographs in 2011 from an altitude of 50 km (31 miles) of the surface of the moon that clearly show astronaut footprints, the lunar rover tracks and spacecraft scorch marks.

These could have been faked too.

The fact of the moon landing is a historical question for which there is strong supporting evidence.

Like the fact it is a historical fact?

Or ... now we come to the point:

To add to this is the testimony of probably a hundred thousand people involved in the Apollo missions.

Suppose a factory worker or head of a factory testifies something like this:

[Fictitious testimony:]"I was told to produce a plastic that could withstand the cold and keep astronauts warm in outer space, and I did, I tested it on contraptions getting down to +3 Kelvin or liquid Helium, and it isolated like a thermos, the tea was still hot"

Well, I would believe him. But that does not mean he was there when the three stepped into Apollo 3, pretty few men where there at close hand, and these could have been handpicked.

So, it could theoretically be a hoax, most of the hundred thousand people "involved" where not so at sufficiently close hand to know better than the man in the street. Same for landing on return.

Most of what they knew, they, like we, were simply told it was so.

And that would be the case with a Russian claim too. If there came one.

The point is, most employees do not act like the teens in Famous Five. Even if they see one little suspicious detail, they soon forget it, if they think it is best for keeping the job. Georgina "George" Kirrin has a real talent for being where she is not supposed to be. Those who have that tend to get sacked and most people do not want that.

Perhaps Enid Blyton herself was shut up in a mental hospital for finding out one little thing too much, and reacting emotionally, and trying to hide things by talking of the characters she pitied in terms of their fictitious names in the novels. Or the names of their counterparts as to character. By 1968, things were getting tough for characters like George or Julian. If not as much in most America as in England, at least in some areas.

And yes, space missions would be one of them.

To cover that up would take a deception of gigantic proportions.

Not so gigantic after all.

However, when it comes to Creationism, he has a point: refuting Evolution is not a question of a hoax theory, it is a question of reasoning badly about the evidence that is usually not a hoax (with some Piltdown exception, and perhaps ill mounted Neanderthal skulls as well).

CMI : Apollo moon landing hoax and the ‘Face on Mars’
Published: 25 August 2015 (GMT+10) by John G. Hartnett

And, as said, I don't need to assume Moon Landing a Hoax in order to maintain Geocentrism as possible:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : And Ibn Baz changed his mind for that ...


deretour : "Moontruth"? Why?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Pope St Zephyrinus

PS, I came across another article, where I had once again made the point that Geocentrism has no need to discredit NASA:

Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.
(on this blog)


  1. I can quote a little line from a Reuters news, right?

    Because NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV
    technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be
    displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for

    Read more at redOrbit : NASA can’t find original tape of moon landing
    by ssavage : August 14, 2006

    Btw, this was linked to by someone who seems to be a landing debunker.

    Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
    October 1, 2009
    by David McGowan

    But the link is there (while I am linking, at least) independently of the conclusion he is drawing among other facts from this one:

    Some of you are probably thinking that everyone has already seen the footage anyway, when it was allegedly broadcast live back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or on NASA’s website, or on YouTube, or on numerous television documentaries. But you would be mistaken. The truth is that the original footage has never been aired, anytime or anywhere – and now, since the tapes seem to have conveniently gone missing, it quite obviously never will be.

  2. And in part III (there are internal links), Dave McGowan reminds us of the radiation problem. Those who walked on the moon, were they by any chance dying in cancer after exposure to too much radiation?