We never went to the moon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
FatFreddy said:

The only force that could have made the bubble stop hugging the side of the visor and go upward in that manner is buoyancy in water. This is another anomaly that's simply too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
This is unsubstantiated conjecture.
You are seeing what you want to see.

FatFreddy said:
You people always have the attitude that you're winning even when you're clearly losing.
Click to expand...
It has never been a competition. The win happened on July 20, 1969. Hoaxers can speak from incredulity as much as they want "I can't see any way this could have happened except if it was fake", but their entire argument is nothing more than that: "I can't see any other way."

FatFreddy said:
The only force that could have made the bubble stop hugging the side of the visor and go upward in that manner is buoyancy in water.
Click to expand...
Simply not true.
The best you can say is: "I can't think of any way I could be misinterpreting what I'm seeing, or reading too much into it."

A faked Moon landing is an extraorinary claim. You will need far more extraordinary evidence than "This particle behaved in a way I don't expect, here on Earth, where I have lived my whole life."

FatFreddy said:
This is another anomaly that's simply too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
Anomalies are not evidence of fakery. They're anomalies.
 
Notice how Freddy concentrates on tiny details that most people don't know the explanations for? He apparently thinks that if he can identify something in one piece of video as a "bubble" then he has shown that the entire Apollo program was a fake.

Why concentrate on minor technical points? First, it is an attempt to bamboozle people. Tell them about something that requires a little specialist knowledge to explain and you might be able to hoodwink them into agreeing with you. Second, if you concentrate on the minutiae, you distract attention away from the big picture. You stop people asking inconvenient questions like: if we accept that the Apollo missions were faked, then what else would we expect to be true? And is that plausible?

People like Freddy don't want anybody to look at the preponderance of evidence, because that is overwhelmingly and obviously in favour of the moon landings being real.
 
You people are tap dancing around this question I'm asking because you know that Jay Windley is wrong.

You still haven't actually said it. I want to hear you say it. Do you agree with Jay Windley when he says that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

Any seventh-grader could tell you that in order to cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over you would need a team of people hitting the sand with sledgehammers nonstop for a week. Jay Windley's position is laughable.

Viewers: start reading here at post #18 to see what this is all about.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15


I'm directing that question at all of the pro-Apollo posters who've been posting here.

James R
Sarkus
river
paddoboy
Bells
Ophiolite
Dr_Toad
billvon
cosmictraveler
Ivan Seeking
Xelasnave.1947
origin
EddyNashton
Michael
Kristoffer
exchemist

I want to hear unequivocal responses from all of you. This is a legitimate Apollo-related question.
Click to expand...

Please unequivocally say whether you agree with Jay Windley or not.
 
FatFreddy said:
You people are tap dancing around this question I'm asking because you know that Jay Windley is wrong.



Please unequivocally say whether you agree with Jay Windley or not.
Click to expand...
You are totally and dangerously delusional and you post total crap. :rolleyes:
You are not worth the effort to even read your links or refute your said nonsense....it has all been done before.
You and your inane conspiracy pusher nutters, can never change the fact that 12 men have walked on the Moon.
You do realise you are being laughed at, right?
 
FatFreddy said:
Please unequivocally say whether you agree with Jay Windley or not.
Click to expand...
I would have held a contrary view to that of JW before reading his argument. It was well constructed and superficially convincing. He may be correct. I should like more information before reaching a conclusion. He appears to be offering empirical observation to support his assertion. I should like some quantitative analysis that explores aggregate dimensions, shapes, angularity and transport mode, especially vibrations and accelerations affecting the aggregate, and the consequent effects on material. (And material composition would also be important.) I'm currently skeptical of his conclusion.

Now what does that have to do with the price of a salmon sandwich?
 
I don't think Jay Windley is on sciforums. Perhaps you should take it up with him elsewhere, Freddy.
 
New
I don't think Jay Windley is on sciforums. Perhaps you should take it up with him elsewhere, Freddy.
Click to expand...
You're tap dancing around my question. Please answer it.

I've talked to Jay Windly about this several times.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15


He's made his position clear. Now I want to find out how many pro-Apollo posters here agree with him. This is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise here. There's no reason for you people to downplay this unless you're afraid to answer because you're between a rock and a hard place.
 
FatFreddy said:
You're tap dancing around my question. Please answer it.
Click to expand...

Listen to this guy. He blatantly avoids massive posts, including one that
details a response to this very issue. He ignores where I point out what he is doing:

The moronic objectivity test. What this person is doing is attempting to obtain his own biased and idiotic criteria for automatically dismissing posts that tear his argument to bits. If you disagree with his pathetic claims, you are "not credible", even if you give complete and concise rebuttal to every point he makes. He then ignores any responses and runs away like a squealing coward.

I've talked to Jay Windly about this several times.
Click to expand...

Show me where you answered this question: Why is a geologist better informed about aggregate transport than a recognised engineer?

He's made his position clear. Now I want to find out how many pro-Apollo posters here agree with him. This is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise here. There's no reason for you people to downplay this unless you're afraid to answer because you're between a rock and a hard place.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out to you and also ignored. It is a strawman argument. You hope that by proving that it was possible to do x, means that y happened. In actual fact it does nothing of the sort. The Apollo record consistently shows what is clearly very, very fine soil. It also goes distances that are patently impossible on Earth and never once forms dust clouds. All this whilst simultaneously taking defined prints that sand does not and could never take. You are the one stuck between being a liar and a coward who on the one hand denies what everyone else sees and runs away from admitting it.

Yes I agree with Windley to a large extent, but I also believe that if they used a considerable amount of water they could indeed create a dust free environment - though it is quite ridiculous to claim that the vast areas we see are such examples. However, once the surface had dried, you wouldn't get clear prints. And if the surface were left wet, you wouldn't see dust kicked so loosely all the time. Don't bother telling me about my "credibility", since you are the one universally laughed at here there and everywhere. Do you like my avatar?

This post here demonstrates that you are the comedy troll who is cornered:

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/443515-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.html

Run away or pretend that you can't see what every honest person sees.
 
FatFreddy said:
You're tap dancing around my question. Please answer it.
Click to expand...
You've been peddling this nonsense around the internet for at least 5 years now, as far as I can tell. What would be the point in repeating all the arguments that already debunked your nonsense long ago? It might make you feel good to have a new audience, but I feel it would be a waste of my time.

Good luck bashing your head against that brick wall, Freddy.

Do you believe the Earth is flat, too?
 
FatFreddy said:
Any seventh-grader could tell you that in order to cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over you would need a team of people hitting the sand with sledgehammers nonstop for a week. Jay Windley's position is laughable.

Viewers: start reading here at post #18 to see what this is all about.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15


I'm directing that question at all of the pro-Apollo posters who've been posting here.

James R
Sarkus
river
paddoboy
Bells
Ophiolite
Dr_Toad
billvon
cosmictraveler
Ivan Seeking
Xelasnave.1947
origin
EddyNashton
Michael
Kristoffer
exchemist

I want to hear unequivocal responses from all of you. This is a legitimate Apollo-related question.
Click to expand...
I don't know who Jay is. Nor do I really care to know.

What I do care about is that you appear to be completely insane and ranting and incapable of supporting your argument.
 
Doesn't this fool have access to any of the fora that welcome cranks and weirdos? Why is he still here vomiting up old, tired and thoroughly debunked bullshit?
 
Dr_Toad said:
Doesn't this fool have access to any of the fora that welcome cranks and weirdos? Why is he still here vomiting up old, tired and thoroughly debunked bullshit?
Click to expand...
Because this forum tolerates that kind of nonsense.
 
There are a few pieces of proof that the footage was taken in a studio that are so clear that they close the whole case.

The flag moved without being touched. This has never been shown to be wrong.

Apollo 15 flag waving

Jarrah White proved that the astroanut didn't brush the flag.

Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement


This video also shows that it had already started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

The flag that moved


This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

windyz.wmv
(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)


So does this one.

Physics of the Moon Flag
(18:50 time mark)


Here's some more stuff on the flag issue.

Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscIMIkiER8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AerNjmLqVe0
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+The+Flags+Are+Alive
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Flagging+The+Dead+Horses

------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.

Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.


Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.

Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station
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.

Our World: Exercise Equipment
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.

ISS space station treadmill running
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4


That footage was not taken halfway to the moon. It was taken in strong earth gravity. One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.

----------------------------------
The mountains in the background of the Apollo footage have been shown to be backdrops.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

----------------------------------
Almost all of the posters I've ever seen who disagree with the above also say that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue so they have no credibility.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15


This case is really closed. You people just won't recognize it. Once the viewers have seen this info, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they really went to the moon. This is all simply too clear.



 
James R said:
Notice how Freddy concentrates on tiny details that most people don't know the explanations for? He apparently thinks that if he can identify something in one piece of video as a "bubble" then he has shown that the entire Apollo program was a fake.

Why concentrate on minor technical points? First, it is an attempt to bamboozle people. Tell them about something that requires a little specialist knowledge to explain and you might be able to hoodwink them into agreeing with you. Second, if you concentrate on the minutiae, you distract attention away from the big picture. You stop people asking inconvenient questions like: if we accept that the Apollo missions were faked, then what else would we expect to be true? And is that plausible?

People like Freddy don't want anybody to look at the preponderance of evidence, because that is overwhelmingly and obviously in favour of the moon landings being real.
Click to expand...

Yep. He just did that above. He was backed into a corner here and on the politicalforum, but cowardly runs away from the points that debunk his madness.
 
FatFreddy said:
There are a few pieces of proof that the footage was taken in a studio that are so clear that they close the whole case.
Click to expand...

None of your crap closes anything!

The flag moved without being touched. This has never been shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Liar.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.
windyz.wmv
(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)
Click to expand...

Liar again.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

So does this one. Physics of the Moon Flag
(18:50 time mark)
Click to expand...

It proves you are gullible and ignorant. Any flag with vertical and side support is a complex pendulum with multiple pivot points and multiple energy transfers between them. From here.

Here's some more stuff on the flag issue.
Click to expand...

Spam.

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
Click to expand...

Moronic spam and answered here:

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html

The mountains in the background of the Apollo footage have been shown to be backdrops.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
Click to expand...

You disgust me with your spam and dishonesty. Not only have you been given exhaustive and comprehensive responses to this from very informed people, you run away like an ignorant coward every time it happens!

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1146.0 REPLY 11.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.0;nowap Particularly REPLY 2 and 5.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&p=1064898905#post1064898905

Show me where you responded to any of those with anything but squealing and hot air!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top