on September 6, 2014
By Laura B.
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric (circa 350 B.C.)
In this review I will offer you a few of Bill Kaysing's more interesting observations concerning the supposed Moon Landings and then summarize his argument. Afterwards I will give you a brief explanation of a reasoning system through which you may discern whether or not his argument is sound.
"... why didn't the astronauts make some visible signal from the Moon? It would have been relatively easy to touch off some hyperbolic chemicals, beam a laser to a mirror on Earth, create a pattern with lightweight black dust, or provide some other means of definitely proving that they were really there. Relying on an easily simulated picture on TV was the least reliable means of "proof"."
"Why were the Moon rocks rushed to Switzerland right after they landed? What proof do we have that they are actually rocks from the Moon?"
Page 19 concerning a picture of the lunar Lander while supposedly on the surface of the Moon.
"Look closely at both of these purported moon landing shots. Despite the fact that the lunar landing engine was reported to have been operating beyond touchdown, there is no evidence of the surface being disturbed beneath the engine nozzle!"
Page 20 concerning a supposed picture of the Earth taken from the Moon by astronauts.
"If you have seen the strikingly beautiful moon model in GoldenGate Park SF, you know how easy it would have been to create an earth model too."
Page 22 concerning a picture of the lunar module, taken from perhaps 75 yards away, while supposedly on the moon.
"Possibly the most damning shot of all. Here is a clear view of the LEM with no trace whatsoever of any disruption of the surface by the LEM landing engine. Anyone who has ever witnessed any kind of rocket firing knows that the blast from the exit nozzle will devastate the area nearby. And, again, no stars or planets visible in the lunar sky."
Bill Kaysing's book "We Never Went to the Moon" is simply filled with such interesting and much suppressed observation. It's utterly convincing. His argument can be summed up as follows:
All of the evidence that we have for the Moon landing could have been produced by means of fraud (1. pictures and film easily produced by the Hollywood of 1969; 2. moon rocks more plausibly acquired as meteorites right here on earth; and 3. the testimony of government employees ).
The verifiable evidence that would necessarily exist if the Moon landings were real does not ( 1. some visible sign from the astronauts while on the Moon; 2. photographs and film that are physically consistent with an actual moon landing; 3. telescopic pictures of the stars from the Moon; 4. pictures and motion picture film of the Earth and Sun from the Moon that is not easily produced by fraud; 5. continuous motion picture from the Earth to the Moon and back taken from the Apollo; and 6. at least some form of reproduction by the Chinese or Soviets such as the orbiting of a man around the Moon ).
The US government's claim that they landed men on the Moon is riddled with inconsistency and contradiction and does not begin to meet the requirements of Logic or the scientific method. With six supposed successful Moon landings, the likelihood that none of the various forms of readily available credible evidence would be produced is infinitesimally tiny. This lack of verifiable evidence is proof, in and of itself, beyond any reasonable doubt that the Moon landings were a fraud. The arguably greatest scientific achievement in history must be verifiable and reproducible or it is just manifestly ridiculous. Any rational person who objectively evaluates the Moon landing based entirely upon the evidence (or lack of it) should dismiss it as state sponsored control of the masses through psy op and propaganda ( e.g. the false flag mass murders of 9/11, the JFK assassination and coup d'etat, state sponsored lies and murder in regards to HIV/AIDS, etc.).
Now for that reasoning system:
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-George Orwell, 1984
Formal/Classical Logic was invented by Aristotle in ancient Greece (circa 350 B.C.). It is a remarkably versatile and effective system of "rules for reasoning" that anyone can use to good effect. Devised as a systematic method of evaluating evidence and language arguments to (1) insure correct reasoning within the limitations of the existing evidence, and (2) effectively reveal erroneous or deceptive reasoning, it was soon to govern and define the measured thought of the leading rulers and intellectuals of the ancient world. Alexander the Great was only the first of a very long line of adherents of formal logic that would dramatically alter the course of history. To this very day, utilized in virtually every field that requires accurate and objective reasoning from archaeology, astronomy and medicine, to law, politics and war, more so than any other intellectual tool, formal logic has been responsible for laying the foundations of our civilization. Curiously, formal logic contains one common historical thread that has always been true. Niether the ancient Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the old antbellum American South ever considered it wise to teach formal/classical logic to common slaves, for obvious reasons. The teaching of Classical logic was removed from the U.S. public school system over 150 years ago, and has been systematically suppressed by our media for exactly the same reasons ("The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto, his "Ultimate History Lesson" on YouTube, "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Dorothy Sayers, "The Prussian School System", and "Operant Conditioning", all online). If you doubt this just ask some average U.S. high school graduates sometime to tell you the difference between a "formal" and an "informal" logical fallacy; or, how to determine if an argument is both "valid" and "sound" (i.e., very basic and essential knowledge of formal logic). You'll find that they have no idea. The vast majority couldn't even tell you the difference between "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning. As you will soon see, this is no accident.
The following is a concise and effective method of using formal logic and is the essence of that ancient system of reasoning (adapted from a definition given in Howard Kahane' s book "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", 1976).
"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge."
-Aristotle, Posterior Analytics
Cogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet 3 conditions:
1. It must be derived from premises that "you know" are true. (These are true propositions that are either; (a) "self-evident"; (b) verified by your own personal direct experience; or (c) well supported by solid verifiable evidence. There is no fourth way to "know" that a premise is true.).
2. It should contain all of the known relevant evidence. (The suppression, or improbable absence, of relevant evidence is a good indication of deception. Relevant evidence is any evidence that would tend to make an argument more likely or less likely to be true.)
3. It should be properly structured, so that it comes to a conclusion which logically follows from the premises. (In the case of valid deductive arguments this conclusion would "necessarily" follows from the premises. In the case of very strong inductive arguments it would follow "beyond a reasonable doubt". In both cases it would be free of contradiction and consistent with the facts.)
When an argument meets these conditions (ie. verifiably true premises, all relevant evidence, and properly structured) it is said to be sound or cogent, and very likely to be true. When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning).
"Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four."
-George Orwell, 1984
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
- John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
(Very helpful in analyzing the relationship between premises and conclusion is the following taken from the book "Logic and Rhetoric"  by James Johnson. "The hypothesis most likely to prove right must do the following: 1. Include all known facts; 2. Not over-emphasize any part of the evidence at the expense of the rest; 3. Observe the laws of probability as established by previous investigation; 4. Avoid logical contradictions; 5. Stay as simple as possible without ignoring any part of the evidence. Hypotheses which violate any one of these requirements are Forced Hypotheses.")
"To know what you know and to know what you do not know. That is true knowledge." -Confucius
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
-Former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference Febuary 12, 2002
Two years later Rumsfeld offers us a "fourth kind" of knowledge, about which people who would one day like "free" systems of government to actually exist should be keenly interested.
"Febuary 4th, 2004
Subject: What you know
There are known knowns.
There are known unknowns.
There are unknown unknowns.
But there are also unkown knowns. That is to say, things that you think you know, that it turns out you did not."
-Donald Rumsfeld, from the Errol Morris documentary "Unkown Knowns"
Here's what Donald Rumsfeld won't say.
An effective understanding of classical logic is indispensable in the identification of "unknown knowns". That is why it has been suppressed.
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
-George Bernard Shaw
Now, on to a bit of rhetoric with the informal logical fallacy:
"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men."
Professor Madsen Pirie most aptly defines a logical fallacy as anything one can say or do that breaks down or subverts reason. The ancient Greeks discovered over 200 different logical fallacies. Here are some commonly used "informal" logical fallacies taken from the book "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D..(In his book "Logic For Lawyers" Ruggero Aldisert defines the formal logical fallacy as an "error in the logical form of an argument" and informal logical fallacies as those that "deal with the content and context of premises." When an argument meets the three conditions of cogent reasoning it does not contain any formal logical fallacies.)
"ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Argumentum ad hominem ( literally, an "argument to the man") fallacy confuses the point at issue with the people concerned. Attacks on the character and conduct of people and personal abuse or praise are substituted for reasoning on the point at issue. Argumentum ad hominem seeks to persuade by unsound ethos. In rhetoric ethos means establishing the speaker or writer as one worthy of making an argument."
"ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
The argumentum ad populum fallacy arises from substituting an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the people for logical reasoning on the point at issue..."
"ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
The argumentum ad misericordiam (literally, an "argument to pity") fallacy replaces reason with a plea for sympathy."
"ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
Argumentum ad baculum is the appeal to the "big stick." The issue is ignored in an attempt to inspire fear of the consequences of adopting a proposed opinion or program, or of allowing a movement branded as dangerous to gain strength. The threat of social ostracism or loss of position might be used to deter a person from exposing fraud..."
"ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it."
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
Argumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to the prestige or respect in which a proponent of an argument is held as a guarantee of the truth of the argument. This is unwarranted when reasoning about an issue is required and only the authority of its upholders or opponents is given consideration. It is perfectly legitimate to supplement reasoning with authority (Argumentum ad auctoritatem ), but it is fallacious to substitute authority for reasoning in matters capable of being understood by reason."
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic (1985)
A very helpful tool in understanding effective rhetoric is Aristotle's three primary pillars of persuasion; (1) Ethos (authority), (2) Pathos (emotion), and (3) Logos (logic). To believe an argument that is supported by Ethos alone is to be manipulated by authority. To believe an argument that it is supported by Pathos alone is to be manipulated through emotion. Aristotle advises rather, that we take great pains to avoid being manipulated, and allow ourselves to be only truly persuaded by logos (i.e., logical arguments that are correctly reasoned and well supported by evidence).
Therefore, when testing "any" argument one should ask if the three conditions of cogent reasoning have been met and if logical fallacies have been used.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; The real a tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
P.S. The Moon landing is just the beginning.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
9-11 Missing Links
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College
Bishop Richard Williamson
Ernst Zundel (...)
G. Edward Griffin
Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez
AIDS and HIV:
Dr Kary Mullis (winner of the Nobel Prize)
Dr Robert Willner (author of the book "Deadly Deception the Proof that Sex and GOV Absolutely do not Cause AIDS)
Dr Peter Duesberg (author of"Inventing the AIDS Virus)
Michael Collins Piper
Sandy Hook shootings:
Operant conditioning, B.F.Skinner, The Skinner Box
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel
All can be found on youtube.