I'll kick start your extremely extensive investigation with the following link
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
We never went to the moon.
- Thread starter Ryndanangnysen
- Start date
- Status
I'll kick start your extremely extensive investigation with the following link
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
OK, Fat Freddy, I believe your persistence should be rewarded. It is time for us to come clean. You are absolutely correct. The moon landings were faked.
However, NASA wanted to be sure that they did as professional a job as possible of faking it. So, in October 1968 a fleet of spacecraft left Earth and headed for the moon. Led by six professional NASA astronauts the working team consisted of two set designers, three cameramen, two artistic directors, a stage manager and a makeup artist (who was having an affair with one of the artistic directors). Despite this enormous effort their were several errors in the faked result. Errors you have so assiduously pointed out to us. Well done.
However, NASA wanted to be sure that they did as professional a job as possible of faking it. So, in October 1968 a fleet of spacecraft left Earth and headed for the moon. Led by six professional NASA astronauts the working team consisted of two set designers, three cameramen, two artistic directors, a stage manager and a makeup artist (who was having an affair with one of the artistic directors). Despite this enormous effort their were several errors in the faked result. Errors you have so assiduously pointed out to us. Well done.
Good grief. The Clavius site is a known disinfo site. Look what happens when they have to deal with real questions put forward by real hoax believers.
Start with reply #18 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
Also, look at the threads I posted here.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-21#post-3435534
The only way I could be sure about the levels of space radiation would be to send up my own probe. I know there are sites that tell you what the official figures are but we have no way of knowing whether the data are bogus. Look at the alternative info in reply #1 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0
Here I put forward a FAKE way a top level meeting went when NASA found out it could not go to the Moon
You understand this is a FAKE meeting I made up
So you should be able to post here how the REAL meeting went through all your contacts yes?
Lets listen in a top level FAKE NASA meeting - top scientist speaking
' Sorry to tell you people after all the hard work you put in building the rockets but (__insert reason here__) stops us sending a man to the Moon
Yes you at the back with your hand up
What's that you say?
Why don't we fake it?
Brilliant idea
OK everybody back to work
We've got a Moon landing to fake '
Prove that meeting didn't take place
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Fat freddy... If you were right they would kill you given on your view they are bent on a cover up. Be careful.
Alex
Alex
I expect he will dive into research and work really really hard because he has been searching for the truth for so long and now he has a way forward
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yeh if he lives that long.I expect he will dive into research and work really really hard because he has been searching for the truth for so long and now he has a way forward
Alex
RADII
Registered Senior Member
Wait! Who did the catering? You can't tell me NASA came up with Space Ice Cream. That right there would invalidate their claims!
Canadian Tire.
Hell, that's news to me, do you have any proof of this?
What am I missing. You appear to be getting your flimsy butt kicked to death.
What should I be seeing? I see spam and dumb in equal quantities.
Well there is another way. There are literally thousands of commercial satellites operating in and around the belts. If the radiation issue had been deliberately minimised, they would be failing in their droves. They aren't. Can you work out the obvious conclusion? The apollohoax thread just seems to be you getting your butt handed to you again. Very odd you keep linking to your spam/banned userids.
I haven't checked here for a while.
You can tell by what they say. Start reading at post #25 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(1:29 time mark)
We were talking about why there are no dust clouds when the rover kicks up dust in this footage.
I said that the movement of the soil being kicked up was consistent with its being in atmosphere.
Jay Windley and the other pro-Apollo posters said that if it had been in atmosphere, there would have been clouds of dust floating around. I said that the soil being kicked up could very well have been large-grained dust-free sand which wouldn't form dust clouds. Jay Windley said that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over so the fact that there were no dust clouds hanging proved the footage was taken in a vacuum. Any seventh-grader could tell you that it would take a team of guys with sledgehammers beating the large-grained dust-free sand for several days or so to create that much dust. Jay Windley and all of those pro-Apollo posters who agreed with him totally destroyed their credibility when they took that stand. They're obviously a bunch of sophists who don't even believe their own arguments. Jay really blundered when he didn't think that bit of sophistry through first; they should have had a meeting to discuss how to properly obfuscate that. He shouldn't have been so impetuous.
Look at post #26.
I said this.
Jay gave this answer.
Any objective person can see that only a paid sophist or a moron would take that position.
*
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-3#post-3332091
You can tell by what they say. Start reading at post #25 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(1:29 time mark)
We were talking about why there are no dust clouds when the rover kicks up dust in this footage.
I said that the movement of the soil being kicked up was consistent with its being in atmosphere.
Jay Windley and the other pro-Apollo posters said that if it had been in atmosphere, there would have been clouds of dust floating around. I said that the soil being kicked up could very well have been large-grained dust-free sand which wouldn't form dust clouds. Jay Windley said that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over so the fact that there were no dust clouds hanging proved the footage was taken in a vacuum. Any seventh-grader could tell you that it would take a team of guys with sledgehammers beating the large-grained dust-free sand for several days or so to create that much dust. Jay Windley and all of those pro-Apollo posters who agreed with him totally destroyed their credibility when they took that stand. They're obviously a bunch of sophists who don't even believe their own arguments. Jay really blundered when he didn't think that bit of sophistry through first; they should have had a meeting to discuss how to properly obfuscate that. He shouldn't have been so impetuous.
Look at post #26.
I said this.
Jay gave this answer.
Any objective person can see that only a paid sophist or a moron would take that position.
Maybe it's possible to design a satillite that can stand the radiation that would kill a human. This is a matter for an engineer. I put this forward as a possible scenario for the missions' having been faked. The anomalies* show they were faked. There are several plausible scenarios that would explain why they faked them. Maybe it was money; I just put forward the radiation theory as a possibility.
*
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-3#post-3332091
I think, in all honesty, the thing that disgusts me most with the "NASA ARE LIARS" crowd is the absolute callous disregard for those that died in the process of getting us where we are now.
*shrug* Then again, some people are just ignorant, assholes, or trolls (or, as I like to lump the sum together - fuckwitts).
*shrug* Then again, some people are just ignorant, assholes, or trolls (or, as I like to lump the sum together - fuckwitts).
RADII
Registered Senior Member
And you are still wrong.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOL, that's the point. The moon has no atmosphere to suspend particles, but it does have gravity, which makes stuff fall down.!
Really? You make a claim based on what they write and use it to dismiss an entire site as disinfo because you don't like how it craps on your claims!? I read that thread and all I see is you getting your backside handed to you again. That video where the fake Ukranian "expert" claims they are models is one of the most idiotic videos I've seen on the matter. It takes a vacuous fool to believe such tripe.
Now, quite clearly the liars and snake oil salesman at Aulis claim he is qualified. Find me something apart from their bullshit claim to support this.
Why would you say such an idiotic thing and what possible reason do you have for thinking that your personal views on something are proof? From what I see you are the layman who knows nothing, he is an engineer who knows the subject. Just because you are too biased to see past your own ignorance, doesn't stop others from doing so.
I see no blunder. I have seen lots of footage where fine dust is kicked across the ground and clear prints with treads being made. I also see large rooster tails from an electric, low powered vehicle that are massively bigger than sand buggies with big engines. Your baseless claim amounts to you giving your uneducated opinion and claiming that it is correct, against all the posters there who actually have been educated and know the subject properly. Scientists at Colorado did an analysis of the LRV ejections and found total consistency with a lunar environment and none with a terrestrial one.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/ccldas/ldap_2012/pdf/presentations/Hsu_S.pdf
Fine dust being kicked and clear tread patterns being made, just like my avatar!!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/
And that's your case for the Clavius website being disinfo? YOU don't understand the mechanics of aggregate transport, therefore a whole website that kicks your ass must be disinfo?? You aren't a truther, you are a serial forum spammer who has no ability to assess evidence. The Clavius website takes most of your spam and perfectly explains it, THAT is why you must use any idiotic tactic to attempt to dismiss it. Incidentally, this paragraph is in post #26, I missed your answer:
"Yes, and that's my point. if you want to say that the stuff in the Grand Prix video was washed and sifted sand, such as on a beach, then you have to explain why the surface in the video clearly doesn't look like sand. We're back to the same nonsense you were arguing when you were banned. You're borrowing properties from various kinds of aggregate and pretending there's some single "magic sand" version that has only the properties you need and none of the properties that dispute your claim.
Yes, we're back to you making Magic Sand claims."
Windley is an engineer, you know nothing. He is qualified, you are not. You're claim now moves into the realms of make believe that you have pulled out your butt. There are thousands of satellites in space, and the ISS. There is no magical designs in place. The figures from NASA, India, Japan, China and Russia all point to the same thing. The environment is harsh for long term exposure of many months and years, but not for two weeks and certainly not when adequate shielding is used. From your spammed radiation thread, you freely admit you know nothing about space or radiation. You aren't qualified to even give such an opinion, yet alone debate it or understand it! You won't understand this PDF from the Russians either, confirming that NASA are 100% correct:
http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf
There are no anomalies in the Apollo record, as you have been told hundreds of times. All you ever do is limit any discussion to two subjects that enable you to pose your opinion on, then avoid any questions or conclusions that tear it apart. This is usually where you make the ludicrous claim that you've never seen your claims taken apart, when anyone with a search engine can see exactly that!
I have never seen you answer this request below. You ALWAYS fall back to your spam post as your list, because you know that if you make such a list it can be directly and easily addressed to refute your claims.
List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies. I'll start the list for you:
1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
2/ Michael Collins jacket.
3/ ????
Debunk for your list:
1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html
2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
3/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!
Of course there anomalies in the Apollo videos
Don't you know the dumbasse crews of NASA saw all the mistakes made when they were pointed out by the Large Charlies out there
AND DID NOTHING IN THE SECRET HANGER TO CORRECT THEM
How dumb ass can NASA scientists be?
I have it on good authority there were two schools of thought on how to cover up dumb ass mistakes
1/ Correct all Apollo 11 mistakes in the hanger so other missions would be perfect and "loose" Apollo 11 tapes so no comparisons can be made against other missions
2/ Just go with 11 warts and all and ride it out
They went with 2/ because 1/ would have blown the moon mission billion $ budget by $9 overtime
Good authority
But is he an honest engineer? Nobody I've asked agrees with him.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
There are a lot of paid sophists* working discussion forums trying to sway public opinion by obfuscating the hoax proof**.
This is such a clear issue that it makes a good objectivity test. Nobody who maintains that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over is to be taken seriously. You people seem to side with Jay Windley*** on that so none of you are to be taken seriously either.
*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
**
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-moon-missions-were-faked-in-a-studio.347662/
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
***
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
- Status