Was Joseph Fielding Smith wrong about the Moon and Space?

[mchlwise]

There's really nothing to discuss for any of these I think is the problem, which is why no one has adequately attempted to address them.

Cowell, this is the kind of comment that shows just how closed-minded about this you really are. I specifically addressed each and every issue, and you chose and continue to choose to ignore anything I have said about it, and instead simply say that no one has "adequately attempted to address them" and go on with the conclusions you have jumped to while turning a blind eye to what has been presented to you in answer to your very question.

This is why this thread is pointless, as far as you're concerned, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to try to have an intelligent discussion with you. You obviously have your mind made up and there will be no changing it.

I can only hope that others who may read the thread are more open to possibilities.

[Cowell]

I specifically addressed each and every issue

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4) Is this the Nevada high desert?

We've addressed this before, and I believe that they can be possibly explained by either wiggling the flag pole as it's held, or brushing it as they walked by.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 556#p86556
Your argument relies too heavily on a proposition that is less than likely. I want to hear your "logical" explanation for why the flag moved after the actor-naut did not touch the flag.

5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related) This guy is floating, why?

See the discussion of "wires" above. http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 205#p87205

mchlwise, as I said, you never addressed the dangling effect. I don't know why you say "See discussion above" and continue to assert that you adequately addressed everything because you never addressed this issue. See the video-clip at the relevant referenced time.

7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1) Why did they obviously fake this as discussed? See where they turn the lights on. Just as the video says, they filmed from the back of the ship to make it look like they were far away from the earth. Why were they so close to the earth if they were supposed to be halfway to the moon?

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 205#p87205
I suppose you did at least discuss this issue, mchlwise. It seems however, your idea of explaining something, if I may be frank, comes off a little more like avoiding the issue to me. In this instance and in the flag moving instance, what I saw on film appeared perfectly clear (i.e., in the above clip at the relevant time, the lights come on and the camera never changes positions or zooms out). You basically always seem to think it is not clear how far away the astronauts are, or whether the camera is zoomed in on the window, or whether the angle of the camera is throwing things off, etc., etc. I prefer addressing questions head on like..."although I, mchlwise, believe the astronaut may have touched the flag, assuming he did not touch the flag, the movement of the flag can be explained by quantum physics' parallel universe theory - he was both on the moon and on the Nevada high desert at the same time." Or whatever other creative explanation you can come up with. Otherwise, if you are wrong about him touching the flag, than there is no explanation. Everything depends on you being right about something that seems at best very iffy. Do you or does anyone else have a better explanation? If not, I rest my case.

...you chose and continue to choose to ignore anything I have said about it...turning a blind eye to what has been presented to you in answer to your very question...This is why this thread is pointless, as far as you're concerned, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to try to have an intelligent discussion with you. You obviously have your mind made up and there will be no changing it...I can only hope that others who may read the thread are more open to possibilities.

Not so, mchlwise.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 731#p86731
Just because I don't agree with you [mchlwise] doesn't mean I'm not open minded. I have been discussing the evidence with you. I answered your question about touching the flag. I told you to watch the rest of the video that I posted which does give a frame of reference [you claimed it did not give a frame of reference...see picture in link]...As far as the flag issue, the video above is even more clear on this. I considered your statement about him touching the flag, watched the video and it appeared to me that this was definitely not the case. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss any of these things further.

Ironically, you have ignored the above statements, mchlwise. Contrary to what you and others may believe about me mchlwise, I am only interested in discovering the truth. When I am presented with truth, I recognize it. Sorry.

[shadow]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. It's easy to notice at about 40 seconds into the video. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it.

[Cowell]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. It's easy to notice at about 40 seconds into the video. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it.

Shadow, the relevant segment is at 2:37 not 0:40. I'm not asserting that the astronauts never at any time whatsoever touched the flag. I am asserting that at 2:37 in the relevant video, the flag clearly moves without being touched when the astronaut hops by which is impossible on the moon unless you can come up with a new theory that might win you the noble prize.

[mchlwise]

Cowell, I've given it my best shot, and at this point I'm sorry I put the time into it that I did, because it's clear to me that you either don't understand what I said, don't want to see anything other than what you think you've seen or both. Spending any more time with you on this issue is clearly going to go nowhere... so I wont.

I've said more than once in this thread that I wasn't there and don't KNOW one way or the other. Was it all faked? Maybe. Was JFS "right"? Maybe. None of the "evidence" against the official story, none of your videos, none of your hyperbole or that of any narrator, or anything else I've seen so far does anything to convince me that we didn't go.

Again, it's clear you won't ever see it differently than you presently do. That's fine, but I'm (once again) done with this thread as any further participation in it would only be a waste of precious time which I already don't have enough of.

[Cowell]

mchlwise,

It seems I may have offended you somewhere. If so, this was never the intention. But, I can't help point out the irony that you say I am the one that has made up his mind and cannot communicate about this. Why does someone have to agree with you in order for you to discuss an issue?

I did continue discussing the issue and you did not. I posted a picture with a frame of reference, and a newer clearer video, and asked a number of times if you had any further insight into the flag issue. You never responded, which is fine. I simply asked the forum if anyone had anymore insight around this.

I did appreciate you at least originally putting forth your interpretation of the videos. I mean that in all sincerity. If I perceive errors, or gaps in the analysis, I point them out. You are welcome to do the same.

Regards.

[shadow]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. It's easy to notice at about 40 seconds into the video. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it.

Shadow, the relevant segment is at 2:37 not 0:40. I'm not asserting that the astronauts never at any time whatsoever touched the flag. I am asserting that at 2:37 in the relevant video, the flag clearly moves without being touched when the astronaut hops by which is impossible on the moon unless you can come up with a new theory that might win you the noble prize.

Cowell, I don't think you understood my post. 40 seconds is relevant in understanding the placement of the flag so when you see the astronaut walking past it at 2:37 you can understand the placement of the flag. It isn't perpendicular to the astronaut. He walked right into it.

[Cowell]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it...[The flag is] perpendicular to the astronaut. He walked right into it.

Do you concede that there is no other possible way the flag could have moved?

Btw, the flag begins moving at about 2:36 before the astronaut passes it, and before he supposedly touches it, consistent with wind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Incidentally, same thing happens at the 0:40 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS8BS2EVtD4

[ithink]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it...[The flag is] perpendicular to the astronaut. He walked right into it.

Do you concede that there is no other possible way the flag could have moved?

Btw, the flag begins moving at about 2:36 before the astronaut passes it, and before he supposedly touches it, consistent with wind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Incidentally, same thing happens at the 0:40 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS8BS2EVtD4

Any discussion of the flag movements is futile and a waste of time in the light of the revelation that there are four reflector locations on the moon, placed there by apollo missions. If you can't explain those first, there is no point in discussing anything else.

[Cowell]

Any discussion of the flag movements is futile and a waste of time in the light of the revelation that there are four reflector locations on the moon, placed there by apollo missions. If you can't explain those first, there is no point in discussing anything else.

Uh, okay. There's a bunch of stuff on Mars too. The fact that everyone relies so heavily on the reflector argument speaks volumes to me about how little thought the general population has put into this.

List of man-made objects on Mars (This is a partial list. According to wikipedia, the list does not include smaller objects such as springs, fragments, parachutes, heatshields): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... ts_on_Mars

1 - Mars 2, Mars 3, and Mars 6 from the U.S.S.R.'s Mars program - a series of Mars unmanned landers and orbiters launched to Mars by the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. ('71, '71, & '73, respectively)
2 - U.S. - Viking 1 and 2 lander ('76 & '76)
3 - U.S. - Mars Pathfinder lander & Sojourner rover ('97)
4 - U.S. - Mars Climate Orbiter ('99)
5 - U.S. - Mars Polar Lander & Deep Space 2 ('99)
6 - U.K. - Beagle 2 ('03)
7 - U.S. -Spirit rover ('04)
8 - U.S. -Opportunity rover ('04)
9 - U.S. -Phoenix ('08)

Here's another helpful list to contemplate. The below are objects placed on the moon without man going there. There's also a bunch of stuff that has gone to the moon since the Apollo missions without man being there (after 1973).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... n_the_Moon

Luna 2 - USSR 1959
Ranger 4 - United States 1962
Ranger 6 - United States 1964
Ranger 7 - United States 1964
Luna 5 - USSR 1965
Luna 7 - USSR 1965
Luna 8 - USSR 1965
Ranger 8 - United States 1965
Ranger 9 - United States 1965
Luna 9 - USSR 1966
Luna 10 - USSR 1966
Luna 11 - USSR 1966
Luna 12 - USSR 1966
Luna 13 - USSR 1966
Surveyor 1 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 1 - United States 1966
Surveyor 2 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 2 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 3 - United States 1966
Surveyor 3 - United States 1967
Lunar Orbiter 4 - United States 1967
Surveyor 4 - United States 1967
Explorer 35 (IMP-E) - United States 1967
Lunar Orbiter 5 - United States 1967
Surveyor 5 - United States 1967
Surveyor 6 - United States 1967
Surveyor 7 - United States 1967
Luna 14 -USSR 1968
Apollo 10 LM descent stage - United States 1969
Luna 15 - USSR 1969

[shadow]

Do you concede that there is no other possible way the flag could have moved? No I don't concede that. I don't know how static electricity works on the moon for example. As I'm sure you're aware, static electricity can move objects that are close to each other without actually touching.

Btw, the flag begins moving at about 2:36 before the astronaut passes it, and before he supposedly touches it, consistent with wind. I don't see that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Incidentally, same thing happens at the 0:40 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS8BS2EVtD4

That second link is bogus and out of context as I'm sure you're aware Johnny. Compare the scene from the second link to the full version in the first link at about 40 seconds. When the astronaut walked next to it it was already moving because the second astronaut had moved it a few seconds before . And being consistent with the forces on the moon or lack thereof, the flag moves for a longer duration there than it would on earth -more proof that it actually did happen on the moon.

[Steven D]

Maybe somebody has already posted this. There is a great Youtube video about Stanley Kubric (sorry about the spelling) and the filming of the moon landing. It has interviews w/ Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and I think Rice. It was one of the more convincing moon conspiracy videos. The interviews with the politicians are especially interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm ... 3F&index=0

[Cowell]

Thanks for the link Steven D.

shadow,

Didn't realize the second link was out of context. You would be correct about that. Thanks for accusing me of knowing though.

The first link was in context, and the flag moved just a moment too soon for the motion to be due to the astronaut touching it. As for the duration the flag was moving, doesn't take a genius to see the videos were slowed down.

Still curious as to your answer to this: Do you concede that there is no other possible way the flag could have moved?

[ithink]

Any discussion of the flag movements is futile and a waste of time in the light of the revelation that there are four reflector locations on the moon, placed there by apollo missions. If you can't explain those first, there is no point in discussing anything else.

Uh, okay. There's a bunch of stuff on Mars too. The fact that everyone relies so heavily on the reflector argument speaks volumes to me about how little thought the general population has put into this.

List of man-made objects on Mars (This is a partial list. According to wikipedia, the list does not include smaller objects such as springs, fragments, parachutes, heatshields): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... ts_on_Mars

1 - Mars 2, Mars 3, and Mars 6 from the U.S.S.R.'s Mars program - a series of Mars unmanned landers and orbiters launched to Mars by the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. ('71, '71, & '73, respectively)
2 - U.S. - Viking 1 and 2 lander ('76 & '76)
3 - U.S. - Mars Pathfinder lander & Sojourner rover ('97)
4 - U.S. - Mars Climate Orbiter ('99)
5 - U.S. - Mars Polar Lander & Deep Space 2 ('99)
6 - U.K. - Beagle 2 ('03)
7 - U.S. -Spirit rover ('04)
8 - U.S. -Opportunity rover ('04)
9 - U.S. -Phoenix ('08)

Here's another helpful list to contemplate. The below are objects placed on the moon without man going there. There's also a bunch of stuff that has gone to the moon since the Apollo missions without man being there (after 1973).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... n_the_Moon

Luna 2 - USSR 1959
Ranger 4 - United States 1962
Ranger 6 - United States 1964
Ranger 7 - United States 1964
Luna 5 - USSR 1965
Luna 7 - USSR 1965
Luna 8 - USSR 1965
Ranger 8 - United States 1965
Ranger 9 - United States 1965
Luna 9 - USSR 1966
Luna 10 - USSR 1966
Luna 11 - USSR 1966
Luna 12 - USSR 1966
Luna 13 - USSR 1966
Surveyor 1 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 1 - United States 1966
Surveyor 2 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 2 - United States 1966
Lunar Orbiter 3 - United States 1966
Surveyor 3 - United States 1967
Lunar Orbiter 4 - United States 1967
Surveyor 4 - United States 1967
Explorer 35 (IMP-E) - United States 1967
Lunar Orbiter 5 - United States 1967
Surveyor 5 - United States 1967
Surveyor 6 - United States 1967
Surveyor 7 - United States 1967
Luna 14 -USSR 1968
Apollo 10 LM descent stage - United States 1969
Luna 15 - USSR 1969

Nice list. All these predate the placement of the first prisms, in 1969. The first corollary is that anything after '69 is irrelevant since the laser ranger experiment started in '69. Is there any evidence of lunar laser ranger activity before then?

Note also that the russian Lunokhud 2 moon rover (robot) has a prism on it too, but it doesn't perform as well as the "man placed prisms" because it wasn't placed properly. Anyone who has ever done any surveying can attest to the accuracy of a prism, but it must be place properly or it is useless. And a prism is not a "bunch of stuff" laying around.

So you have provided a nice list, but does this list confirm the placement of the three (Apollo 11, 14, and 15) laser ranger setups by robot? And why include the USSR, would they be in in this conspiracy also? And all of the trips on your list are nowhere near the sites of Apollo 11, 14, and 15. Even one degree on the moon is a long way apart.

And what is the relevance of stuff on mars vs. the moon?

And remember the question at hand is not whether the moon photos or movies were doctored since that could be true but still not rule out the successful trip of man to the moon. The correct question to ask is did man stand on the moon, and did he place those reflectors there? After all, a prophet said man could not do it, so Houston, we have a problem.

[shadow]

shadow,

Didn't realize the second link was out of context. You would be correct about that. Thanks for accusing me of knowing though.

The first link was in context though wasn't it? By the way, doesn't take a genius to see the videos were slowed down.

Sorry about the accusation

[Cowell]

ithink,
The point is, we and another nation apparently had the technology to go to the moon long before the apollo missions and we put a bunch of stuff there. I don't see why a human being would be any better at hand placing something than anything else. This whole discussion on "stuff" on the moon is getting too far into the weeds. I don't know how exactly they got the reflectors there, I don't know what the Russians were and weren't in on. The point is, you can't say just because there are reflectors on the moon, "any discussion around it being a conspiracy is futile."

Sorry about the accusation

Shadow,
Appreciate that. No worries.

[shadow]

Still curious as to your answer to this: Do you concede that there is no other possible way the flag could have moved?

Just to clarify, I think the flag moved because it was touched. However, I don't concede that there isn't another way the flag could move. For example, I think static electricity acts the same way there as it does here, probably exaggerated there because of the lack of humidity. If so, then a close encounter of an astronaut with the flag could move it without physical contact.

[armedtotheteeth]

Maybe somebody has already posted this. There is a great Youtube video about Stanley Kubric (sorry about the spelling) and the filming of the moon landing. It has interviews w/ Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and I think Rice. It was one of the more convincing moon conspiracy videos. The interviews with the politicians are especially interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm ... 3F&index=0

I'm pretty sure that was fake.

[ready2prepare]

Maybe somebody has already posted this. There is a great Youtube video about Stanley Kubric (sorry about the spelling) and the filming of the moon landing. It has interviews w/ Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and I think Rice. It was one of the more convincing moon conspiracy videos. The interviews with the politicians are especially interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm ... 3F&index=0

Here is a video deliberately produced as a spoof
on conspiracy theorists, and you BELIEVE it?

It was, at least, very entertaining.
Really strings you along. Enjoyed it
very much.

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

[Cowell]

Shadow, or anyone...what about the dangling effect?

5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related) This guy is floating, why?

[ithink]

This whole discussion on "stuff" on the moon is getting too far into the weeds. I don't know how exactly they got the reflectors there, I don't know what the Russians were and weren't in on.

The weeds? If you or anyone else can't disprove the placement of the reflectors by man, then they must have been put there by man. I've been looking into the moon conspiracy stuff for about 10 years. Only a few weeks ago was I made aware of these reflectors being there. I don't wonder why none of the theorists ever mentioned them -- they have no explanation for them, and if they don't (and they don't), then any discussion of a flag waving in the breeze is like whistling in the dark.

And if you can't show the russians were not in on anything, then they were not until you can.

The simplest explanation is that men went to the moon. They put reflectors there. They gathered up rocks which have been passed around for decades undisputed as moon rocks. Men such as Neil Armstrong, a Mormon, say they did go there. Until the evidence they were there is refuted, the only logical choice is to accept they did as they say they did at least three times.

[Mr. Tissue Box]

This whole discussion on "stuff" on the moon is getting too far into the weeds. I don't know how exactly they got the reflectors there, I don't know what the Russians were and weren't in on.

Men such as Neil Armstrong, a Mormon, say they did go there.

Neil Armstrong is LDS?

[Cowell]

If you or anyone else can't disprove the placement of the reflectors by man, then they must have been put there by man.

Why could they not have been put there by any number of expeditions to the moon that didn't involve man going there? Why do we assume man put them there, unless we can prove otherwise? How about, you prove to me that man had to personally place them there and that it couldn't have been done during the over 30 unmanned missions to the moon before Apollo 11.

I've been looking into the moon conspiracy stuff for about 10 years...the only logical choice is to accept they did as they say they did at least three times.

Well, going into your 10th year of study, it might be helpful for you to know the government claims there were six manned missions to the moon, not three. (Just joking with you.)

Only a few weeks ago was I made aware of these reflectors being there. I don't wonder why none of the theorists ever mentioned them -- they have no explanation for them, and if they don't (and they don't), then any discussion of a flag waving in the breeze is like whistling in the dark.

As I said, I find it telling that so many people hang their hat on the reflectors argument. There were over 30 unmanned missions to the moon before the first supposed manned mission...apparently we had even sent unmanned missions to Mars. If "conspiracy theorists" don't bring it up, it is probably because they know how illogical most fellow citizens are and they don't need to give them any more rope to hang themselves.

And if you can't show the russians were not in on anything, then they were not until you can.

I think you missed my point on the Russians. I was simply emphasizing the technological advancements around the world during that time, and these two countries capabilitites. From that point of view, I find the argument very silly that man had to place the reflectors on the moon.

The simplest explanation is that men went to the moon.

It is not the simplest. That is what is so strange about all this. It is easier explanation to except. It is not the simplest.

They put reflectors there. They gathered up rocks which have been passed around for decades undisputed as moon rocks.

Space probes and robots were also used to gather moon rocks as early as 1970:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 092669.stm

Men such as Neil Armstrong, a Mormon, say they did go there. Until the evidence they were there is refuted...

Neil Armstrong is a Mormon? Not sure if that is the case, or why that matters. I guess the assumption is he is more likely to tell the truth if he is Mormon? Or maybe we should like him more so we should like the moon story more? not sure.

By the way, isn't the point of this thread a discussion around how much of the evidence is or can be refuted? Oh wait, but we can't talk about that because of the reflectors...I forgot.

[armedtotheteeth]

Everything I have found points to brother Armstrong being a Protestant Christian FYI. But really, what's that have to do with anything.

[shadow]

If there were 30 unmanned missions to the moon, what reason is there to NOT send man? What is it that would make sending man to the moon impossible?