We never went to the moon.

[David C]

I think these ideas are perfectly plausible.

No you don't, nobody is that stupid. They are no more plausible than provable.

Only an insider would know what was really going on between Russia and the US but their plausibility provides an explanation for the Russians not having said anything.

Incredibly dumb circular argument. It's plausible a Green Frog ran the USSR, prove it didn't.

The anomalies* have already proven the hoax and the Russians not having said anything doesn't make the anomalies go away.

Who in heavens name rattled your cage. You disappear and come back like a bad fart, spamming the crap out of this thread. There are no anomalies. You haven't even proved you left school!

Your position on whether that info on what was really happening between Russia and the US is a little vague. Do you think it's possible? If you don't, say why.

Oh, reverse the burden of proof why don't you! No, spam merchant, PROVE what you claim. Saying anything is plausible is merely your
uninformed opinion and it has been shown regularly to be very dumb.

"What you did in reality, was make an even more idiotic claim, with absolutely no evidence, to prop up an equally absurd and rather stupid one."

Loads of spam links, who da thunk it. Have some back, all debunking the idiotic content you so naively fall for:

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did we land on the Moon.htm

There are hundreds more, but sadly you are too much of a hopeless case to even read any of them, let alone respond to the content. Let's see, what's next from the spam by numbers? Crap ad hominem about the owner of Clavius, rather than answering the contents of the site? Or maybe an ad hominem about the first link tearing you a new backside!

 

[Michael 345]

dont look up with telescopes
the sun goes around the earth
the earth is flat
the moon landing was fake

am i missing anything ?

Elvis is still alive

 

[Michael 345]

That point is made in "Hidden Figures". You might like that movie.

Great movie

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Elvis is still alive

w h a t !?!
Elvis faked the moon landing then sold it to nasa as a reality TV show ?
nasa then sold the rights to disney who leased it back to Elvis so he could avoid having to go to university so he joined the army instead.
he bought an apprentice diploma that qualified him for being able to sack people.
but... because of his love for fried chicken he went around telling people "your fried"
it never really caught on.

 

[sideshowbob]

Elvis is still alive

Bubba Ho-Tep: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/

 

[FatFreddy]

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did we land on the Moon.htm

There are hundreds more, but sadly you are too much of a hopeless case to even read any of them, let alone respond to the content. Let's see, what's next from the spam by numbers? Crap ad hominem about the owner of Clavius, rather than answering the contents of the site? Or maybe an ad hominem about the first link tearing you a new backside!

It's all sophistry written by paid sophists. Let's talk about Clavius first.

I asked you people to give your views on Jay Windley's* analysis of the dust-free sand issue back in post #629.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-32#post-3493984

All you people did was tap dance around the issue instead of addressing it.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-32#post-3494061


Jay Windley looked pretty silly here.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=b0f082f2f00c93aaae3c1fea6dc781ec


Here's some info on the Clavius site and forum.
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628


*
http://clavius.org/about.html

 

[Michael 345]

Wait wait wait - thought bubble if FF and entourage is right Elon Musk if he makes it to the moon will be the first

Hope Elons movie set is better than the pathetic one of NASA's

Loots of stars in the background - no air-conditioning fans blowing the flag around

Hope FF has been engaged as a consultant to point out to Elon how to avoid the mistakes of NASA and produce something more realistic

I can see the book cover now. FF in a directors chair. And Title of the book "I showed Elon how it should be done"

Am I going to hell for making fun of the afflicted?

 

[David C]

It's all sophistry written by paid sophists.

No, really it isn't. You can't answer it, so you scuttle away with your tail between your legs and fingers in ears. Lalalalalalalala

Let's talk about Clavius first.

Yes, instead of reading everything written that dismantles your hopeless bullshit.

I asked you people to give your views on Jay Windley's* analysis of the dust-free sand issue back in post #629.

He's right, you're wrong, it's a strawman anyway. The conditions of dust free video is non applicable, since there clearly IS dust in hours and hours of video.

All you people did was tap dance around the issue instead of addressing it.

The cheek of this spammer. He gets given WHOLE websites with copious detailed responses to his nonsensical and spammed claims, and ignores the whole lot!

Jay Windley looked pretty silly here.

No, really he didn't.

Here's some info on the Clavius site and forum.

Two things. It is not the Clavius forum, it is owned by somebody not connected at all to that website. You are the only dumb person on the internet who calls it that. Secondly, your opinion on it is just ignorant crap.

 

[sideshowbob]

Elon Musk if he makes it to the moon will be the first

A-HA! Elon Musk is at the bottom of the fake moon landings. He's just trying to make a name for himself.

 

[sideshowbob]

All you people did was tap dance around the issue instead of addressing it.

You seem to think there's an issue. You're like those creationists who step over a puddle and say, "Look! Evidence of a world-wide flood!"

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm a bit curious to ask FF what he considers would be sufficient evidence of a Moon-landing if it occurred this decade.
If we did start a Moonshot project today, and it culminated in a few years, would you acknowledge that it happened? What about it would convince you?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm a bit curious to ask FF what he considers would be sufficient evidence of a Moon-landing if it occurred this decade.
If we did start a Moonshot project today, and it culminated in a few years, would you acknowledge that it happened? What about it would convince you?

A good shot of a Tesla on the Sea of Tranquility?

 

[DaveC426913]

A good shot of a Tesla on the Sea of Tranquility?

Heh.

Well, we've essentially got that now. The laser reflectors. We can see them from Earth.

But FF will simply argue likewise that the Tesla was dropped there by remote.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heh.

Well, we've essentially got that now. The laser reflectors. We can see them from Earth.

But FF will simply argue likewise that the Tesla was dropped there by remote.

Obdurate refusal to accept reality should be a bannable offense.

 

[FatFreddy]

es, instead of reading everything written that dismantles your hopeless bullshit.

Choose one item that you consider to the the strongest proof that the moon landings were real from that info and we can talk about whether it's proof, or sophistry. I've never seen any proof that the missions were real, but I've seen a ton of proof that they were faked.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302

 

[David C]

Choose one item that you consider to the the strongest proof that the moon landings were real from that info and we can talk about whether it's proof, or sophistry.

Hell's bells! You think I want to go round the lunatic roundabout with you yet again!?

His website dismantled YOUR crap. So YOU pick something apart from your unbelievable spam about Apollo 15, then explain in detail why it doesn't do what I claim!

I've never seen any proof that the missions were real, but I've seen a ton of proof that they were faked.

What a crock. The rocks, video footage especially the digging a trench video and the lunar rover traverse, dozens of motion analyses that are impossible to fake, LROC, LRR, weather patterns that match Earth photography, 3rd party evidence, data from ALSEP, the sheer volume of dialogue in hundreds of hours, the Russians confirmed it, the British tracked Apollo 11 down to the surface, independent radio tracking the vast volume of scientific reports from the mission data. There is not one single piece of evidence that refutes the landings. Anyone who thinks they faked 6 landings and 3 fly-bys with the entire body of evidence available, is a moron.

 

[FatFreddy]

The rocks

Ok. We'll start with the rocks.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions
-----------------------------------------------------

What Happened on the Moon

(3:14:30 time mark)

MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 5.

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 1.

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


Tell us why you think the rocks are proof and not bogus.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the rocks from the Moon have better provenance than the rocks in the the deniers' heads.

 

[David C]

Ok. We'll start with the rocks.

But you aren't at all. You just post your bullshit spam. That website has more errors on it than even your posts do!

"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions.

Ignorance is bliss. I know for a fact that you have had all this shown to you in the PoliticalForum!

The rocks cannot be from Earth. They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.

They cannot be from meteors. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.

That leaves the bullshit and impossible 842lbs of samples magically retrieved remotely with not a single scrap of evidence. Even now the technology to do this is ludicrously difficult.

What Happened on the Moon

Big load of manure. You are a huge joke when it comes to anything related to Apollo. You post your stupid videos and never summarise the content or elaborate with your own take.

Tell us why you think the rocks are proof and not bogus.

Every geologist on this planet, who has examined them, says so. Your pathetic videos
mean nothing. You don't even understand any of it.

 

[Michael 345]

is a moron

An oldy but goody - that's an insult to morons