We never went to the moon.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You would send them to the very place which made them sick???

You do know lunatics come from the changes in the moon?

You are a very naughty person

They make me sick, turnabout is only fair. (Still having fun with the one who thinks "WiFi" is a naturally occurring force in the natural world.)

 

[Kittamaru]

The mods volunteer their time to keep this site running, so I would say they help in perpetuating the ''We never went to the moon'' crap. Look back over this thread's pages to see how many mods have seen this thread, and yet, this thread is set to run on and on. And, they seem happy with FF's 'debating' style. Why do mods spend time chasing socks and let the Fat Freddy's go on and on and...

If you want an answer to this, sweetpea, you have to ask someone higher up the food chain than us moderators - we are, simply put, rather shackled by the fact that this is the "correct" subforum for conspiracy theory bullshit and thus, much like the UFO's, Ghosts, and other woo, apparently subject to much more "lenient" definitions of what "acceptable evidence" is.

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

I notice that most of the discussion in this thread is an attempt to repeat arguments made on another site. That seems rather pointless. Since no new content is being added, I think it is appropriate to close the thread.

 

[FatFreddy]

When people such as those that you cite have to debate the actual issue with one of its proponents, it becomes clear that they're sophists*. That's why they try to avoid debating with people who present those theories.

Here's a classic example.

MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World. PART 3

When Jarrah White** had Jay Windley*** checkmated in a debate, the moderator started deleting Jarrah's posts.


You people look silly when you refuse to analyse the evidence put forward by the "conspiracy theorist".
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-33#post-3648989

You all looked silly when you tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-29#post-3648633

That's why conspiracy theorists get banned from so many forums. They present the actual conspiracy to the sophist and he or she has to say some pretty lame things to maintain his or her position and it becomes clear to the viewers that those people who criticize conspiracy theorists are just sophists who don't even believe their own arguments.

In your video in post #655 the guy gives examples of some silly stuff that the real conspiracy theorists (truther-seekers) don't believe either. He doesn't give examples of any real conspiracies**** because he knows that it can be shown that they're true and he also doesn't want the people listening to know about them.

This is worth another repeat too.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ere-probably-faked.163437/page-3#post-3644579


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

**
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=moonfaker&qpvt=moonfaker&FORM=VDRE

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

****
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-31#post-3648859
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034

 

[paddoboy]

When people such as those that you cite have to debate the actual issue with one of its proponents, it becomes clear that they're sophists*. That's why they try to avoid debating with people who present those theories.

No Freddy, as you have already been told, it is useless to argue/debate with pathologically minded and fanatical ratbags like the average conspiracy nut for the many reasons already given. Are you in that category Freddy?

And of course Sibrel was already a convicted criminal, when Aldrin gave him exactly what he asked for after Sibrel assaulted him.
Have you ever had the intestinal fortitude to approach a Apollo Astronaut with your nonsense Freddy...Not too much to be afraid of Fred, afterall they are all in the eighties now!

 

[paddoboy]

You people look silly when you refuse to analyse the evidence put forward by the "conspiracy theorist".
You all looked silly when you tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

And yet here you are, continuing to try and convince the rest of the forum of your stupid and irrational conspiracy, and in the process, making yourself look silly...We call that delusions of grandeur Freddy, you know, pretending to be something or someone you obviously are not, and trying to gain attention by preaching idiotic circumstances, that all level headed people reject Freddy. It's history Fred...The Moon landings are verified, undeniable proven facts. You need to swallow your stupidity and admit fact.

That's why conspiracy theorists get banned from so many forums. They present the actual conspiracy to the sophist and he or she has to say some pretty lame things to maintain his or her position and it becomes clear to the viewers that those people who criticize conspiracy theorists are just sophists who don't even believe their own arguments.

Na Fred, conspiracy theorists get banned because they lie, ignore science and the overwhelming evidence, and troll...just as you are doing, and that in time will see you banned here also.
What will you do for attention then Fred?

 

[FatFreddy]

(from post #662)

History rightly and factually records the three NASA programmes that culminated in six Moon landings. That is fact, and as such will always be recorded that way.

Information is controlled by liars in the US. There's some info on that here.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

 

[FatFreddy]

Let's hear all of the pro-Apollo posters analyse this.

The Apollo (13) Hoax Revisited

I especially want to hear from James R.

 

[foghorn]

deleted

 

[FatFreddy]

''Don't know much about'', when has that stopped you giving links to things, such as anti-vexxing?
There are people on youtube telling of their experiences of God and there are youtube clips out there saying God is a myth. How come you, Freddy, have decided not to go with one or the other there?

How about your analysing the anomaly I posted in post #671.

 

[paddoboy]

How about your analysing the anomaly I posted in post #671.

No Freddy, as you have already been told, it is useless to argue/debate with pathologically minded and fanatical ratbags like the average conspiracy nut for the many reasons already given. Are you in that category Freddy?

Obviously you are, in reply to my last question above.
And I understand that I am contributing to your pathological desire for attention, Freddy, so on that score, I'll leave you be, other then reiterating the obvious.......
It's history Freddy...The Moon landings are verified and validated, undeniable proven facts. You need to swallow your stupidity and admit fact, and as a bit of advice, visit the psychological unit at your nearest hospital for evaluation of your problem.
Bye Freddy, best of luck!

 

[paddoboy]

''Don't know much about'', when has that stopped you giving links to things, such as anti-vexxing?
There are people on youtube telling of their experiences of God and there are youtube clips out there saying God is a myth. How come you, Freddy, have decided not to go with one or the other there?

Having already admitted to being banned from many forums, and having also admitted to dishonesty in using many aliases and sock puppets, plus his avoidance of issues in this thread, and lies, I see Freddy saying he is agnostic as simply an attempt to regain some semblance of "reasonability and logic" that is obviously non existent as is evident in his evangelistic like crusade conducted here, after banning from most other reputable forums.

 

[FatFreddy]

All of you pro-Apollo posters seem to be afraid of the anomaly in post #671. If you don't show it to be wrong, all I can do is say Checkmate. If this isn't the case, let's hear some analyses from you.

 

[James R]

Let's hear all of the pro-Apollo posters analyse this.

The Apollo (13) Hoax Revisited

I especially want to hear from James R.

You're in the wrong thread.

For what portion of its flight was Apollo 13 in sunlight?

 

[billvon]

How about your analysing the anomaly I posted in post #671.

There's no anomaly. The comments by the astronauts are correct.

What are you confused about?

 

[Michael 345]

You're in the wrong thread.

For what portion of its flight was Apollo 13 in sunlight?

Most of the flight except a few (9 or 19 minutes) when the Moon blocked it out

 

[James R]

It turns out that getting rid of excess heat on the Apollo missions was one problem, but on the other hand various bits of equipment had to be kept warm to operate correctly.

First thing to realise: on the side of the Apollo spacecraft facing the sun, the temperature might be over 100 degrees Celcius, but on the side facing away from the sun the temperature was lower than -100 degrees.

The capsules were designed to eject heat efficiently into space on the non-sun side. They were also reflective, meaning that they would absorb less heat from the sun on the sunny side. The net effect, if the spacecraft cabin was not temperature controlled, would be that the cabin would become colder over time. To compensate when necessary, various heating mechanisms were built into the spacecraft.

During the Apollo 13 accident, when a lot of non-vital systems were shut down to conserve power, there was insufficient heating to prevent the cabin from cooling passively, as it was designed to do. That's why the astronauts became cold.

Apparently, despite the astronauts feeling cold, nobody at NASA was particularly worried about the crew health being seriously threatened by the cold. The astronauts weren't comfortable, but nor were they in immediate danger from the cold.

Another plank in the moon conspiracy theory is broken. Probably Fat Freddy already knew about this debunking. If not, now he knows.

 

[David C]

All of you pro-Apollo posters seem to be afraid of the anomaly in post #671. If you don't show it to be wrong, all I can do is say Checkmate. If this isn't the case, let's hear some analyses from you.

You mean you haven't had this explained to you before?

You spammed it here:
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-7#post-1072038162

Here is one reply you got: "Wowie, my head cannot get around the fact that you are still here banging your drum of ignorance. How long have you been doing this now, must be over 15 years? You must be so proud to see all the Youtube idiot comments agreeing with you. These are people who know nothing about any of it and spend litle or no time seeking answers to simple questions.

A Lunar Module on the Moon is subject to black body reflection from the surface as well as the direct sunlight. Depending on local albedo it can reflect anywhere between 8-12% of all infrared received. The lunar surface at high noon is heated by the Sun and receives 340 Watts per square metre on average - the direct figure is considerably higher.

All that time and you appear to have no capacity to learn a single thing."

Then You reply with standard crap: "It doesn't sound like it would make that much difference."

Follow up to you: "To ignorant people that would be true. To people with any honesty, just placing their feet on tarmac in summer would show how hot the surface gets. That heat is radiated away at well over 1000W per square meter - there is no atmosphere to absorb that heat."

You seem a bit, what's the word, ah yes.......checkmated !

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-7#post-1072066507

The trouble with your spam is that it is so easy to find where you have previously been humiliated.

 

[FatFreddy]

It turns out that getting rid of excess heat on the Apollo missions was one problem, but on the other hand various bits of equipment had to be kept warm to operate correctly.

First thing to realise: on the side of the Apollo spacecraft facing the sun, the temperature might be over 100 degrees Celcius, but on the side facing away from the sun the temperature was lower than -100 degrees.

The capsules were designed to eject heat efficiently into space on the non-sun side. They were also reflective, meaning that they would absorb less heat from the sun on the sunny side. The net effect, if the spacecraft cabin was not temperature controlled, would be that the cabin would become colder over time. To compensate when necessary, various heating mechanisms were built into the spacecraft.

During the Apollo 13 accident, when a lot of non-vital systems were shut down to conserve power, there was insufficient heating to prevent the cabin from cooling passively, as it was designed to do. That's why the astronauts became cold.

Apparently, despite the astronauts feeling cold, nobody at NASA was particularly worried about the crew health being seriously threatened by the cold. The astronauts weren't comfortable, but nor were they in immediate danger from the cold.

Another plank in the moon conspiracy theory is broken. Probably Fat Freddy already knew about this debunking. If not, now he knows.

It took you three months to answer. I suppose this can't be used as absolute proof until someone who's good at math can do some calculations to see if light reflected from the surface will make a significant difference. There are still a lot of other anomalies that proves the hoax.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-latest-moon-hoax-documentary.163196/page-12#post-3646067

 

[David C]

It took you three months to answer.

People don't have to keep up with your crazy forum spam. It took you 7 weeks to write that stupid response!

I suppose this can't be used as absolute proof until someone who's good at math can do some calculations to see if light reflected from the surface will make a significant difference.

You really are so chronically ignorant of science aren't you. Firstly it's the infrared not the light and you've been given 100% accurate figures for black body reflection. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that is you! YOU need to show mathematics that demonstrate how a Lunar Module with reflected surface heat compares to a Command Module docked with the Lunar Module in space. Then you have to prove that Alan Bean's claim would be true in the first place, because I'm not convinced it would. He gained his degree in aeronautics and followed up with some electronics. Neither of those give expert status to adjudging whether the LM would boil.

There are still a lot of other anomalies that proves the hoax.

Oh do shut up. They've all been debunked and you just deny everything. You have been asked to itemise your top 10 as bullet points and you never do, because once you do you have a direct reference for them being debunked. This enables you to post this bullshit wall of spam. Pretty much all answered here - needless to say you ran away and denied it all:


Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked."
He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so.