We never went to the moon.

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Ryndanangnysen, Mar 4, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Do you need an answer to that? I thought we were having some fun. Please don't ban me.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I wanted to comment on how mean this thread can appear.

    Anyway, I have a friend who deems me overly critical in things and really likes shows like Ancient Aliens and stuff. I'd be chilling over at her place and she puts on a show and knows I don't buy into any of it, but she likes it so I'm quiet. I also didn't read all the thread...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I find it ironic that a blurry picture can be used as proof of ghosts and supernatural occurrences without any supporting evidence or witnesses, but also as falsification of historic natural events which a few billion people witnessed in real time, from the rocket launch to pictures taken from space.

    Oh, and if I recall, there was lost of dust during the landing. Oh and another thing, my window drapes are supposed to hang straight down, but I just can't get rid of that one wrinkle. Must be the wind waving the drape, but, but, I have no wind in my house. Must be a ghost teasing my sense of order.

    My wife and I have an expression for all those convincing evidences of fake and make believe stories.
    We call it "toon time".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    All the details are explained in this thread.

    Anyone who reads it can see that the pro-Apollo poster was playing games and avoiding issues.

    There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks so they aren't proof and they don't make the mountain of hoax proof* go away.

    MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 5.

    MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 1.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited&aq=f

    You can jump up and down and scream all you want. His lameness is too clear. I'll link to it again so that you can't bury it.

    Is anyone going to give a counter-rebuttal to the rubuttal I gave in post #475?

  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    It just confused me is all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Listen you annoying spam artist, I don't need a link to yet another version of your spam, after I point out you doing it a thousand time!

    Your ignorant opinion is not fact. As stated before NOBODY agrees with you. Nobody reading that will agree with your idiotic conclusion. There were no games being played and no issues avoided. You have no credibility.

    There are no plausible scenarios, certainly none you have even a scrap of proof for. The lunar samples are 100% rock solid proof that the missions are not faked.

    The idiot Jarrah White gibbers on and makes only one stupid main claim, that the USA retrieved 842lbs remotely. A ludicrous, claim with no evidence to support it. His comparison with the soviets who brought back a paltry 0.33kg.

    The even more ludicrous claim about the "C-rock", so stupid it beggars belief you presenting it.

    As for Jarrah White's "revisited Moon rocks" bullshit. There is nothing significant in any of it. He deals primarily with strawman issues about the similarities with terrestrial rocks and the presence of water found in crystals and beads.

    You poor fool. I don't need to jump up and down to refute your ignorant opinion. To reiterate, your personal view is not fact, it is generally the opposite.

    To what end. Not all 500,000 people would need to be in on any fakery, but certainly a few thousand would to accomplish all the setup and media!. This doesn't include the lunar samples which are not faked. Or the video which shows impossible to fake footage that you always ignore.

  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The thing is that the moon is part earth.
    Therefore most samples of moon rocks would be chemically the same as those found on earth. It certainly would not disprove that we have collected rock samples of the moon as witnessed and confirmed by personal observation.

    But in that, and many later cooperative efforts of space exploration, have given us invaluable information of long distance communication, weather forecasting, and a host of other geographically important information of the State of the Planet, how it formed and what is it's relationship with the moon.
    Should we not scout our solar neighborhood? Mars was a huge success in all respects of the scientific solutions to the environment to which it was built, landing a frigging Car with all kinds of goodies insides for testing soil from Mars. Unfortunately you can't bring any samples back, but now we can send chemical molecular and visual observations by radio wave for translation and analysis..
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  11. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    By whom? People who work for NASA? That was a pretty lame thing to say.

    Are you referring to the press? The press would just parrot the official story as would science journals. It's all owned.

    This link only seems to work with FireFox. It usually takes two tries.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Really, you have such low regard for the codes of honor that must be observed by each cooperating Agency or Military code?
    What code of honor would you use if you were in charge of a project to put a man on the moon.?
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    In other words, you will not acknowledge ANY evidence provided by the people that have actually gone to space...

    In other words, you are a shill, a fraud, and a troll.

    Got it.
    sideshowbob likes this.
  14. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Do you call somebody's word proof? Give me a break.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Or by me. I've seen - and handled (via glove box) - moon rocks.
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    You, apparently, don't consider anything proof... video, pictures, several generations of experience... it's all fake to you.

    Out of morbid curiosity - what would you accept as proof?

    Actually, no, not out of curiosity - at this point, consider it a demand. I want details on what, specifically, you would accept as proof that we have been to the moon, that we have a space station in orbit, that the earth isn't flat, and whatever other conspiracy theories you have related to NASA.
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Isn't the internet wonderful! In the 'old days' you would just be that crazy uncle that annoyed everyone at family get togethers with your outlandish conspiracies. With the internet though you can annoy so many more people with your crazy ideas!
  18. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Is your statement proof that the rocks weren't fake moon rocks?

    What Happened on the Moon

    (3:14:40 time mark)
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I can't watch the video (at work), but do you have any evidence to show the rocks are faked?
  20. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Everything you people put forward as proof is fakable and therefore not proof. There are alternative scenarios for everything you put forward.

    In the case of real moon missions, the footage and pictures would all be consistent with an actual mission. There wouldn't be any anomalies which are proof of fakery. I would consider footage and pictures with no anomalies proof.

    This guy tried to find some proof and couldn't find any.

    Aron Ranen's DID WE GO? Part One

    It's only possible to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane for about thirty seconds. There is continuous footage of obvious weightlessness in the space station which proves they were in orbit.

    See post #484.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    So the fact that we have hours of video of people in low-grav bouncing around... despite what you go on to say...

    I'm guessing they were able to fake low-gravity for longer?
    What about the records from the Apollo 13 mission and the near-disaster that became? Are you saying that is also faked? Or the loss of Apollo1 and and its crew was in the name of a grand hoax?

    You do understand the disconnect in your logic, right? You claim the video evidence on the space station is proof, yet the same evidence of the lunar landings et al is not proof...

    So, again, I ask you - provide details and specifics on what you would accept as proof. Saying "footage with no anomalies" doesn't cut it.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    As is everything you say. And the simplest alternative explanation by far is that we did actually go to the moon several times.

    As your conspiracy theories are debunked one by one, you need to construct ever more complex and clumsy justifications. Occam's Razor has taken effect a long time ago - the simplest explanation is generally the correct one, and the simplest explanation to any intelligent person is that we went to the moon.
    No anomalies at all would be suggestive that it WAS faked - since none of the Moon missions went off without a hitch. There were always anomalies, from the Apollo 13 near-disaster to the problems finding a landing area for Apollo 11.
  23. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    I dealt with that here.
    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.


    What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

    (If the above link doesn't work, do a YouTube search on "Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon ?")

    It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.

    (The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=a funny thing happened on the way to the moon

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
    When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

    Here it is doubled.

    When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.


    If the moon footage was fakable, that must have been faked too. All we had were news reports so they only had to lie.

    You're just playing games here. You're comparing the faking of lunar gravity with the faking of weightlessness. Here's something else you should check out.

    That was pretty lame. You don't seem mentally equipped to deal with this topic. The footage and pictures are full of anomalies that wouldn't be there if they'd really gone to the moon.

    edit three minutes later...

    I forgot to do this one.
    Check out these videos.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page