Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 179

Thread: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

  1. #21
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    157
    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

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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?

  3. #23

    Thumbs up Will you even answer this properly?

    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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)?

    Youtube search for this "sc6sqIe3Aio"

  4. #24
    many leagues under the sea. R1D2's Avatar
    Posts
    2,269

    Post

    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...-apollo17.html THEY were there ok FF.
    Last edited by R1D2; 04-15-12 at 12:16 PM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    <snip for brevity>
    Any sign of Rocky?

  6. #26
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    157
    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".

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    157
    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.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    You would think that this would end this nonsense.

    Apollo 11 landing site



    Apollo 14 landing site



    http://www.universetoday.com/83110/b...-landing-site/

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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.

    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

    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.
    Last edited by David C; 04-15-12 at 04:31 PM. Reason: fixed the missed quote tag

  12. #32
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    157
    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-l...ns-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

  13. #33
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Kitty sees a hole in your theory:


  14. #34

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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

    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"!!!

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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.


  16. #36
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    157
    Hey Believe-

    On the other thread you said this.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...2&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.ph...0&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/show...postcount=1090

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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?
    Holy crap your right! Then I realized that there is not one single picture from a telescope on earth of the supposed volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io. Ha! Explain that!

    Sweet Jesus, first it is earth’s moon they are lying about, but now it is even the moons of Jupiter. Will the madness ever stop.

  18. #38
    Valued Senior Member Rhaedas's Avatar
    Posts
    1,516
    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.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaedas View Post
    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.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    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/show...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/j...g-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.
    Last edited by adoucette; 04-16-12 at 04:19 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By bgjyd834 in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 02-14-12, 04:31 PM
    Replies: 1021
  2. By FatFreddy in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-29-11, 04:26 PM
    Replies: 30
  3. By icarus2 in forum Architecture & Engineering
    Last Post: 09-23-10, 10:02 PM
    Replies: 40
  4. By BlueMoose in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 02-24-09, 09:30 PM
    Replies: 27
  5. By vincent in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-01-05, 02:10 AM
    Replies: 5

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •