Apollo 17-20 missions ???

[cristian706]

1. What is the difference between "speculations" and "conspiracies"? (Circular argument) Some part of the definition for the term, "conspiracy", covers "speculation".

 

2. The example of the Snowden episode tells us, the audience and readers, that it is possible for agencies to collaborate keeping things hidden. This is a proven fact.

 

3. Just because it derives from "YouTube" does not discredit the source or evidence. This is a fallacy, it is called: Genetic Fallacy. For instance; there are videos, on Youtube, concerning Snowden.

 

4. Therefore, there are some things on YouTube which could be proven to be based on empirical evidence and factual information. If we believe in our five senses. Nevertheless, Rene Descarte came up with a thesis to critique the previous senses. However, I doubt that it would discredit the video evidence of the "men in black":

 

"The real Men in black caught on tape?" by StewieBlackOps

 

(Note: this should be considered separate evidence because the Apollo 20 video could be a hoax while the "men in black" video could be real)

 

5. Therefore, just because NASA says the Apollo 17-20 missions were cancelled does not mean that it never occurred. The previous links I gave presented several whistleblowers. Also, it could also be the case that the missions were renamed something else within NASA circles and operations. Also, the Soviet Union is also known to hide secrets from their public. For example, the biological and chemical warfare programs.

 

6. Just because there was inaction by the gov. does not mean that the info is or was false. It could be that it was allowed in the open because if they acted upon it,it would then indicate that there was a cover-up. In other words, too many people know about this person or individual and if they physically acted then it would alarm others that the info was truthful.

 

7. The argument I presented, along with Semjase, is called an inductive argument. Obviously, it is not deductive because we do not have physical proof to have a solid conclusion. An inductive argument is in the realm of "speculations". Also, my own personal experiences concerning UFO crafts could not be proven because I never had a video recorder with me to provide evidence plus it could be possible that these crafts are manned by humans from Earth and even the NAZI faction which survived(another theory). Yes, there is actual proof of craft engineered by the NAZIs.

 

8. However; I will admit that it is possible that the Apollo 20 mission, or the mission recording a crashed ship on the moon, could be a hoax. I will admit that because I also have several questions concerning the video(or evidence).

 

Here I prove that I am an agnostic concerning the video. I also have several doubts and questions concerning the video submitted by Semjase.

 

9. Let us not disprove the evidence based on the source but let's evaluate it. It could be that some things are true and some things are false concerning E.T.s. Let us evaluate the premises and conclusion.

Edited December 25, 2013 by cristian706

[Janus]

It is just as impossible that someone could secretly launch 4 manned missions to the Moon without it be widely known than it is that they faked the Moon landings.

 

We aren't talking about something that can be done covertly. We are talking about building and launching a Saturn V rocket and that is a little obvious.

[cristian706]

Yes, of course, but then again they could have launched it at a different location or used the Russian area(with Russian help and cooperation). I understand your point on this matter. Nevertheless, the Soviet state is known for its secrecy and suppression of information. It is quite possible that if Russian assistance was involved then they could have launched at a different location and with a Russian rocket.

 

The Chinese moon landings discredited the idea that U.S. never landed on the moon. Therefore, the U.S. landed on the moon. You know the best way to solve this is if the Chinese was able to explore the area in question.

 

Ok, my questions concerning the video itself:

 

1. Is there an entrance into the ship?(Where is the video segment, if there was one, of astronauts entering the ship). Why is there an absence of data and evidence of this part?

 

2. If the ship is as large as the area of Manhattan what could explain the size of the holes on the ship structure(according to the photos and evidence given)? Meteors which occurred later or was it the cause of the crash? Someone has given their evaluation of the crash site:

 

"Apollo 20 is not a hoax it is real this here is the proof" by Turkshaman27 on Youtube.

 

3. The independent evaluation given by the presenter presents an interesting possibility of proof. However, my points 1 and 2 has to be factored into the equation. Or is it possible that NASA never returned but there are pictures and photos of the ship (or simply an anamoly) of a flyby with no exploration of the ship?

 

4. Interesting enough, we should have video of the parts of the ship especially how the astronauts entered the ship. Why only the pilot? and the head of the co-pilot? and some letters with a unique language? I would assume they entered into protrusion part on top of the "ship".

Edited December 25, 2013 by cristian706

[swansont]

This is a science site. Speculations are limited to things can be discussed in a scientific context.

 

Youtube videos were not discounted simply because they are from youtube. What is being rejected are crap videos that contain only innuendo and guesswork, which is generally what Semjase posted. Those are not posts you should be emulating.

[imatfaal]

posts about moon conspiracies always remind me of this:

 

[cristian706]

Swansot, thanks for the reminder. Of course, I am criticizing the video. There are some missing valuable information. This is the point I am suggesting. It could be possible they never went to investigate the "crash" site even though something is there.

 

I am suggesting that it may have been a "political" decision not to continue going to the moon. It may have been the case that they saw something but then decided not to pursue the matter.

 

The reason for the hoax video? A hoax to start another exploration of the moon? An attempt to get attention and start something concerning moon exploration?

 

As for not going to the moon? If they find something will it upset "religious" followers who are also voters for political candidates.

 

Interesting to note if China decides further attempts and investigate claims.

[swansont]

"It may have been the case" is the sort of thing that makes conspiracy unacceptable. There's no substance to that, just empty conjecture. It' not enough to present one scenario that fits with a few facts that are known, when other scenarios fit just as well. In that case, you go out and get more facts.

 

Conspiracy is not consistent with a scientific discussion. You got a second chance at this. Don't re-introduce the subject.