The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

FatFreddy

04-14-12, 04:26 PM

You have not addressed my question, why did no other country, especially our ENEMY AT THE TIME RAT US OUT???????????? You also cannot answer what exactly we could have gained?
All that is addressed in these two posts.

Do a page search on "Soviets" here and start looking at the info there.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------

Read-Only

04-14-12, 04:30 PM

But if there are but a few people who think we did not land a man on the moon what difference will it make to the majority of those who know otherwise? To argue with someone over whether they are right or wrong won't ever convince them that are wrong but only make them more steadfast in their views so they won't ever change. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the saying goes.

There is also another reason and a saying that goes with it as well: "Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever." :D

FatFreddy

04-14-12, 04:39 PM

I'd like to hear what you three Apollo-believers think of Jay Windley's response to the issue I raised at the JREF forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

I think he totally destroyed his credibility and showed that he knows the moon missions were faked as well as hoax-believers do.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

Buddha12

04-14-12, 05:14 PM

I don't waste time with people like you. All you want is to create more controversy that you enjoy watching but I really do not want to play your games.

Believe

04-14-12, 05:27 PM

All that is addressed in these two posts.

Do a page search on "Soviets" here and start looking at the info there.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------

? You think links to conspiricy theory sites help your cause? They don't. Also, even if the Russians government said they doubted it (they haven't) what about every other country in world? Do they keep silent because they think its funny?

Read-Only

04-14-12, 05:35 PM

I don't waste time with people like you. All you want is to create more controversy that you enjoy watching but I really do not want to play your games.

I agree with that. And besides, if we don't feed the troll he will eventually tire of being ignored and go away quietly. Hurrah!

I'm finished with this nonsense.

Rhaedas

04-14-12, 07:29 PM

We still had to build a massive rocket. It was easier to just go to the Moon and fake it there.

(courtesy Mitchell and Webb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw))

MacGyver1968

04-14-12, 11:28 PM

Hahaaahaaa! Fat Freddy is posting on Sciforums. I'll be sure to tell the boys at JREF you're here. :)

There's a 207 page thread on this subject with FF here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8200311#post8200311

FYI mods...FF is a serial spammer who posts his "Apollo Hoax" shit on any board available...including a San Antonio Spurs basketball forum.

cosmored

04-15-12, 02:10 AM

I agree with that. And besides, if we don't feed the troll he will eventually tire of being ignored and go away quietly. Hurrah!

I'm finished with this nonsense.
Sadly, this particular troll will not go away.

cosmored

04-15-12, 02:24 AM

I'd like to hear what you three Apollo-believers think of Jay Windley's response to the issue I raised at the JREF forum.

Yes, we know all that. You are still wrong, as you have been for the past decade.

This is who Jay Windley is.
And?

I think he totally destroyed his credibility and showed that he knows the moon missions were faked as well as hoax-believers do.

Wrong. Back to the basketball forum for you.

FatFreddy

04-15-12, 08:23 AM

I'd like to hear what you three Apollo-believers think of Jay Windley's response to the issue I raised at the JREF forum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, we know all that. You are still wrong, as you have been for the past decade.

Well, your credibility is shot. Everybody look at the info in post #13.

Let's hear some actual analyses of the proof instead of all this empty rhetoric. Give us your analyses of these two videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

cosmored

04-15-12, 09:44 AM

Well, your credibility is shot. Everybody look at the info in post #13.

Let's hear some actual analyses of the proof instead of all this empty rhetoric. Give us your analyses of these two videos.

Still stuck on that argumentum ad youtubem shtick, I see.

Hasn't worked for you before, so what makes you think it will work here?

David C

04-15-12, 12:02 PM

Well, your credibility is shot. Everybody look at the info in post #13.

And who are you exactly, who determines what is or is not credible based on your own misguided opinion? The post you reference gives a very good assessment on why your claim is invalid.

Indeed, as somebody who has posted the same claims on over 100 different fora how can you claim to have any credibility. Your modus operandi is to make these same claims ad nauseum, whilst steadfastly refusing to debate in good faith. Your every reply has been made before and relies on cut and paste of what appears to be a carefully scripted sequence.

Let's hear some actual analyses of the proof instead of all this empty rhetoric.

You do not understand what the word proof means. It is not something that exists entirely in your own mind, and every person who totally disagrees with it(and there have been so, so many over the years you have been doing this) does not automatically become a shill.

Give us your analyses of these two videos.

To what end? You have been given hundreds of opinions previously, yet you always fail to respond to the questions back at you and ignore them without giving credible responses as to why they are wrong.

Apollo 15 flag moving video

It is either ground vibration, a camera blooming effect or less likely static discharge in a vacuum(which is quite considerably more than in atmosphere).

Why didn't Jarrah White's flag demonstration move the flag from even a few feet away. It was 90 degrees to him yet it barely moved until he was level.

If you are a legitimate truther, this glaring anomaly alone would surely make you question your own claims. In addition, please explain giving examples and supporting physics, how a human being will create a moving air wave in front of him 5 feet away. The flagpole moves, yet from other fora you claim not to even see this, or insist the footage has been doctored - all this whilst not verifying this by doing it yourself. If you did so, you would see that all this time you have been quite painfully wrong.

Youtube search for this "GJ888vXaKNM" (unable to post links)

Apollo 17 flag video

Is it plausible that Cernan merely gave this a counter twist? If not, please give valid reasons as to why not.

Here is a video back at you of the sequence from Apollo 17, that demonstrates some extremely odd movements and the flag itself moving at x1.5 speed. It does not look right, and meanwhile Schmitt makes a small hop/jump that is too slow for terrestrial gravity. Got any explanations for this(apart from the easy to verify - it was doctored claim:rolleyes:)?

Youtube search for this "sc6sqIe3Aio"

R1D2

04-15-12, 12:06 PM

My comment is at this site http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover they are still there. An we did make it to the moon. We had moon rocks brought back some were STOLEN. Check my proof. A good web site by the way. http://www.space.com/11804-nasa-moon-rock-sting-apollo17.html THEY were there ok FF.

cosmored

04-15-12, 12:16 PM

<snip for brevity>

Any sign of Rocky?

FatFreddy

04-15-12, 02:59 PM

It is either ground vibration, a camera blooming effect or less likely static discharge in a vacuum(which is quite considerably more than in atmosphere).
This video shows that it actually moves so it can't be the blooming effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

The nature of the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation and inconsistent with the ground vibration explanation. The support rod doesn't move as it would have if ground vibration had caused the pole to move.

Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and exactly duplicate the movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk
(4:00 time mark)

This video shows that the astronaut couldn't have touched it as it started moving before his arm got close to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

Why didn't Jarrah White's flag demonstration move the flag from even a few feet away. It was 90 degrees to him yet it barely moved until he was level.
Here's the video he's referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:25 time mark)

Jarrah was running by it a bit faster than the Apollo astronaut and the angle was different. I don't see how this proves anything.

Here's another anomaly that's too clear to obfuscate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 time mark)

The corner of Collins' jacket bounces around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

That is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

Obviously, they weren't halfway to the moon as Collins' jacket corner bounces around the way it would in gravity. I put a light jacket on a coat hanger and bounced it up and down and I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' Jacket corner. Anyone can try this.

One tactic these pro-Apollo people do is use the same username I do on other forums to try to confuse people. My username at Spurstalk is Cosmored and my username at JREF is FatFreddy88. There is a person here using the name "Cosmored" and there's a person at Spurstalk using the name "FatFreddy88".

Believe

04-15-12, 03:04 PM

This video shows that it actually moves so it can't be the blooming effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

The nature of the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation and inconsistent with the ground vibration explanation. The support rod doesn't move as it would have if ground vibration had caused the pole to move.

Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and exactly duplicate the movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk
(4:00 time mark)

This video shows that the astronaut couldn't have touched it as it started moving before his arm got close to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

Here's the video he's referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:25 time mark)

Jarrah was running by it a bit faster than the Apollo astronaut and the angle was different. I don't see how this proves anything.

Here's another anomaly that's too clear to obfuscate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 time mark)

The corner of Collins' jacket bounces around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

That is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

Obviously, they weren't halfway to the moon as Collins' jacket corner bounces around the way it would in gravity. I put a light jacket on a coat hanger and bounced it up and down and I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' Jacket corner. Anyone can try this.

One tactic these pro-Apollo people do is use the same username I do on other forums to try to confuse people. My username at Spurstalk is Cosmored and my username at JREF is FatFreddy88. There is a person here using the name "Cosmored" and there's a person at Spurstalk using the name "FatFreddy88".

Explain why the clearly dusty surface does not also blow in this wind.

Also, the jacket clearly continues to hang to the mans side instead of falling back against him as it would have done in gravity. Way to post a video that disproves your argument.

FatFreddy

04-15-12, 03:16 PM

Explain why the clearly dusty surface does not also blow in this wind.
It isn't clearly dusty. It could very well be coarse sand.

Here's a related video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

Also, the jacket clearly continues to hang to the mans side instead of falling back against him as it would have done in gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 time mark)
I can't identify anything in the video that you describe. Could you be more specific? All I see is movement that's totally consistent with strong gravity.

Believe

04-15-12, 03:21 PM

It isn't clearly dusty. It could very well be coarse sand.

Here's a related video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 time mark)
I can't identify anything in the video that you describe. Could you be more specific? All I see is movement that's totally consistent with strong gravity.

Then your looking with your eyes closed, or you've never worn clothes. Either way your wrong.

adoucette

04-15-12, 04:25 PM

You would think that this would end this nonsense.

Apollo 11 landing site

http://moonandback.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Apollo_11.jpg

Apollo 14 landing site

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Apollo-14-580x580.png

http://www.universetoday.com/83110/brand-new-look-at-apollo-14-landing-site/

David C

04-15-12, 04:29 PM

This video shows that it actually moves so it can't be the blooming effect.

Naaah. That video shows one corner not the whole thing. The whole flag and the pole shifts right.

The nature of the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation

Yeah, you avoided explaining this. Which explanation are you referring to? You see, when I look at air movement dynamics, I don't see air being pushed 4/5/6 feet in front of anything, let alone a slow moving human. Now quit with the tap dancing and show me some examples of this pluse the physics to prove it, because my bs-meter is off the scale.

and inconsistent with the ground vibration explanation. The support rod doesn't move as it would have if ground vibration had caused the pole to move.

Why would the top rod need to move? The vertical rod absorbs the vibration and the flag has a little jiggle as a result. Besides, the movement is so small and the film quality so bad, it is difficult to see either way.

Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and exactly duplicate the movement.

Well that is a crock. Firstly a ceiling light only offers one point of support, it isn't anchored into a very sound conductive surface, it doesn't have a vertical and horizontal support and well, it's a cloth not nylon.:rolleyes:

This video shows that the astronaut couldn't have touched it as it started moving before his arm got close to it.

No. That video shows what appears to be a small movement before he ran past it brushing his arm. Jarrah White himself concluded that he could have hit the flag, but then goes on to say it didn't matter because it moved before he got there. That is irrelevant to whether he could have hit it. He could have and almost certainly did.

Jarrah was running by it a bit faster than the Apollo astronaut and the angle was different. I don't see how this proves anything.

You can't see that a faster approach to a more square on flag that doesn't show any movement until he is level disproves your main claim? You don't see that? You are full of it. Now stop tap dancing and give me a proper answer. Why wouldn't a faster approach and a square on flag MORE LIKELY to move, NOT MOVE when Jarrah does his foot shooting experiment?

Here's another anomaly that's too clear to obfuscate.

No, it is so clear he is in zero-g it is beyond belief that you suggest the opposite.

On youtube search for "michael collins jacket" - it brings up a series of videos where your whole argument is torn to smithereens. This is where you start using ad-hominems to say the man who made them is discredited because of some bs about Chinese spacewalks;)

One tactic these pro-Apollo people do is use the same username I do on other forums to try to confuse people. My username at Spurstalk is Cosmored and my username at JREF is FatFreddy88. There is a person here using the name "Cosmored" and there's a person at Spurstalk using the name "FatFreddy88".

It isn't a tactic, it shows your ridiculous obsession with this subject. My arguments stand no matter what name I use, now go back to Pravda/Debatepolitics/Spursforum and tell everybody how you are winning and the nasty pro-Apollo people are picking on you!

Any person viewing who gives more than a small hoot, google "cosmored the spammer" - the two youtube videos may frighten you:eek:

Now, you also forgot to explain that counter video I put up for the Apollo 17 flag....... youtube identifier - sc6sqIe3Aio

All this tapdancing and obfuscation, anyone would think you were avoiding the issues I am raising.

FatFreddy

04-15-12, 04:44 PM

You would think that this would end this nonsense.
Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof that there were people on the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c

I don't have a lot of time as this cybercafe is about to close.

The guy who made videos trying to obfuscate the anomaly of Collins' bouncing jacket corner (Betamax) also tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...
http://www.forum4politics.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html

...so he obviously doesn't even believe his own arguments.

Anyone can make a jacket corner bounce up and down exactly the way Collins' does by hanging a loose jacket on a coat hanger and bouncing it up and down and anyone can duplicate the movement of the Apollo flag by hanging a loose piece of cloth on a ceiling light and trotting by it at a forty five degree angle . Those two anomalies are simply too clear to obfuscate.

You people have the attitude that you're winning this debate but what you're actually saying is pretty weak. In this video the Black Knight has the attitude that he won too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

MacGyver1968

04-15-12, 04:53 PM

Kitty sees a hole in your theory:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46946106/donutcat.jpg

David C

04-15-12, 05:14 PM

Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof that there were people on the moon.

So this brings in a whole new generation of people to never spill the beans! The rocks examined by geologists world wide are proof enough, despite what that icon of ignorance Jarrah says on youtube, they are completely unfakable.

I don't have a lot of time as this cybercafe is about to close.

Answer my questions tomorrow, buy a computer off of ebay.

The guy who made videos trying to obfuscate the anomaly of Collins' bouncing jacket corner (Betamax) also tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...

...so he obviously doesn't even believe his own arguments.

No, obviously he does believe his own arguments and believes yours are pathetic. By destroying them he demonstrates this.

Anyone can make a jacket corner bounce up and down exactly the way Collins' does by hanging a loose jacket on a coat hanger and bouncing it up and down and anyone can duplicate the movement of the Apollo flag by hanging a loose piece of cloth on a ceiling light and trotting by it at a forty five degree angle . Those two anomalies are simply too clear to obfuscate.

You said that already and missed replying to my post. I expect you will not reply to those points I made because you are quite clearly cornered:D

You people have the attitude that you're winning this debate but what you're actually saying is pretty weak. In this video the Black Knight has the attitude that he won too.

Spam. Identical answers to those given at JREF. And as predicted the ad hominem for betamax101 and the truly moronic reference to the supposed fake Chinese spacewalks. I too believe my own arguments and I say Apollo happened, the flag was not moved by air, Collins was in zero-g and you haven't got a clue. You have no credibility or the slightest hint of being able to debate any issue whilst adressing all the evidence, without showing the most uniformed biased opinion I have seen.

The Collins Jacket Non Issue

You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -
"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -
"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about? To coin a phrase "...so he obviously doesn't even believe his own arguments"!!!

adoucette

04-15-12, 06:22 PM

Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof that there were people on the moon.

Except that would mean that all these young scientists involved in the LROC, none of which were involved with any of those Lunar missions would be LYING to cover up the faked lunar landing.

Not at all plausible.

Face it these photos are proof that this theory of yours has not only been a total waste of your time, but an EPIC FAIL.

:roflmao:

FatFreddy

04-16-12, 02:42 PM

Hey Believe-

On the other thread you said this.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926272&postcount=51

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes from earth, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926300&postcount=54

Just google search it, the pictures are all over the place.

As I said before, I was only able to find pictures supposedly taken from lunar orbit. I couldn't find a single one that was supposedly taken with a telescope from earth. They don't seem to be all over the place as you said. Could you please link to one as I can't find any?

Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof that there were people on the moon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that would mean that all these young scientists involved in the LROC, none of which were involved with any of those Lunar missions would be LYING to cover up the faked lunar landing.

Not at all plausible.
That issue is addressed in this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

origin

04-16-12, 02:58 PM

Rhaedas

04-16-12, 03:01 PM

Seeing the actual landing sites from Earth is physically impossible. But there is the case of the equipment we left behind to measure things, like the distance to the Moon, that weren't there before. But any photos we had if it was possible aren't proof, because you've said already that all photos are suspect.

And other countries have sent probes that have seen the sites. But that could be dismissed, because everyone is in on the conspiracy, right?

Frankly, any proof can be countered. It's just a matter of how ridiculous the counter is that makes it far easier to accept that we actually went from this planet to another body.

If we went back, set up a moonbase, and had streaming video 24/7, it would still be faked to some people...no matter what they saw. They want to think we never went, for various reasons.

origin

04-16-12, 04:02 PM

If we went back, set up a moonbase, and had streaming video 24/7, it would still be faked to some people...no matter what they saw. They want to think we never went, for various reasons.

Exactly. If FatFreddy was flown to the moon and kicked out of the module as he gasped in the vacuum, he would be mouthing that it really wasn't the moon he was on.:shrug:

adoucette

04-16-12, 04:06 PM

As I said before, I was only able to find pictures supposedly taken from lunar orbit. I couldn't find a single one that was supposedly taken with a telescope from earth. They don't seem to be all over the place as you said. Could you please link to one as I can't find any?

No kidding.
It's called optics, even Hubble can't resolve that small an object on the moon.

But these pictures weren't SUPPOSEDLY taken from Lunar Orbit.

They WERE taken from Lunar orbit.

See now you are saying the conspircacy is so pervasive as to SKIP generations.

That's LUDICROUS.

And you know that, but you persist, so as been pointed out, there is no proof that you will accept.

Which means it's just a friggin religion to you.

Good luck with recruiting new members to your totally failed religion.

That issue is addressed in this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

No, that issue wasn't addressed in that post.
You want to address that issue then explain why all the young scientists working on the LROC would even consider doing the huge amount of effort to create those images?

Or the Japanese?

http://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

Face it, your conspiracy has gone down in flames and you are apparently about the last person on the planet to not realize that fact.

arfa brane

04-16-12, 04:27 PM

What kind of evidence is needed to support the theory that the moon landings were faked?

First of all, did the US spend billions developing the Atlas series of launch vehicles, and did tens of thousands of witnesses watch the launches from the Space Centre?

If they did, where did the rockets go? Were other countries able to track their positions? When the astronauts were in communication with earth stations, did the stations have to locate the source of transmission, and was it in line with a course to the moon and back?

If the launches were faked, what did all those people see, where did the rockets go, and how was communication with them arranged so it appeared to be between the earth and moon? It was an extremely elaborate deception, if that's what it was.

Every amateur astronomer and every government with access to radio dishes was deceived by the plotters, including the Russians and the Chinese who would have uncovered the plot if they could. This would have been easy for them to do if the lunar modules didn't actually travel to the moon and back.

So why would the US go to all that trouble, and not land anyone on the moon? I suppose the astronauts could have just orbited the moon for a while instead. But then the US would have to fake the landing sites somehow, because the Russians and Chinese can take photos of the surface from lunar orbit these days. Or maybe the plotters thought that would never happen?

MacGyver1968

04-16-12, 06:01 PM

Using logic and reason against an Apollo hoaxer is like using regular bullets against a werewolf. While they are effective on normal people...with them, they just pass right through and are completely unnoticed.

Don't waste your ammo. :)

R1D2

04-17-12, 08:49 AM

Fat Fred why is this so important to you? You put this on a science forum site. We gave you the truth. You disagree with all our information. There has to be a reason why you won't see the facts as facts. Are you a pessimist? You don't want no one on the moon. What is it?

adoucette

04-17-12, 09:03 AM

FatFreddy

04-17-12, 02:36 PM

Seeing the actual landing sites from Earth is physically impossible.
Well then, it looks like the poster "Believe" has been caught in a lie.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926928&postcount=36

You people have no credibility; there's hardly any point in debating with you now.

Pictures are indeed fakable and their coming from another country doesn't make them any less fakable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c

Fakable pictures also don't make the mountain of hoax proof go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Were other countries able to track their positions?
We read that this is true but we may be reading lies. Go back and look at the info about the media and mainstream science journals in this link again.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

Every amateur astronomer and every government with access to radio dishes was deceived by the plotters, including the Russians and the Chinese who would have uncovered the plot if they could. This would have been easy for them to do if the lunar modules didn't actually travel to the moon and back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D1HyWaVwfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eDTioD_250
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkNjv1uNMiQ

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we were told was happening during the Cold War isn′t necessarily what was happening.
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

origin

04-17-12, 03:26 PM

Damn! I think he's got us. He has found some YOUTUBE videos that confirm what he thinks.

Jesus! How in the world are we going to be compete against evidence like that.

OK, OK it's true we never went to the moon. All of us that went to college to earn a BS are told the truth in our junior year. Something you may not know is that the moon doesn't even really exist! It is just a projection that shown into the sky.

In graduate school you learn that the big bang is false as is evolution. You of course also learn that God does in fact exist - but the real true religion that properly worshiped him was centered in cuba and was wiped out by the europeans.

Don't tell anyone I told you or I could lose my degree and have to work a Wal-Mart as a greeter.

David C

04-17-12, 03:46 PM

Well then, it looks like the poster "Believe" has been caught in a lie.

Does every mistake made by people mean it is a lie? Maybe we should list some of the mistakes made by the silly old hoax believers:D

You people have no credibility; there's hardly any point in debating with you now.

Yea, run away again! Like every time you get your butt kicked.

btw, no way are you debating here, I have yet to see any coherent reply to my post. You seem to be cornered, your credibility never arrived in the first place, so I can hardly say you have lost it:D

#Post no. 34

Pictures are indeed fakable and their coming from another country doesn't make them any less fakable.

Your silly old hoax involves the whole world. You need to find a better way to occupy your time, because after your showing on the political forum where you were sliced and diced, anybody can look you up on google or youtube and see exactly what you are. And it ain't pretty.

Fakable pictures also don't make the mountain of hoax proof go away.

There isn't a mountain of proof of a hoax, all you do is spam the same old posts without change. You call that debate? The "debunking-a-moron"blog at blogspot turns your mountain into a little cream puff.

I'm not responding to the rest of your spamming. It was already done at PF/and that blog and you ignored it completely. Please don't insult everybody's intelligence by playing the circular argument credibility card on the Chinese spacewalks.

Balerion

04-18-12, 02:22 PM

Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.

Haha! That, ladies and gents, is the depth that conspiracy loons will sink to in order to make sense of their crackpot theories. Now we're lead to believe that the Space Race was merely a coincidence, like one masturbating fool walking in on another masturbating fool. The natural implication of this is that the Cold War itself was just window dressing. Dressing for what? Well, they haven't gotten that far in their thinking, obviously, but I'm sure they will someday.

Rhaedas

04-18-12, 02:56 PM

Can't wait to see the level it escalates to when China gets to the Moon. I guess we'll all pretend they do it.

FatFreddy

04-19-12, 08:15 AM

Does every mistake made by people mean it is a lie?
Look at these two posts of his.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926928&postcount=36

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes from earth, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

Just google search it, the pictures are all over the place.

His just saying that pictures of the landing sights have been taken by telescopes from earth could be argued to be a mistake. His saying that this has been confirmed by other countries and that there were pictures all over the place on the internet could not easily be argued to be a mistake.

There are some things that are so clear that no amount of sophistry and damage-control is effective. That post of yours was a good attempt at damage-control but I doubt that you swayed any of the viewers.

The "debunking-a-moron"blog at blogspot turns your mountain into a little cream puff.
Here's what he's referring to.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com.es/

This is just an attempt to obfuscate the proof I'd posted in this link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

The guy who wrote that blog (Betamax) also tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.forum4politics.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

I stopped debating him when he did that. He showed himself to be a professional sophist. What's the use of continuing to debate with someone who obviously doesn't even believe his own arguments?

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is so clear that it makes a good objectivity test. Tell us whether you think it was faked, or real. The proof is in the above link.

Once a pro-Apollo poster has been caught in a lie, there's not much point in continuing to debate with him or her. Look at the lie that Jay Windley told.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

Tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley on the above issue.

David C

04-19-12, 08:45 AM

Yeah, you avoided explaining this. Which explanation are you referring to? You see, when I look at air movement dynamics, I don't see air being pushed 4/5/6 feet in front of anything, let alone a slow moving human. Now quit with the tap dancing and show me some examples of this pluse the physics to prove it, because my bs-meter is off the scale.

Why would the top rod need to move? The vertical rod absorbs the vibration and the flag has a little jiggle as a result. Besides, the movement is so small and the film quality so bad, it is difficult to see either way.

No. That video shows what appears to be a small movement before he ran past it brushing his arm. Jarrah White himself concluded that he could have hit the flag, but then goes on to say it didn't matter because it moved before he got there. That is irrelevant to whether he could have hit it. He could have and almost certainly did.

You can't see that a faster approach to a more square on flag that doesn't show any movement until he is level disproves your main claim? You don't see that? You are full of it. Now stop tap dancing and give me a proper answer. Why wouldn't a faster approach and a square on flag MORE LIKELY to move, NOT MOVE when Jarrah does his foot shooting experiment?

Now, you also forgot to explain that counter video I put up for the Apollo 17 flag....... youtube identifier - sc6sqIe3Aio

All this tapdancing and obfuscation, anyone would think you were avoiding the issues I am raising.

Yes, anyone would certainly conclude you were avoiding my questions and issues. I have seen you avoid these on JREF as well. Even though the hoaxidol says he could have brushed the flag, you refuse to acknowledge that he even determined that. I would throw out the line that "you hb's all act the same way when cornered", but you are unique in that you just stand there and deny everything. You use the escape hatch of circular argument to run away. The Chinese did not fake their spacewalk and anybody who thinks that needs a tin hat permanently stapled to their head - the man who made your video says Apollo landed on the Moon. Jay Windley's point is also quite valid, why would a geologist be better qualified to talk about transporting stone/sand/cement or anything like that, better than an engineer? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Oh, and this as well whilst you are tapdanding and squirming..............

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -
"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -
"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

David C

04-19-12, 08:53 AM

Look at these two posts of his.

I don't need to. He is mistaken and you are latching onto this low hanging fruit to avoid the posts I just quoted - hey, what's the betting you offer the same lame replies as on JREF and then ignore that one about Jarrah's flag not moving?

David C

04-19-12, 09:14 AM

There are some things that are so clear that no amount of sophistry and damage-control is effective. That post of yours was a good attempt at damage-control but I doubt that you swayed any of the viewers.

The viewers that you refer to never support your claims, why is that? Even on your basketball forum, there appears to be only one person on your side.

It never occurs to you that you are the one who is wrong and all the millions of scientists, engineers, geologists and anybody with a good working knowledge of physics thinks you are clueless.

sts60

04-19-12, 10:10 AM

The viewers that you refer to never support your claims...

That's not quite true. Yes, it's true that on apollohoax (apollohoax. proboards. com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1022) he claimed the "lurkers and viewers" supported him, and a poll of "lurkers and viewers" voted against him 19-0. However...

Over on JREF (forums. randi. org/showthread.php?t=233454) he did get a vote from a "viewer" (when he said the "viewers" agreed with him).

Of course, the other 248 viewers who voted said he was wrong. So did all the active thread participants who voted, for a total count of 290-1 against him.

Predictably, FatFreddy immediately tried to claim they were sock-puppets or liars, but this objection failed since he could provide no evidence whatsoever for such accusations.

We've tried to get him to open up his mind for a minute and think about what all those people who genuinely think he's wrong could mean for his claim, but FF has so far not done so.

(Note: references above munged because of anti-spam features.)

Rhaedas

04-19-12, 10:42 AM

It's amusing how Freddy jumps all over someone's mistake...as if error in saying we are able to see small features on the Moon validates anything in the denier's pot. So we can't see the landers from Earth...they're still there.

Using the same logic, there's a lot of places that must have been faked, because only a few people have actually been there to see it, and any picture can be faked. The number of people may not even matter...I'm wondering if Europe actually exists. Globes can be faked too.

adoucette

04-19-12, 11:30 AM

Look at these two posts of his.

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes from earth, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

Just google search it, the pictures are all over the place.

His just saying that pictures of the landing sights have been taken by telescopes from earth could be argued to be a mistake. His saying that this has been confirmed by other countries and that there were pictures all over the place on the internet could not easily be argued to be a mistake.

Just one mistake.

Here's the corrected version:

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes IN ORBIT AROUND THE MOON, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

Just google search it, the pictures are all over the place.

That would be our Lunar orbiter as well as the Japanese orbiter.

And yes, the pictures are easy to find on the internet and they totally show your entire conspiracy theory, the one you have littered the internet with, was a total waste of everyone's time.

FatFreddy

04-20-12, 06:56 AM

(from post #56)

Just one mistake.

Here's the corrected version:

� We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes IN ORBIT AROUND THE MOON, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

Here's the original post.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926272&postcount=51

I'll copy and paste it.

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes from earth, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????
Now you've been caught in a lie too. You people have no credibility.

My link to the info on the Chinese spacewalk has gone dead so here's another.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

Read the part where Betamax tries to obfuscate the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables. It's toward the end of the thread. It's so lame that he obviously didn't even believe his own arguments.

adoucette

04-20-12, 07:07 AM

(from post #56)

Here's the original post.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926272&postcount=51

I'll copy and paste it.

Now you've been caught in a lie too. You people have no credibility.

No I have not been caught in a lie.

I said he made ONE mistake, and I made ONE change to his statement to prove it.

I changed "from earth" to "IN ORBIT AROUND THE MOON" to make it a true statement.

And two different countries lunar orbiting telescopes have indeed done that, the US and Japan.

FatFreddy

04-20-12, 07:44 AM

I guess I misconstrued your post but you can't change the fact that "Believe" lied when he said that pictures of the landing sites had been photographed from earth.

You're also playing dumb about these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
------------------------------------

Are you saying that pictures aren't fakable?

James R

04-20-12, 08:09 AM

FatFreddy:

It seems to me that your case rests on all pictures of the moon landings being fake.

So, got any proof, or at least some good evidence that every single picture is fake?

David C

04-20-12, 11:10 AM

------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
------------------------------------

You see that post above with some red text? You seem to be having a problem answering it, are you playing dumb?

Why didn't Jarrah's flag move when the circumstances were more favourable, he was square on to it and running? Your conclusion was that the Apollo 15 flag was moved by air, and you flat out deny the flagpole moved. You deny that Jarrah concluded the astronaut was close enough and you offer no logic or support as to how air will be pushed six feet in front of the astronaut.

In short, your own source explains you far far better than the people you avoid engaging.:shrug:

The phantom viewers who support you, eagerly await your replies, now don't disappoint them.

David C

04-20-12, 11:59 AM

You people have no credibility.

You have no qualifications of note to be able to make that claim.

My link to the info on the Chinese spacewalk has gone dead so here's another.

That is off topic spam. After reading the thorough mauling given to your claim by the debunking-a-moron blog, I shall ask you a question that you also keep "playing dumb" on.

Neutral buoyancy is reached by counter weights in water. Where anywhere are these mystery wave-blowers used? Give a reference that doesn't come from a conspiracy site.

Read the part where Betamax tries to obfuscate the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables. It's toward the end of the thread. It's so lame that he obviously didn't even believe his own arguments.

You keep indirectly calling people liars. It is YOUR claim that they are buoyant rather than simply floating in space with simple shape memory, it is YOUR claim that it is an anomaly when it isn't.

Another question for you, do you know how cables are wound when they are made? Ever see a garden hose unravelled? Now this natural tendency to revert to this aquired shape, is unrestricted in zero-g, so why do you dismiss this without even giving it any credence? Please don't "play dumb" on this.:rolleyes:

David C

04-20-12, 12:09 PM

I guess I misconstrued your post but you can't change the fact that "Believe" lied when he said that pictures of the landing sites had been photographed from earth.

Did you once say this?

"There are lots of mistakes made by hoax-believers but I've never seen one that, when corrected, proved the missions were real."

Are hb mistakes, not lies by your standards? So, we corrected the mistake by the pro-Apollo supporter and does it prove the hoax? Hmmm, that would be a no wouldn't it. Enough about his mistake, anymore reference to it and I shall start digging up more of yours, and there are some really wonderful ones(in addition to the contradictions in post 34 you "played dumb" on)

adoucette

04-20-12, 01:03 PM

I guess I misconstrued your post but you can't change the fact that "Believe" lied when he said that pictures of the landing sites had been photographed from earth.

No, I believe he made a mistake.
All mistakes aren't deliberate lies.

BUT

As my corrected version is in fact true:

We can see the place where we landed on the moon with telescopes IN ORBIT AROUND THE MOON, confirmed by other countries. How do you explain that away?????

Are you saying that pictures aren't fakable?

Sure they can be, but there is no plausible reason for the Japanese scientists or today's LRCO scientists to fake these pictures to cover up this supposed conspiracy from mid last century.

spidergoat

04-20-12, 01:50 PM

There are so many realistic artifacts associated with the moon landings that it would be almost as much trouble to fake it as it would be to have gone there in person. What would be the point? Just the fact that the rockets took off is difficult enough, and there's nothing between here and the moon, so why not just keep going?

FatFreddy

04-20-12, 02:18 PM

You see that post above with some red text? You seem to be having a problem answering it, are you playing dumb?

Why didn't Jarrah's flag move when the circumstances were more favourable, he was square on to it and running? Your conclusion was that the Apollo 15 flag was moved by air, and you flat out deny the flagpole moved. You deny that Jarrah concluded the
You're playing the same games you played over at JREF. I'm in a bit of a hurry now so people can see my responses to those same issues between this page...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531&page=198

...and page 206 of that thread.

spidergoat

04-20-12, 03:35 PM

I bet you didn't know that the Moon itself is fake. Yup, it's a hologram.

David C

04-20-12, 03:38 PM

You're playing the same games you played over at JREF. I'm in a bit of a hurry now so people can see my responses to those same issues between this page...
(snip link <20 posts)

...and page 206 of that thread.

Ahhh, he's "playing dumb" again. You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for that:rolleyes:

You haven't answered those points at all, you ran away after offering nonsensical answers. You are being asked this HERE, not at JREF.

Again, why doesn't Jarrah's flag move, when it is much more likely to move being square on to him, rather than 45 degrees AWAY from him like the Apollo 15 flag. He is also running straight at it and swerves at the last minute. It doesn't move until he is practically level with it. Can you explain this, the viewers are waiting?

There are some things that even the best (or worst;))sophists can't obfuscate, this is one of them. Another simple one is the fact that you cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk).

And a further one being how you keep making this claim of "the atmosphere explanation" yet you consistently fail/refuse to offer any physics that explains how a body in motion pushes air 4 to 6 feet in front of it.

I believe I have witnessed this same pattern of behaviour when you ran away from debate on the politicalforum - offering the truly lame circular argument of the criminally dense "faked Chinese spacewalk" being a qualifying credibility test. So come on do you seriously expect anybody to believe your explanation for why the maker of that video is an Apollo believer? You claim he was "got at". Ha ha ha ha - that is patently absurd.

I cannot fathom how you look at the zoomed in version of the "bubble" in the Chinese spacewalk and yet still maintain it is that - a bubble. It clearly isn't. It's like your statement "I can't see the flagpole move" when it so clearly does. You have 4 years of spamming to protect, so I guess you won't be suddenly developing logic, clarity, honesty?, or any other of the basics to help you understand why you are so wrong and so totally unable to admit it.

Believe

04-20-12, 07:38 PM

You're playing the same games you played over at JREF. I'm in a bit of a hurry now so people can see my responses to those same issues between this page...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531&page=198

...and page 206 of that thread.

Why is it that you absolutly refuse to answer anyone elses questions? I may have messed up one piece of information, but you still have not answered my question. What exactly would the US have to gain by faking the moon landing, besides embarresment when the truth came out? Also, of the THOUSANDS of people involved in project that would have had to know what was up, how come not even ONE has had a guilty conscience and come forward to say that they are fake????

FatFreddy

04-22-12, 03:02 PM

You haven't answered those points at all, you ran away after offering nonsensical answers.
The same people are asking the same questions that they asked over at JREF as if I hadn't addressed them. I'll post a direct link to one of my posts.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8181518&postcount=8217

Any objective viewer can read all of my posts between pages 198 and 206 and see what I said about these issues. Your saying that I didn't address them there won't fool those viewers that actually take the time to look. You'll only sway a few of the ones who don't.

You keep indirectly calling people liars. It is YOUR claim that they are buoyant rather than simply floating in space with simple shape memory, it is YOUR claim that it is an anomaly when it isn't.

Another question for you, do you know how cables are wound when they are made? Ever see a garden hose unravelled? Now this natural tendency to revert to this aquired shape, is unrestricted in zero-g, so why do you dismiss this without even giving it any credence? Please don't "play dumb" on this.

People can look at the info and decide for themselves.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

When the cables go up, they always do it in a way that's consistent with buoyancy. If shape memory were the explanation, the cables would also move in other directions. They wouldn't only move upward.

People can look at the footage of the alleged bubbles and decide for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(1:55 time mark)

The movement of the one that moves upward along the visor is consistent with a bubble and inconsistent with the movement of debris. It hugs the visor as it goes upward. A piece of debris wouldn't do that.

You people can try to obfuscate these anomalies all you want. There is a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective and these anomalies are that clear.

David C

04-22-12, 04:28 PM

The same people are asking the same questions that they asked over at JREF as if I hadn't addressed them. I'll post a direct link to one of my posts.

Wowie, you really are cornered aren't you. You have posted this issue here, now kindly address my questions here. They would laugh you out of the debating hall with that lame response.

1/ Again, why doesn't Jarrah's flag move, when it is much more likely to move being square on to him, rather than 45 degrees AWAY from him like the Apollo 15 flag. He is also running straight at it and swerves at the last minute. It doesn't move until he is practically level with it. Can you explain this? The viewers are waiting.

2/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk).

3/ And a further one being how you keep making this claim of "the atmosphere explanation" yet you consistently fail/refuse to offer any physics that explains how a body in motion pushes air 4 to 6 feet in front of it.

4/ The person who created the China faked it video, says we landed on the Moon, now that turns your "credibility test" into bovine excrement.

The viewers can see you twisting, turning and obfuscating, it really is very laughable. You are like the Monty Python Black Knight, you don't know when you are beaten. Reminds me of a quote from the opposingdigits page;)

Any objective viewer can read all of my posts between pages 198 and 206 and see what I said about these issues. Your saying that I didn't address them there won't fool those viewers that actually take the time to look. You'll only sway a few of the ones who don't.

Objective viewers disagree with you. Why should they have to go elsewhere to see you evade these same issues:shrug:

When the cables go up, they always do it in a way that's consistent with buoyancy. If shape memory were the explanation, the cables would also move in other directions. They wouldn't only move upward.

They move in numerous directions, selective blindness on your part once again. But even so, the retaining clips holds the cables in one plane, so any tendency they would have to move would be along that same plane. Your blanket refusal to even accept this as a simple explanation is symptomatic of your blinkered beliefs.

People can look at the footage of the alleged bubbles and decide for themselves.The movement of the one that moves upward along the visor is consistent with a bubble and inconsistent with the movement of debris. It hugs the visor as it goes upward. A piece of debris wouldn't do that.

Yes the viewers can see this weird shaped object revolving about its axis and nobody except you will "see" a bubble. Do you even believe your own arguments? Do you know what static electricity is? Do you know how stronger it is without an atmosphere and in a vacuum? Obviously not!

Viewers - Go to youtube search on both these keywords "cosmored" "bubble". If anybody watching those thinks it is a bubble, kindly post here.

You people can try to obfuscate these anomalies all you want. There is a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective and these anomalies are that clear.

Huh? You really are stuck here, now answer the questions and stop with the tapdancing. The viewers can see that your obfuscation is not working.

Aqueous Id

04-23-12, 02:34 AM

This video shows that it actually moves so it can't be the blooming effect.

All the videos could have been faked. Anything could be faked.

Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and exactly duplicate the movement.

But not just anybody can fake a moon landing THEN release a faulty video. Don't you have any clue how serious the space race was, and how, as a matter of national security, the US needed the Reds to think we never got there? Use your head, mon, it's counter-counter-countermeasures.

The nature of the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation and inconsistent with the ground vibration explanation.

I want to see data. Just how much atmosphere is on the moon and just how much is required to get that effect. Where does their exhalate go? Any vents on the left side of the suit? How much static charge on the suit or on the flag? What's the g-force between him and the flag? C'mon let's chase this baby down. It can't be that hard.

The support rod doesn't move as it would have if ground vibration had caused the pole to move.

Where's the faked blueprints for the flag. We need that. That will blow this whole site viral.

This video shows that the astronaut couldn't have touched it as it started moving before his arm got close to it.

Hell, if he'd bumped into it as fast as he was moving it would have reached escape velocity. So, I say again, let's identify ALL the forces acting on that flag! Stack 'me up, rule 'em out, prove they faked the video, and that's how you get traction. Traction? Don't forget any dust he kicked up. I want to see that flag tip position plotted - I bet it's a pure second order response from a servo. Servo? Any on-flag control system to keep it pointing at the official direction? (Stars lead stripes into battle.) There's just not enough brainstorming been done on this to chase it down. Has there been a fishbone analysis?

The corner of Collins' jacket bounces around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

What makes you think there's no gravity? What makes you think gravity is the only force acting on those materials? Where are the blueprints for the jackets? Are they designed to spring one way or the other? Is this only observed in Apollo or did we fake the video in the shuttle program too? Seriously: What makes you think this wasn't done simply to throw the Ruskies off - they're the only people who had adequate equipment back in the day to detect deliberately laid clues like these.

One tactic these pro-Apollo people do is use the same username I do on other forums to try to confuse people. My username at Spurstalk is Cosmored and my username at JREF is FatFreddy88. There is a person here using the name "Cosmored" and there's a person at Spurstalk using the name "FatFreddy88".
Take notes, because if you ever get confused which one is the real you, it means they've defeated some of your hologram countermeasures. You think I'm joking. This is bigger than you think. Just wait til we get to the blueprints and the physics. Someone seriously needs to file for the missing Apollo blueprints. This stuff needs to go to court.

leopold

04-24-12, 08:20 PM

I made a post supporting the hoax theory on a thread in another section and I was told it would be more appropriate to discuss it here so here's a link to the post.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2925403&postcount=26

Here's my latest post.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2926287&postcount=52

We can continue the discussion here.
there are a few very important things to remember about all of this.
first, there were thousands of people working on this project scattered over thousands of miles that knew for a fact whether the saturn 5 was capable of reaching, and landing a man on, the moon.
to my knowledge NONE of them even managed a whisper about such a hoax.

second, there is such a thing called russia.
these are the people that took the first photos of the backside of the moon and at the time our arch enemy.
they would love nothing more than to provide solid proof that the saturn 5 was incapable.
since they have expertise in getting to the moon they would know if our rockets were capable or not.
so far any such evidence has not been forthcoming

given the above facts it's easy to see that we did indeed have the capability.
since we had the capability i fail to see why we wouldn't use it.

if you want to prove we didn't go then prove the saturn 5 incapable.

Believe

04-24-12, 10:49 PM

there are a few very important things to remember about all of this.
first, there were thousands of people working on this project scattered over thousands of miles that knew for a fact whether the saturn 5 was capable of reaching, and landing a man on, the moon.
to my knowledge NONE of them even managed a whisper about such a hoax.

second, there is such a thing called russia.
these are the people that took the first photos of the backside of the moon and at the time our arch enemy.
they would love nothing more than to provide solid proof that the saturn 5 was incapable.
since they have expertise in getting to the moon they would know if our rockets were capable or not.
so far any such evidence has not been forthcoming

given the above facts it's easy to see that we did indeed have the capability.
since we had the capability i fail to see why we wouldn't use it.

if you want to prove we didn't go then prove the saturn 5 incapable.

At this point we just need to stop feeding the troll, I have already brought these things up and the persons argument against them was to simply restate the exact same information as before without addressing the issue in any way.

David C

04-25-12, 02:41 AM

there are a few very important things to remember about all of this.
first, there were thousands of people working on this project scattered over thousands of miles that knew for a fact whether the saturn 5 was capable of reaching, and landing a man on, the moon.
to my knowledge NONE of them even managed a whisper about such a hoax.

second, there is such a thing called russia.
these are the people that took the first photos of the backside of the moon and at the time our arch enemy.
they would love nothing more than to provide solid proof that the saturn 5 was incapable.
since they have expertise in getting to the moon they would know if our rockets were capable or not.
so far any such evidence has not been forthcoming

given the above facts it's easy to see that we did indeed have the capability.
since we had the capability i fail to see why we wouldn't use it.

if you want to prove we didn't go then prove the saturn 5 incapable.

When you see the duplicate come backs from this guy you can guess exactly what his reply to this is. He will say it could have been space radiation, and how do we know they are telling us the truth. Perhaps if he comes back and when he does indeed fire that back with his totally lame links, he could explain why objects routinely performing orbits through the VAB are not "fried" and how objects such as SMART-1/LROC/Kaguya and suchlike manage to work just fine. Indeed, the Soviets managed to soft land a few times on the Moon and actually returned a few with soil samples, so perhaps he could explain that one as well. Fat chance, since he ignores difficult stuff and runs away.

leopold

04-25-12, 03:03 AM

He will say it could have been space radiation, . . .
due to the numerous probes that were sent aloft before hand it would be well known whether man could withstand it.
i fail to see the project moving ahead if he couldn't.
the astronauts themselves were intimately involved with both the design and construction of the saturn 5, they also had access to the research, including the radiation research.
i seriously doubt the astronauts would put their own lives in jeopardy.
a number of flights were scrubbed due directly to such concerns from the astronauts.

. . . and how do we know they are telling us the truth.
you simply can not silence thousands of people scattered over thousands of miles, you just can't do it.

i guess now he will raise the "atom bomb secret".
this is an entirely different animal.
the scientists that worked on, and constructed, "the gadget" was contained in one area, in essence their own city complete with their own area code and phone system.
nothing entered or left that town without being censored, even the mail was scrutinized.

of all of the stuff i have read concerning this NONE of it addresses the capability issue.

Read-Only

04-25-12, 07:57 AM

Just a couple of things in general here, folks.

I suggested several days ago that we just ignore this troll and let him leave due to being starved for attention.

Plus, anytime you see someone start a thread on a topic like this, you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of one of three things (or even all three):

1. His elevator doesn't go all the way to the top;

2. He's SO poorly educated that he does not know even the most basic things about science or;

3. He IS nothing but a troll and just wants to stir up controversy and has NO interest in honest debate NOR has any interest in the actual truth of the subject.

So, in the final analysis, it's not worth spending even a moment of your time responding to him. He's a total looser. (Note - I came into the thread just now because I've read all the other new posts and had nothing else to do for a minute or two. Otherwise, I would have never bothered to even look at it again.) :shrug:

FatFreddy

04-25-12, 02:34 PM

You pro-Apollo posters are really just wasting your time as there are anomalies that are simply too clear to obfuscate.

Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and exactly duplicate the movement of the flag in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

Anyone can hang a light jacket on a coat hanger and bounce it up and down and exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

...and the jacket corners in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

More on the flag...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+The+Flags+Are+Al ive&oq=MoonFaker%3A+The+Flags+Are+Alive&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-reduced.12...5532.9485.0.10500.24.12.0.0.0.5.125.4 82.10j1.12.0.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+the+Dea d+Horses&oq=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+the+Dead+Horses&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube.12...18641.29359.0.31219.42.37.2.0.0. 2.110.2377.32j2.34.0.

As I've said before, there's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. The best sophist in the world couldn't convince a ten-year-old that a picture of an elephant is really a picture of a zebra. Those Apollo anomalies are about that clear. I'd say your success rate here is close to zero.

spidergoat

04-25-12, 02:44 PM

These are all supremely stupid arguments. There is no wind on the moon, but there is still gravity, momentum, and movement.

Believe

04-25-12, 03:01 PM

Broken record, just keeps repeating itself.

Maybe if you answered some of the questions that people have asked you it would be different. I'm guessing that would require too much thinking and you know that you can't do too much of that and keep your crazy point of view.

David C

04-25-12, 03:13 PM

Wowie, you really are cornered aren't you. You have posted this issue here, now kindly address my questions here. They would laugh you out of the debating hall with that lame response.

1/ Again, why doesn't Jarrah's flag move, when it is much more likely to move being square on to him, rather than 45 degrees AWAY from him like the Apollo 15 flag. He is also running straight at it and swerves at the last minute. It doesn't move until he is practically level with it. Can you explain this? The viewers are waiting.

2/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk).

3/ And a further one being how you keep making this claim of "the atmosphere explanation" yet you consistently fail/refuse to offer any physics that explains how a body in motion pushes air 4 to 6 feet in front of it.

4/ The person who created the China faked it video, says we landed on the Moon, now that turns your "credibility test" into bovine excrement.

5/ They move in numerous directions, selective blindness on your part once again. But even so, the retaining clips holds the cables in one plane, so any tendency they would have to move would be along that same plane. Your blanket refusal to even accept this as a simple explanation is symptomatic of your blinkered beliefs.

6/ Yes the viewers can see this weird shaped object revolving about its axis and nobody except you will "see" a bubble. Do you even believe your own arguments? Do you know what static electricity is? Do you know how stronger it is without an atmosphere and in a vacuum? Obviously not!

Fatfreddy is totally cornered and resorts to more spamming - the broken record of this serial forum spammer ignores the points above. Of all the millions of engineers, physicists or anybody with education really, FF presumes to think that only he can see this and everybody else is paid by NASA to say otherwise.

Cesspit - there's no hope for somebody so ignorant.

Believe

04-25-12, 03:25 PM

Agreed, mods this travesty has gone on long enough.

FatFreddy

04-25-12, 03:46 PM

Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2928317&postcount=66

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.

Of all the millions of engineers, physicists or anybody with education really, FF presumes to think that only he can see this and everybody else is paid by NASA to say otherwise.

That's all addressed in this post which I've already posted.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.

spidergoat

04-25-12, 03:51 PM

You could videotape any scene on Earth or in space and find some tiny details to pick apart. It's not a valid argument. Get some help man, you're obsessed with nonsense.

Read-Only

04-25-12, 04:25 PM

You could videotape any scene on Earth or in space and find some tiny details to pick apart. It's not a valid argument. Get some help man, you're obsessed with nonsense.

It's much more than just an obsession - if he's actually as serious as he wants us to believe, it's a full-blown DELUSION - and he needs more than just help. He's approaching the point where he's going to need confinement. :bugeye:

David C

04-25-12, 04:29 PM

Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.

No they won't, and you are as usual playing the spam 'n' dumb game without offering replies to questions people are asking you.

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -
"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -
"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"
Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Believe

04-25-12, 04:42 PM

Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2928317&postcount=66

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.

That's all addressed in this post which I've already posted.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.

Why do you think you're turned away everywhere you go? Of all the forums and posts you've linked almost everyone disagrees with you. Are we all in on it too?

David C

04-25-12, 06:16 PM

You pro-Apollo posters are really just wasting your time.... <snipped>

Enough said. You show no capability at all of answering questions or showing critical thinking skills. You have no scientific background so why should you think that only you can "see" bubbles "not see" moving flag rods and yet the millions of better qualified people in the world see the opposite(cue another list of spammed links telling us that all scientists are wrong/corruptable).

So yes, it is a waste of time engaging you - you are a lost cause.

David C

04-25-12, 06:19 PM

Why do you think you're turned away everywhere you go? Of all the forums and posts you've linked almost everyone disagrees with you. Are we all in on it too?

Some forums he just runs away from rather than just banned. Like this one for example where he was just massacred -

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-3.html

Trippy

04-29-12, 02:40 PM

Jarrah White is a fraud, it's been proven time and time again.

FatFreddy

05-02-12, 09:14 AM

Believe

05-02-12, 09:42 AM

David C

05-02-12, 03:08 PM

Those pro-Apollo posters over at JREF are playing the same game you people are playing�insisting that I haven't answered questions when I have. I went ahead and answered them again so they wouldn't be able to bury my posts. Here's the link to where I answered them again.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8250191&postcount=8333

The one playing games is you. Nowhere in that post is actual answers to those 3 points. You can't answer them can you, because you are a lame obfuscating sophist who is cornered. They would laugh you out of the debating hall with that.

When he tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked, he was pretty much discredited and there wasn't much point in continuing.

Translation: He destroyed one of my other nutty pet spamming topics, I had no answer to any of the points he raised in that or any of his other posts, so I ran away.

The only thing that matters is what the viewers end up thinking and I think most of them weren't morons.

The imaginary appeal to support that never materialises. Is this forum a disinfo site aimed at perpetuating a fraud:rolleyes:

Here's where he tried again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is so clear that it makes a good objectivity test. You people also failed that test.

A credibility test that fails in itself, since the video you cite as "evidence" was made by a pro-Apollo supporter. LMAO!!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Absolutely obliterated, no wonder you ran away.

Again:

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Again:

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? A blanket refusal to answer questions and points and a complete lack of coherent argument. Mixed in with carefully cut and pasted duplicate answers on countless fora, we have......Supertroll.

MacGyver1968

05-02-12, 07:44 PM

Anyone with even a 101 psychological knowledge can see you are schizophrenic.. The belief that all your detractors actually believe in what you say is classic schizophrenic behavior. If your not committed right now...you should be.

FatFreddy

05-06-12, 09:24 AM

This was posted...

Sure - the trajectory of the dust from the rover tires is a great examble of a parabolic arc in a vacuum but fat freddy seems to be ok with ignoring that and is instead having problems with the dust only.

...in post #9 of this other thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113514

I'm going to address it here as that thread is in a section where the Apollo hoax issue is not supposed to be discussed.

Start watching this video at the 1:57:45 time mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748#docid=5638049439673634422

The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.

Here's a link to some more evidence of a hoax for people who are new to this issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Trippy

05-06-12, 01:43 PM

Start watching this video at the 1:57:45 time mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748#docid=5638049439673634422

The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.
@ about the 30 minute mark.

1. The mongolian herdsman is surrounded by divergent shadows.
2. If you look at the reflection in the faceplate you can see the opposition effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_effect) or maybe Heiligenschein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein)

David C

05-06-12, 02:43 PM

This was posted...The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.

Incessant spamming snipped.

I like this video here if you want to get picky about the rover dust arcs.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA

There are two alternatives. Either regolith will rise and fall in a parabolic trajectory, or it will aerosolise and cause suspension. Air will slow it just as much on the way up as on the way down.

Since we don't see any suspension WHATSOEVER, this leaves the only other possibility. Now the reason why some of the time it may not be visibly parabolic is simply through the chaotic nature of the particles colliding.

Meanwhile, the supertroll is avoiding the questions here, whilst lying about answering them at JREF.

Trippy

05-06-12, 02:46 PM

Opposition effect demonstrated using gravel:
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/A_Opposition_effect_gravel.jpg

Opposition effect demonstrated using clover leaves:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6108/6327548038_645f7fb288_z.jpg

FatFreddy

05-06-12, 03:38 PM

I like this video here if you want to get picky about the rover dust arcs.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA

That video was made by Betamax. He's a known disinfo agent. Look how he lamely tried to obfuscate the clear evidence that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

He doesn't even believe his own arguments.

David C

05-06-12, 04:48 PM

That video was made by Betamax. He's a known disinfo agent. Look how he lamely tried to obfuscate the clear evidence that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

He doesn't even believe his own arguments.

Translation: I am unable to argue with him because he has totally taken my whole argument to pieces, therefore I will make unsubstantiated crap ad hominems and run away from answering him.

Please advise how you know he is a "disinfo agent", and advise also to whom this is known.

I think you are a disinfo agent, because you have spent five years making the same claims on hundreds of fora without ever answering major questions asked of you.

Your reason for discounting somebody's argument because they disbelieve yet another stupid conspiracy theory, whilst they simultaneously destroy that very theory is truly pathetic. I would remind anybody who is watching this, that the man whose video you rely on for your bonkers claim, is in fact a person who knows Apollo landed on the Moon.

Indeed, your claim that this piece of debris rotating on its axis is a bubble is one of the most obvious cases of "somebody not believing their own argument" you could get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc

Please answer the questions you have been asked and explain the dippy contradictions you made pertaining to them.

Again:
Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue - You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Again:
You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

The viewers are not swayed by your obfuscation and sophistry, you would be laughed out of the debating hall with your squirming and non-replies.

wroberson

05-25-12, 08:57 PM

The OP is correct. He's just going about it the wrong way.
I would post the link, if I could, but it would be spam even though I wouldn't make a sent. You want to research the most informative video evidence that the greatest scientific achievement in modern history was in fact the greatest government conspiracy of all time.

He's added so much new stuff.

He might even have Mars's Blue Sky Footage.

Neverfly

05-25-12, 10:38 PM

origin

05-26-12, 09:27 PM

Sometimes, I when see how stupid people can be it makes me a bit uneasy.:(

AlexG

05-27-12, 02:16 AM

Sometimes, I when see how stupid people can be it makes me a bit uneasy.:(

I guess four million years of evolution wasn't really enough.

Neverfly

05-27-12, 02:56 AM

I guess four million years of evolution wasn't really enough.

Considering that (And I know you know this...) evolution does not lead toward any kind of goal- rather it's just mutations and some of them work and most don't- there's not telling how long life must evolve for it to get anywhere.

FatFreddy

06-05-12, 07:59 AM

Tell us why the photos of the stars allegedly taken from the moon on the Apollo 16 mission couldn't have been taken from an unmanned space probe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68

There's a mountain of proof that they faked the missions.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".

David C

06-05-12, 09:23 AM

Tell us why the photos of the stars allegedly taken from the moon on the Apollo 16 mission couldn't have been taken from an unmanned space probe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68

Do you know how hard it is to take pictures of stars from something moving at thousands of miles an hour - get a clue will ya, because you are just the most uninformed troll on the interenet.

There's a mountain of proof that they faked the missions. SNIPSPAM

The spammer chucks his link up again. Your whole mountain of crap taken apart here....

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".

Err no. Everything in space has been faked according to your moronic beliefs - Apollo, Gemini spacewalks, Chinese Spacewalks and now Mars rovers. Do you have an original thought of your own?

Again:

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Again:
You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? A blanket refusal to answer questions and points and a complete lack of coherent argument. Mixed in with carefully cut and pasted duplicate answers on countless fora, we have......Supertroll.

Believe

06-05-12, 03:50 PM

Tell us why the photos of the stars allegedly taken from the moon on the Apollo 16 mission couldn't have been taken from an unmanned space probe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68

There's a mountain of proof that they faked the missions.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".

LOL, still at this shit? Seriously can't you see that people here are not buying your crap? Go away and post your bull shit somewhere else.

Also, quoting crank sites does not help your case idiot. :roflmao:

Neverfly

06-05-12, 03:53 PM

Repost:
http://www.clavius.org/
Courtesy of JayUtah- BAUT

FatFreddy

06-07-12, 07:38 AM

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

It looks to me like you're deliberately showing what I said out-of-context to mislead the viewers. People can look at what I said here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989715

If I missed something, could you link to it?

origin

06-07-12, 11:51 AM

If I missed something, could you link to it?

You have missed or lost your common sense. I do not know where it went so I am unable to link you to it, sorry.

FatFreddy

06-07-12, 03:05 PM

Repost:
http://www.clavius.org/
Courtesy of JayUtah- BAUT
Jay Windley knows Apollo was a hoax as well as the hoax-believers do. Look at his response to this issue.

I asked Jay to address this issue.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Here's his response.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

If those links don't lead to the posts, this one does.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-33.html#post1061288267

More here...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

Neverfly

06-07-12, 04:45 PM

Jay Windley knows Apollo was a hoax as well as the hoax-believers do. Look at his response to this issue.
I read the entire thing and nowhere in that post does it seem Jay believes that the Lunar Landings were hoaxed. In fact, he presented a good argument for the landings.

I see a lot of Red Herrings for you... But let's be realistic. That's betwen you and JayUtah. No need to drag us readers in halfway through (Although, I am a member of JREF and can go on over and give my opinions.)

Let's try something NEW HERE. Sound reasonable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68
Demonstrate how you would show that this information is inaccurate and how you might prove it.

David C

06-07-12, 05:41 PM

If I missed something, could you link to it?

Wow, you are even lying about stuff that you know you have said. Just answer the points. If you say they are said ina certain context, go ahead and explain, it's so very simple. All you do is fire up a load of spam and say "there you are".

With this, all you did is put up a link to a biggish thread and expect people to go and find answers to crap that you should be providing.

People would laugh at you from inside the debating hall as you scratch around the rubbish bins outside, for clues as to why you need to spam and act like a troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwKqPn-YU

Now answer the points properly. I particularly like the "if it turns out there really is some floating, and all this time I am in fact totally and completely wrong saying there is none, here is my fallback position which is even more moronic." quote. LMAO!

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Again:
You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

This forum, like every forum you visit, can see that you are avoiding answering the questions because they tear the backside out of your idiotic opinions.

DaveC426913

06-07-12, 05:44 PM

Demonstrate how you would show that this information is inaccurate and how you might prove it.
There is no need.

It is a fundamental tenet of all Moon Hoaxers that they believe the US and the rest of the world would

happily spend twenty times the amount of money on
- faking the entire decade of rockets, landing vehicles, sets, moon rocks, videos, audios, telescope data,
- putting up buttloads of secret satellites that bounce back our signals
- as well as the hush money for the thousands and thousands of people involved for - now into our fifth decade - to keep them silent...

than they would simply to

just land on the damned thing. (Hoaxers grant that the rockets went up. They even grant we put up a buttload of satellites around the Moon (otherwise how do they bounce back our laser signals?) They just think the big rockets hung out somewhere else, rather than actually going to the Moon.)

So anyway, the catch-all answer is: you got evidence? You faked it.

Neverfly

06-07-12, 05:55 PM

There is no need.

It is a fundamental tenet of all Moon Hoaxers that they believe the US and the rest of the world would

happily spend twenty times the amount of money on
- faking the entire decade of rockets, landing vehicles, sets, moon rocks, videos, audios, telescope data,
- putting up buttloads of secret satellites that bounce back our signals
- as well as the hush money for the thousands and thousands of people involved for - now into our fifth decade - to keep them silent...

than they would simply to

just land on the damned thing. (Hoaxers grant that the rockets went up. They even grant we put up a buttload of satellites around the Moon (otherwise how do they bounce back our laser signals?) They just think the big rockets hung out somewhere else, rather than actually going to the Moon.)

So anyway, the catch-all answer is: you got evidence? You faked it.
I know, but he gives me a great excuse to put the video up for others enjoyment. :)

Dr. Carruthers, like Sagan, is actually a bit of a hero of mine, so it's kinda personal.

DaveC426913

06-07-12, 05:55 PM

...the greatest government conspiracy of all time.

It would be wouldn't it? (This from the same White House that couldn't keep Watergate or Monica Lewinsky under wraps.)

So, why wouldn't they take the far cheaper path, and just do it for real. They could have made a bona fide trip to Mars for all the money it would have cost them to fake all the Lunar landings and keep it hidden for a half century.

Believe

06-10-12, 01:54 AM

The best part is that when other countries go the moon and visit the landing sites and send back pictures they will say that they put the stuff there to continue the cover up! :)

origin

06-11-12, 12:08 PM

It would be wouldn't it? (This from the same White House that couldn't keep Watergate or Monica Lewinsky under wraps.)

So, why wouldn't they take the far cheaper path, and just do it for real. They could have made a bona fide trip to Mars for all the money it would have cost them to fake all the Lunar landings and keep it hidden for a half century.

Don't you see! That is the point; we did go to Mars and we used going to the moon as the cover story. It is all coming together. We went to the moon to negotiate with the alien on the mars base to ask them to stop anal probing our citizens. We had to come up with a story since the rocket launches were pretty obvious.

So any way, we had the fake moon missions and instead went to mars for the high level alien meetings.

This is why the russians never revealed that we didn't go to the moon - because they would have to admit we went to mars and really be embarrased.

FatFreddy

06-15-12, 07:56 AM

Now answer the points properly.

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"
You're obviously trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to look at what I was referring to. I guess I'll have to make it very clear to thwart you.

You got that quote from this page.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989715

I was referring to the motion of the astronaut's jacket corner at the 00:08 time mark of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=TejsnPThmd4

The corner flops up and down because of her arm movement. It moves the way it would in zero-G. When I said it has no tendency to go downward, I was referring to the lack of gravity as it would have a tendency to go downward in gravity when there's no movement. This is clear to anyone who actually looks at what I was referring to.

The tactics you're using are those of a cornered sophist. This is what pro-Apollo posters usually do when faced with clear anomalies that are impossible to obfuscate. There's hardly any point in continuing to debate with you people as it's clear to any thinking person who actually looks at the anomalies that you don't even believe your own arguments.

I read the entire thing and nowhere in that post does it seem Jay believes that the Lunar Landings were hoaxed.
You're playing dumb about this because you want to draw attention away from it.

I asked Jay to address this issue.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Here's his response.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Only someone who doesn't even believe his own arguments would have said what Jay said in that post.

The spammer chucks his link up again. Your whole mountain of crap taken apart here....

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
I doubt that many people who take the time to actually look at what he says will agree that he takes it apart. He also claimed that the Chinese spacwalk was real...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

...so he's obviously not a truth-seeker. You people also claim the Chinese spacewalk was real so nothing you say is to be taken seriously.

Why don't you people tell the viewers why two of you have used the same user names that I've used elsewhere?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

Did you do it to cause confusion?

David C

06-15-12, 04:11 PM

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

I have ignored your explanation as you would be executed by the debating hall evil overlord for actually being being dumb. You don't need to play at this, you seem to have it au natural.:D Hair either has a tendency to go down without gravity, or it doesn't - I laugh with derision at your useless explanation. You seem to be cornered here.

Now answer the points properly. I particularly like the "if it turns out there really is some floating, and all this time I am in fact totally and completely wrong saying there is none, here is my fallback position which is even more moronic." quote. LMAO!

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Answer the questions:

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

I see the same pattern here as everywhere he goes. Questions get asked, he avoids the ones that make his dumb argument fall to pieces. I saw the same on the political forum where betamax101 tore him a new backside. He just cannot answer them.

FatFreddy

06-17-12, 06:27 AM

Here's something I just came across.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Moon+Landings+Fact+or+Fic tion+by+Marcus+Alan+&oq=The+Moon+Landings+Fact+or+Fiction+by+Marcus+Ala n+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...30735.36985.0.37391.8.8.0.0.0.0.156.10 00.1j7.8.0...0.0.dLZem8w-o0Q

Read-Only

06-17-12, 07:27 AM

I have ignored your explanation as you would be executed by the debating hall evil overlord for actually being being dumb. You don't need to play at this, you seem to have it au natural.:D Hair either has a tendency to go down without gravity, or it doesn't - I laugh with derision at your useless explanation. You seem to be cornered here.

Now answer the points properly. I particularly like the "if it turns out there really is some floating, and all this time I am in fact totally and completely wrong saying there is none, here is my fallback position which is even more moronic." quote. LMAO!

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?

Answer the questions:

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

I see the same pattern here as everywhere he goes. Questions get asked, he avoids the ones that make his dumb argument fall to pieces. I saw the same on the political forum where betamax101 tore him a new backside. He just cannot answer them.

Keep this in mind, David: Ignorance (simply not knowing) can be fixed; stupidity is forever. ;)

And a "forever" person simply continues to ignore solid facts and simply repeats the same nonsense. Trying to fix him is a wasted effort. :shrug:

FatFreddy

06-17-12, 07:43 AM

You two are playing dumb about post #120.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2948184&postcount=120

Playing dumb about it doesn't make it go away.

David C

06-17-12, 08:31 AM

You two are playing dumb about post #120.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2948184&postcount=120

Playing dumb about it doesn't make it go away.

You are dumb. You are also avoiding the majority of those statements and questions. What answers you have given to a couple of them are derisable.

Go on spammer, just answer this one......

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

FatFreddy

06-17-12, 08:45 AM

Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!
You're misrepresenting the hoax-believer position to mislead the viewers so I'll have to set the record straight.

Here's the anomaly in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it but he was a lot closer than four feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk
(4:30 time mark)

David C

06-17-12, 06:30 PM

You're misrepresenting the hoax-believer position to mislead the viewers so I'll have to set the record straight.

You liar. This is not anybody's "position". It is a straight question you are completely unable to answer, so you resort to spam.

The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it but he was a lot closer than four feet.

What a crock. I think you are just one of those people who denies 'in your face' obvious proof.

Like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

Clearly at least four feet away. The other video in this series....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc&feature=bf_next&list=PL5B072595E7EC7210

Shows movement even further away.

http://i.picasion.com/pic51/a4ca9aa4b152fddb2f2f2facfed8a64e.gif

Why did Jarrah's flag, square on and more likely to move from magically pushed air, NOT MOVE until he was practically level with it, whilst the Apollo flag shows movement at 4-6 feet away.

Explain using physics and references how air is pushed in front of a moving body.

Here is some assistance as you seem to be good at being dumb...

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/windtunnel.html
"The basic idea of a wind tunnel is simple: if you can't move the plane through the air, why not move the air past the plane instead? From a scientific point of view, it's exactly the same. If a plane drags (causes air resistance) when it soars through the sky, air will drag in exactly the same way when you fire it past a stationary model of the plane on the ground."

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/252498main_WindTunnels_2-xltn.jpg

FatFreddy

06-18-12, 02:51 PM

When I look at Jarrah's video, it starts to move a little later than it does in Betamax's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

Let's not forget that Betamax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/211182-man-has-landed-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

...so he's a known obfuscator; I wouldn't put doctoring videos past him.

In his video he proposes the "Blooming effect" explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

This video shows that to be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

Why did Jarrah's flag, square on and more likely to move from magically pushed air, NOT MOVE until he was practically level with it, whilst the Apollo flag shows movement at 4-6 feet away.

According to Jarrah's scenario, he was much closer to the flag when it started moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk

You also know the hoax-believer answer to why Jarrah's flag didn't move until he was practially level with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)

If it's at a forty five degree angle, the way it moves is going to be different than it would be at a ninety degree angle.

You people are trying to mislead those viewers who haven't seen the footage to which you're referring. Once they actually see it, they'll know you don't even believe your own arguments.

You people and Betamax all maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so none of you are to be taken seriously. The proof that the Chinese spacewalked was faked is simply too clear to obfuscate. It's so clear that it makes a good objectivity test.

spidergoat

06-18-12, 03:01 PM

I see the flag oscillating slightly. Is this supposed to be the proof that the moon landing was fake? I don't know how they could have faked that video unless it was on the moon!

leopold

06-18-12, 03:14 PM

the capability issue fatfreddy, why haven't you addressed it yet?

FatFreddy

06-18-12, 03:24 PM

the capability issue fatfreddy, why haven't you addressed it yet?

given the above facts it's easy to see that we did indeed have the capability.
since we had the capability i fail to see why we wouldn't use it.

Your scenario doesn't take space radiation into account. There's some alternative info on that in the lower part of this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

spidergoat

06-18-12, 03:31 PM

There is no atmosphere on the Moon, but there was on the ship. I'm sure that some venting could have occurred in the airlock and such. Also, kicking up moon dust could cause the same effect as an air current. Or, forces are being transmitted through the ground when they are walking around. Or the flag is oscillating due to the original movement of putting it in the ground. Or the movement is apparent due to the camera moving. There are so many explanations that are much more reasonable than "we didn't go to the Moon".

leopold

06-18-12, 06:58 PM

Your scenario doesn't take space radiation into account. There's some alternative info on that in the lower part of this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
evading the issue?
nevermind, it's in the conspiracies subforum, brainfreeze on my part.

FatFreddy

06-19-12, 05:58 AM

evading the issue?

No. I addressed the issue.
You said they had the capability to go to the moon. You seem to be basing that opinion on a scenario in which they could have just gone into space without worring about radiation. If the alternative info to which I linked turns out to be correct, we know why they had to fake it. They could have simply gone if space radiation hadn't been a factor. If they had to design heavy shielding into the craft that they were going to send to the moon, it would have been much too heavy and the astronauts couldn't have walked on the moon in those suits as they wouldn't protect them against space radiation.

This is my answer to your assertion that they had the capability to go to the moon.

If you're a sincere truth-seeker, please take a look at the info on space radiation in the lower part of this post and comment on it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

David C

06-19-12, 08:18 AM

When I look at Jarrah's video, it starts to move a little later than it does in Betamax's video.

No it doesn't. The simple act of downloading the video and doing frame extrapolation easily shows this. Your denial of 'in your face obvious' is pathetic. I just posted a gif of two frames taken from that video. The flag moves 4-6 feet away easily. Easily. Even had there only been movement two feet away or 1 foot away, irrelevant. Air does not get pushed more than a few inches in front of something like an astronaut. You are completely cornered, but may be too dumb to realise why.

Let's not forget that Betamax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...

Oh shutup with your stupid conspiracy theory to prop up another one. The Chinese didn't fake their spacewalk, that is almost as moronic as saying Apollo was faked.

...so he's a known obfuscator; I wouldn't put doctoring videos past him.

Known to whom, please cite your references. Your pathetic ad-hominem noted. Once again you use this as a means to avoid answering the points raised by him, that totally destroyed your arguments.

The maker of the Chinese fake video is a pro-Apollo supporter. LMAO at you "playing" dumb and succeeding.

In his video he proposes the "Blooming effect" explanation.

Maybe, I favour ground vibration. The one thing it provably cannot be is movement of air by the astronaut. The laws of physics don't get to be broken by idiotic conspiracy theorists.

This video shows that to be wrong.

How so? That video shows only the bottom right hand corner. The flagpole itself moves as well, by a similar amount.

According to Jarrah's scenario, he was much closer to the flag when it started moving.

Say what? White assessed that the flag moved before he was even level with the flag pole! At 45 degrees, a 4' wide flag sideways on is just under 3' - White shows the movement at least a foot before the astronauts body crosses the flagpole. As I said 4 feet. Now do try again and try not to obfuscate with your nonsense.

You also know the hoax-believer answer to why Jarrah's flag didn't move until he was practially level with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)

Oh good grief. Let me get this straight, you are saying the reason a flag doesn't move is because he is holding a bloody balloon? Ha ha ha. Man, you are really dumb if you believe that. The flag doesn't move before he gets there, because that is exactly how air behaves, it moves to the side, not rams 4-6 feet in front of something.

An airplane wing and how it doesn't push air in front of it...

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/89149/530wm/C0024888-Aeroplane_wing_model,_wind_tunnel_image-SPL.jpg

If it's at a forty five degree angle, the way it moves is going to be different than it would be at a ninety degree angle.

Well gee, good of you to admit it. The reality is that something square in in front of something, is more likely to be moved by your "wall of air" stupid "atmosphere explanation", than something angled 45 degrees AWAY from it!!

You people are trying to mislead those viewers who haven't seen the footage to which you're referring. Once they actually see it, they'll know you don't even believe your own arguments.

I believe my own argument, I don't mislead. Your objective is to obfuscate, spam and avoid answering the difficult questions. Your behaviour never varies, you are really very sad.

You people and Betamax all maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so none of you are to be taken seriously. The proof that the Chinese spacewalked was faked is simply too clear to obfuscate. It's so clear that it makes a good objectivity test.

The maker of the "proof" video believes Apollo landed on the Moon, your objectivity test is an exercise in stupidity. Your "explanation" for this, was that he may have been got at, would get you laughed out of the debating hall. Quite how you can say the "bubble" - obviously a piece of space debris tumbling around - is plain delusion. Seriously, state your case, how you can deny this.

leopold

06-19-12, 04:07 PM

No. I addressed the issue.
in which post?

You said they had the capability to go to the moon.
i didn't say any such thing.
i assume we had the capability since no evidence to the contrary was presented.
the flag waving, dust clouds and other "errata" is pointless.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2929477&postcount=73
i've read a lot about this supposed hoax and nowhere have i found any reference to the capability issue.
there can be only one reason for that.

You seem to be basing that opinion on a scenario in which they could have just gone into space without worring about radiation.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2929614&postcount=76

If the alternative info to which I linked turns out to be correct, we know why they had to fake it.
what do you mean if?
don't you even know whether your sources are right or not?

They could have simply gone if space radiation hadn't been a factor. If they had to design heavy shielding into the craft that they were going to send to the moon, it would have been much too heavy and the astronauts couldn't have walked on the moon in those suits as they wouldn't protect them against space radiation.
you do realize this only applies to gamma radiation, right?

This is my answer to your assertion that they had the capability to go to the moon.
the rocket fatfreddy, i was talking about the saturn 5.

If you're a sincere truth-seeker, . . .
i am a sincere truth seeker.
that's exactly why i want you to address the capability of the rocket.

FatFreddy

06-20-12, 02:33 PM

The maker of the "proof" video believes Apollo landed on the Moon
Sometimes anti-establishment pundits say things they obviously don't even believe because they've either been threatened, or bribed. Look at what James Van Allen says in this article.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

After he started working for NASA, he changed his stand.

Some people even think that some of them may be sleeper agents; look at Noam Chomsky's position on 9/11's having been an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

He's no moron and he's surely seen the proof.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

He knows it was an inside job and he's saying it wasn't.

The government seems to have a way of getting to these people.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3761668/1/

No matter what else that guy says, the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk that he pointed out are simply too clear for you people to obfuscate and your success rate in swaying the viewers who actually look at them is probably close to zero.

Oh shutup with your stupid conspiracy theory to prop up another one. The Chinese didn't fake their spacewalk, that is almost as moronic as saying Apollo was faked.

Well, your credibility is shot. The only people you're going to sway with your tactic of using rhetoric is the people who don't take the time to look at the proof. There's really no more point in talking to you as you obviously don't even believe your own arguments. I think that if you people look at this site,...
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

you'll be able to infer what I'm thinking here.

Here's a partial summary of the Apollo-hoax proof.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

The people who say Apollo happened also say that the Chinese spacewalk was real so there's really no point in wasting time talking to them. If any serious posters come along, I'll come back and debate with them.

FatFreddy

06-20-12, 02:38 PM

Here's the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank in case the other link goes off-line.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

Watch it at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
(1:55 time mark)

Trippy

06-20-12, 02:47 PM

So what about the current mission? With the Shenzhou 9 and Tiangong 1 docked in orbit and the female astronaut? Is that real or fake?

David C

06-20-12, 03:19 PM

Here's the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank in case the other link goes off-line.

You pathetic spammer.

Owned with big bells on....

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

I think the title of that website dedicated to you is very descriptive. Only a moron thinks a flag flutters in a viscous medium such as water. You poor deluded person, do you not think for yourself?

David C

06-20-12, 03:27 PM

Sometimes anti-establishment pundits say things they obviously don't even believe because they've either been threatened, or bribed. Look at what James Van Allen says in this article.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

After he started working for NASA, he changed his stand.

No he didn't, the incoming data from his first experiment was inaccurate. After 40 more missions, he had a better idea. Science evolves.

Some people even think that some of them may be sleeper agents; look at Noam Chomsky's position on 9/11's having been an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

He's no moron and he's surely seen the proof.
He knows it was an inside job and he's saying it wasn't.

The psychic spammer are you? He says it wasn't an inside job, because it wasn't. He is smart enough to see why.

The government seems to have a way of getting to these people.

Paranoid BS, to prop up your stupid argument. People who you previously relied on, dispute other crap of yours, so you have no recourse but to make this BS argument.

No matter what else that guy says, the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk that he pointed out are simply too clear for you people to obfuscate and your success rate in swaying the viewers who actually look at them is probably close to zero.

I've actually yet to see a single person agree with you, so that is closer to 100% than zero, d'ya think?

Well, your credibility is shot.

When an idiot assesses my credibility based on an idiotic test, the conclusion is flawed.

The only people you're going to sway with your tactic of using rhetoric is the people who don't take the time to look at the proof. There's really no more point in talking to you as you obviously don't even believe your own arguments.

Yeah, run away from debate again when you get your backside kicked........

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2949522&postcount=135

Here's a partial summary of the Apollo-hoax proof.

And here is where your wall of spam is taken apart .....

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

The people who say Apollo happened also say that the Chinese spacewalk was real so there's really no point in wasting time talking to them. If any serious posters come along, I'll come back and debate with them.

No you won't, you'll just spam your crap again and avoid the difficult questions.

Awoken

06-21-12, 06:40 PM

Hey fat freddie, you're getting ripped up here royally on this topic, but hat's off to.

I've looked into this briefly, but I almost wonder if they used the moon landings to launder money to fund who knows what, the vietnam war was going on. Get man to the moon (and on the moon), film what you can, then improvise what you can't, sell it to the public, funding rolls in and funnel it to other areas.

Ah conspiracy theories, I love em.

Trippy

06-21-12, 09:52 PM

So Freddy.

What is it about the Shenzhou 7 mission, precisely, that you believe was faked?

Believe

06-28-12, 03:09 PM

Perfect

http://xkcd.com/1074/

spidergoat

06-28-12, 03:11 PM

Can we start a fund to send FatFreddy into space?

Awoken

06-28-12, 05:39 PM

Can we start a fund to send FatFreddy into space?

does he actually have to make it to space or can we just make an honest effort?

spidergoat

06-28-12, 05:48 PM

You know, one of those space tourism packages. I don't know if they orbit or not.

Hercules Rockefeller

06-29-12, 01:45 AM

:D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/moon_landing.png

http://xkcd.com/1074/

Mouseover text:
Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.

Torbis101

07-14-12, 10:40 PM

I believe the moon landing was a fake. And ofcourse the USA is 'proud' of it ... they live & survive on 'EGO', even if it is something made up or created.

They have covered this story up VERY well. & as far as I can gather, the truth will probably never be revealed.

If there is so much to learn by landing on the moon, why haven't they been up there since? Answer: because if they tried to go up there nowdays with all our advanced technology & all, it will be once & for all proven that they didn't.

Edward M. Grant

07-15-12, 10:00 PM

If there is so much to learn by landing on the moon, why haven't they been up there since?

Because Apollo cost nearly $200,000,000,000.

AlexG

07-15-12, 10:31 PM

And we discontinued the Saturn rocket.

youreyes

07-15-12, 10:56 PM

The OP topic was faked by the conspiracists.

river

07-17-12, 01:21 AM

wouldn't the Russians have said something by now ?

boy this is getting old

Edward M. Grant

07-17-12, 09:32 AM

wouldn't the Russians have said something by now ?

The Russians are part of the conspiracy, silly.

Grumpy

07-17-12, 11:45 AM

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/apollo16foot.jpg

Apollo 14

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/1-.png

Apollo 12

The tracks made in 1969 by astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean, the third and fourth humans to walk on the Moon, can be seen in this LRO image of the Apollo 12 site. The location of the descent stage for Apollo 12’s lunar module, Intrepid, also can be seen. Conrad and Bean performed two Moon walks on this flat lava plain in the Oceanus Procellarum region of the Moon. In the first walk, they collected samples and chose the location for the lunar monitoring equipment known as the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP). The ALSEP sent scientific data about the Moon’s interior and surface environment back to Earth for more than seven years. A surprising detail of the ALSEP is visible in the image: a bright L-shape marks the locations of cables running from ALSEP’s central station to two of its instruments. These instruments are probably (left) the Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment, or SIDE, which studied positively charged particles near the Moon’s surface, and (right) the Lunar Surface Magnetometer, or LSM, which looked for variations in the Moon’s magnetic field over time; these two instruments had the longest cables running from the central station. Though the cables are much too small to be seen directly, they show up because the material they are made from reflects light very well. In the second Moon walk, Conrad and Bean set out from the descent stage and looped around Head crater, visiting Bench crater and Sharp crater, then headed east and north to the landing site of Surveyor 3. There, the astronauts collected some hardware from the unmanned Surveyor spacecraft, which had landed two years earlier. The two astronauts covered this entire area on foot, carrying all of their tools and equipment and more than 32 kilograms (roughly 60 pounds) of lunar samples. Photo by: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-09-lroc-images-sharper-views-apollo.html#jCp

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Denying the reality of the lunar landings is not rational, it is wack.

Grumpy:cool:

youreyes

07-17-12, 02:41 PM

you know the amazing thing is that the new LRO satellite HD imagery, you can trace the rover's path by yourself...it is a bit hard to find. But the exhilirating feeling of finding it, is worth every second. Here is the Apollo 16 mission, just click in to zoom in at 0.5 m/pixel: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/roi_mosaic_detail/7876

The rest of mosaics of regions of interest on Lunar surface are here: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/roi_mosaic_select

take time to appreciate the beauty of the Moon.

darksidZz

07-19-12, 12:31 PM

Honestly I'm not sure what to believe, but I find it highly unusual the US wouldn't go back and start developing moon bases and other forms of technology to colonize the moon, I see no real sense to not doing this. Helium 3 is there and we could learn to mine it + other minerals, also just the gains for astronomy would be worth it, we could put a fantastic telescope on the dark side of the moon. Hell perhaps there's cool shit there?

I'd just have thought we'd build a mission to colonize by now, and you say it's expensive but really they spent tons on war and it got us nowhere, they've wasted more money on wars than it would've cost to go back and build moon bases so wtf, sounds fishy to me.

origin

07-20-12, 12:04 PM

Honestly I'm not sure what to believe, but I find it highly unusual the US wouldn't go back and start developing moon bases and other forms of technology to colonize the moon, I see no real sense to not doing this.

You have got to be kidding! There is tremendous pressure to spend even less on space exploration than we currently are, good luck asking to expand spending by 10X.

Helium 3 is there and we could learn to mine it + other minerals, also just the gains for astronomy would be worth it, we could put a fantastic telescope on the dark side of the moon. Hell perhaps there's cool shit there?

What would be the point of mining He3? I beleive you mean that at telescope on the far side of the moon would be cool, there is no dark side of the moon (appologies to Pink Floyd).

I'd just have thought we'd build a mission to colonize by now, and you say it's expensive but really they spent tons on war and it got us nowhere, they've wasted more money on wars than it would've cost to go back and build moon bases so wtf, sounds fishy to me.

The only thing fishy is how incredibly naive you are.

Trippy

07-20-12, 03:39 PM

there is no dark side of the moon.

It's all dark.

Grumpy

07-20-12, 04:31 PM

darksidZz

Honestly I'm not sure what to believe, but I find it highly unusual the US wouldn't go back and start developing moon bases and other forms of technology to colonize the moon

There is absolutely no reason to colonize the moon, nor are manned missions needed. Robots could do anything we need to do there like mining or observation. Our efforts out to be concentrated in orbit and on Mars. All Mars missions should be one way, there are thousands of older scientists that would climb over each other to go there permanently. Send robots to prepare habitats, greenhouses and to make O2 beforehand and since one way trips need much less in weight they could take much more supplies to make Mars self sustaining. I'd go tomorrow.

Grumpy:cool:

leopold

01-09-13, 04:55 AM

Honestly I'm not sure what to believe, but I find it highly unusual the US wouldn't go back and start developing moon bases and other forms of technology to colonize the moon, I see no real sense to not doing this.
it could provide a number of advantages, a jumping off point to mars for example.
we could launch a far greater payload from the moon than from earth.

. . . also just the gains for astronomy would be worth it, . . .
one of the limiting factors for earth based telescopes is weight.
not only would the seeing be almost perfect we could build bigger telescopes.
yes, a moonscope would be fantastic.

I'd just have thought we'd build a mission to colonize by now, and you say it's expensive but really they spent tons on war and it got us nowhere, they've wasted more money on wars than it would've cost to go back and build moon bases so wtf, sounds fishy to me.
in any "colonizing" period there's going to be accidents, some of them will result in deaths to the crew.
NASA decides to anticipate the bad rap and forgoes the "moonbase" scenario.

Nom-De-Plume

01-09-13, 08:02 AM

There are plenty of reasons for not establishing permanent infrastructure on the moon. For starters, the Apollo missions were extemely expensive and dangerous. We still do not have a full understanding of the long-term effects on the human body from living in alternate gravity levels etc.

Also, before we look to space, we should be mending the cracks down here on Earth. To say that the moon-landing was faked to distract the public from the Vietnam war is utterly laughable. If such a distraction was desired, an assassination, political scandal, or some other similar event would be much less expensive and easier to orchestrate. Why would they go to such great lengths?

Moon-landing conspiracy theorists have a bad name, because they generally ignore scientific fact and would rather engage in pseudo-scientific discourse. Also, they tend to ignore sufficient debunking of certain theories and repeat them, regardless of their being proved ignorable. (i.e. US flag flapping).

As others have mentioned, robots are just as capable of documenting and photographing as a moon-base, or whatever would be. Sure, the costs of the US' recent wars have been extravagant and down-right ridiculous, but NASA is under (as others have mentioned) extreme pressure to cut spending. They even suffered public scrutiny for their landing of gear on mars -- imagine public reaction to a proposed moon-base... Space travel is more expensive than you might think.

leopold

01-09-13, 08:58 AM

Space travel is more expensive than you might think.
only because of the large delta Vs that are required.
it takes all of the tonnage of the fully loaded saturn 5 just to get 50 tons to the moon.
all of that goes into overcoming earths gravity and acceleration.
then, when you get to the moon you must decelerate to get to the surface.
the cost of going there once in earth orbit is very small.

Rhaedas

01-09-13, 09:09 AM

NASA decides to anticipate the bad rap and forgoes the "moonbase" scenario.

I don't think NASA's decision had much to do with it. When Apollo funding got cut, they had to try and salvage what they could from their next plan, and after negotiating with Congress they managed to save a piece of it. What was just a small component of a grander dream became the Space Shuttle program.

billvon

01-09-13, 10:25 AM

it could provide a number of advantages, a jumping off point to mars for example.
we could launch a far greater payload from the moon than from earth.

There is no fuel on the Moon. Every ounce of fuel would have to be lifted from Earth - which makes launching from the Moon a far, far, far more expensive proposition.

one of the limiting factors for earth based telescopes is weight.
not only would the seeing be almost perfect we could build bigger telescopes.

Except things still have weight on the moon. And the dust is just plain nasty. Orbital telescopes make a lot more sense.

leopold

01-09-13, 02:59 PM

What was just a small component of a grander dream became the Space Shuttle program.
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the shuttle initially designed as a passenger liner?

There is no fuel on the Moon.
correct, there is no LOX, liquid H2, or RP-1 on the moon.
not all rocket engine are liquid.

Orbital telescopes make a lot more sense.
maybe.
i believe a solid foundation has some merit.

kwhilborn

01-13-13, 09:35 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4

etc, etc.

Find and watch the correct episodes.

The Mythbusters addressed all Moonlanding being faked "reasons" given by conspirators and came up with a decent "No Hoax" verdict.

Worth watching if you buy into all the conspiratorial stuff.

LaurieAG

01-25-13, 03:15 AM

If the Apollo moon missions were faked then what caused all those cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) that formed in the Coral sea off the Queensland Coast during that period? Global warming?

I can remember one year when we had around 9 cyclones and 4 came down to the southern half of the state and after the Apollo missions finished we had hardly any cyclones form let alone come down to the southern part of the state. That was until the Space Shuttle blew up.

If you follow the path of the 'cyclone' we are currently experiencing you will note that last week it was a large swirling storm cell over the land (not normal) that went directly north for 1,000kms to the gulf of Carpentaria where it formed into a cyclone. It then went east for a couple of hundred kms, stopped being a cyclone and then went down the Queensland coast where it is sitting and currently dumping much rain all the way from north to south.

So, as the Apollo missions weren't faked, and we have wierdly behaving cyclones roaming around in Queensland, I expect that it is one or more of (1) the Chinese space lab on a wierd orbit, (2) the US spy satellite following (1), (3) a third stage assosciated with a tradional (Apollo style) space program or (4) some other space junk coming in.

I have excluded the NEO space rock expected to pass under the geostationary orbit in about 3 weeks time as it would have to be orbiting to cause this type of weather. That NEO would be expected to pull geostationary satellites out of their orbits so It's likely that (1) or (2) or both are trying to minimise its impact.

meteorology
— n the study of the earth's atmosphere, esp of weather-forming processes and weather forecasting
[C17: from Greek meteorolōgia, from meteōron something aloft + -logia -logy . See meteor ]

James R

01-26-13, 06:26 AM

If the Apollo moon missions were faked then what caused all those cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) that formed in the Coral sea off the Queensland Coast during that period? Global warming?

Normal weather variation?

So, as the Apollo missions weren't faked, and we have wierdly behaving cyclones roaming around in Queensland, I expect that it is one or more of (1) the Chinese space lab on a wierd orbit, (2) the US spy satellite following (1), (3) a third stage assosciated with a tradional (Apollo style) space program or (4) some other space junk coming in.

What evidence do you have of any cyclone being caused by anything to do with any human space mission?

LaurieAG

01-27-13, 03:11 AM

What evidence do you have of any cyclone being caused by anything to do with any human space mission?
James R, I have lived in the South East Queensland region for 50 years and the only time during that period when active cyclones or their 'remnants' came down as far as here were:-

(1) During the 60's and early to mid 70's
(2) After the space shuttle blew up on reentry, you kinda notice when you don't have one come down here for 15 years or so
(3) now, 2 weeks or so after the North Koreans launched a satellite

Number (3) is a real beauty because it started on the land around the QLD, NSW + NT borders, travelled directly north overland as a swirling storm that formed into cyclone Oswald in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it then turned east and headed inland until it started going down the inside of the Queensland coast, not over the ocean, wreaking havoc and dumping rain from Rockhampton all the way down to, it looks like Coffs Harbour, but it may keep going all the waydown to Tasmania. The rain is already down to the NSW and VIC Border.

Read-Only

01-27-13, 08:29 AM

James R, I have lived in the South East Queensland region for 50 years and the only time during that period when active cyclones or their 'remnants' came down as far as here were:-

(1) During the 60's and early to mid 70's
(2) After the space shuttle blew up on reentry, you kinda notice when you don't have one come down here for 15 years or so
(3) now, 2 weeks or so after the North Koreans launched a satellite

Number (3) is a real beauty because it started on the land around the QLD, NSW + NT borders, travelled directly north overland as a swirling storm that formed into cyclone Oswald in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it then turned east and headed inland until it started going down the inside of the Queensland coast, not over the ocean, wreaking havoc and dumping rain from Rockhampton all the way down to, it looks like Coffs Harbour, but it may keep going all the waydown to Tasmania. The rain is already down to the NSW and VIC Border.

Oh, yeah - we all know that rocket launches cause cyclones in Oz. Yeah. Right.

But wait... what about ALL those launches that have put satellites in orbit in the past 20 years? You know, all the GPS satellites and the ones for TV broadcasts, etc. Evidently you've forgotten them all when you devised this kooky idea of yours.

youreyes

01-27-13, 08:53 AM

the rocket launches do effect the environment, but not in a way LaurieAG is saying they do. Rockets majorly pollute the area where their stages land and part of the fuel tanks as well, propellant such nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine, MMH, and UDMH. The actual physical effects of rocket launches is not significant enough to somehow effect global weather such as creation of cyclones. However frequent rocket launches do effect local weather patterns mainly by creation of rain and etc.

LaurieAG

01-29-13, 04:32 AM

Here's what a meteorologist said in todays Courier Mail newspaper.

Australia is in desperate need of increased data collection points and more detailed high resolution modelling around our populated east coast.
That's not to say that Oswald would not have been correctly modelled but it was a unique system and these sorts of smaller systems (tropical lows and weak tropical cyclones) tend to get steered around more by small disturbances in the upper atmosphere. This makes them more unpredictable. Another factor that made Oswald unique was that it took an unprecedented path between Cairns and Sydney.
It'll be off Tasmania tomorrow.

Rogue satellites, third stages doing multiple loops around the planet or anything else that is falling into the earth tend to cause disturbances in the upper atmosphere.

Fill a round mug with black coffee and add milk to just below the top. Take a paper clip and insert it into the coffee 1CM from the edge and 1CM deep. Rotate the paper clip in the liquid slowly around the inside edge of the mug maintaining its depth and distance from the edge and see how long it takes to get the contents of the mug spinning.