We never went to the moon.

[Michael 345]

I looked at the video Apollo 15 digging a trench
I'd seen that before somewhere
I remember it's on YouTube somewhere and related to a golfer trying to get out of a sand trap
Who ever edited that footage into digging a trench on the moon deserves the Oscar for special effects

 

[James R]

That it was a hoax has been proven to the satisfaction of an objective thinking person so I don't really see any reason to stay around.

You'll be leaving us, then?

 

[Michael 345]

I don't really see any reason to stay around.

We will miss you but we hold no feelings of badness if you leave
In fact we are going to hold a party on the moon at the Apollo 11 landing site
It will be a small gathering we would like you to attend
I should not be telling you this but you well know how hard it is to keep a secret
In honour of your tenacity you will be awarded a plaque with the inscription "Here nobody from the planet Earth ever set foot. True we never not come here"

 

[David C]

There wouldn't be enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. It would take a team of guys with sledgehammers beating the sand for several days to create that much dust.

Idiotic claim, idiotic understanding. You are as ignorant and delusional as they come.

Your credibility is shot.

Lol at the sad person. When someone like you is the judge, the opposite is true. Your cowardice in avoiding dozens and dozens of posts everywhere you spam is most telling. It is you, the internet equivalent of bovine droppings, who lacks credibility.

This can be explained by the manipulation of the speed.

Are you a moron? Manipulating the speed is the very thing that exposes how impossible it is!

Of course you will never acknowledge this, it closes the whole case. Soil falls at lunar speed. The factor to make it behave like terrestrial freefall is 2.45 increase in speed. The soil now falls at Earth speed, but the astronauts are moving in a ridiculous fashion. There is no speed that works for the soil other than 245% and it proves they were on the Moon.

How can you tell that the soil isn't large-grained dust-free sand?

Simple and irrefutable. They make clear defined prints and very fine soil flashes across the ground. Obviously none of it suspends. This also closes the case. They were on the Moon. You know this. I suspect you have some money making venture tied to imbeciles who want to believe a hoax.

The flag movement has already proven that the footage was taken in atmosphere.

No it has proven that you cowardly avoid obvious and better fitting alternatives. Air does not behave that way.

The hoax has been proven and you all have been shown to be less-than-objective to say the least. Now you're trying to muddy the waters and bury the part of the debate where you lost instead of simply recognizing that the anomalies show it all to have been a hoax the way objective truth-seekers would do. That it was a hoax has been proven to the satisfaction of an objective thinking person so I don't really see any reason to stay around. You'll never recognize you've lost.

You lost this debate 10 years ago, the comedian that people feel sorry for, a coward and just a hopelessly dishonest person. You've been battered all over the internet, no integrity, no credibility.

I doubt you will leave, you have some hidden agenda.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We will miss you but we hold no feelings of badness if you leave
In fact we are going to hold a party on the moon at the Apollo 11 landing site
It will be a small gathering we would like you to attend
I should not be telling you this but you well know how hard it is to keep a secret
In honour of your tenacity you will be awarded a plaque with the inscription "Here nobody from the planet Earth ever set foot. True we never not come here"

And we didn't get the t-shirt, coffee cup, ball cap, key chain, wall poster, vacuum-certified drone, etc.

 

[FatFreddy]

How can you tell that the soil isn't large-grained dust-free sand?

They make clear defined prints and very fine soil flashes across the ground. Obviously none of it suspends. This also closes the case.

You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who don't click on the links and look and the info and therefore don't quite understand the issue. I'll just have to keep reposting it to thwart that tactic.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-33#post-3494252

Only paid sophists use this tactic.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
----------------------------------------------------


You people lost a long time ago. You'll never recognize it though; every time you're shown to be wrong, you'll try to muddy the waters and bury that part of the debate to reduce the number of viewers who see it. Then you'll go on as if nothing had happened.

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpts)
-----------------------------------------------------
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs orteams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be anongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
-----------------------------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect topretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style,substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
-----------------------------------------------------

https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/


I'd say your success rate at swaying the viewers is pretty low, probably close to zero.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fat, you sound like a third grader.

 

[David C]

You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who don't click on the links and look and the info and therefore don't quite understand the issue.

Your usual pathetic tactic. None of the viewers agree with you. My avatar proves beyond doubt that there are clear footprints being made and any honest person with eyes can see the fine dust being kicked around.

I'll just have to keep reposting it to thwart that tactic.

What a ridiculous spammer you are. You aren't "thwarting" me, you are just avoiding the obvious. Your dishonesty is blatant.

Only paid sophists use this tactic.

More pathetic claims. It's almost as though you think you typing something makes it a fact. You aren't even close to being correct, you cowardly avoid the obvious then make ridiculous claims about people who respond to you.

9. Play Dumb.

No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

I need to thwart your stupidity, so here is logical argument (from the PF thread) that you avoided. You made zero sense, provided no proof in response and pretend that you can't see the obvious!

"It has been claimed that it is possible to make an entire area the size of several baseball fields, completely dust free. Regardless of whether this is possible and it most certainly is not, it is just another in a long line of ridiculous strawman claims.
The reason this claim is a strawman is because the circumstances of viewing much of the Apollo footage is in direct contrast to what such an environment would look like. Here it is summarized:-

• Dry sand dust free will not take ANY print.
• Wet sand will not allow un-clumped loose material to be kicked.
• In numerous pieces of footage up to an hour long, we see prints being made.
• In the same footage we see very fine particles flashing across the surface.
• There are no circumstances where this is possible on Earth.

The following 3 clips including the youtube video are part of an unbroken 35 minute sequence.

Clip number 1

In that video above, literally the first 3 seconds and his sideways hop shows the really fine material as it glides across the surface, when his shadow moves away from that spot a nice clear print covered completely at 46 seconds,(just like when they work around the rover and the idiotic crap about tracks!). One minute 20 seconds right on the floor as the camera zooms in, clear as day and a nice detailed print.

Clip number 2
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1482604.mpg

At the first 10 seconds we see the clearest of prints being made!

Clip number 3
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1482841.mpg
Replete with fine dust being kicked, same contnuous sequence(1:20 in particular for 5 seconds where it goes an un feasible Earth distance with the tiniest movement)
The following gifs are taken from clip number 3 above:-

The strawman taken apart in 2 easy gifs. Only someone in complete denial will refute the clear prints being made and the clear fine dust being kicked in virtually the same spot!"

ANYONE and I do mean anyone who denies that is fine dust and a clear print in the same sequence is a liar.

You people lost a long time ago. You'll never recognize it though; every time you're shown to be wrong, you'll try to muddy the waters and bury that part of the debate to reduce the number of viewers who see it. Then you'll go on as if nothing had happened.
I'd say your success rate at swaying the viewers is pretty low, probably close to zero.

You total fraud. You know you are wrong, nobody can be that stupid. The landing has so much evidence to prove its authenticity, it was proven decades ago. You never sway a single person on any forum you post. In fact the opposite is always true, you get your pathetic argument taken to pieces.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fathead is just a troll, haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[David C]

Fathead is just a troll, haven't you figured that out yet?

Well yeah. But an irritating one that I don't intend to let go unchallenged.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well yeah. But an irritating one that I don't intend to let go unchallenged.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[FatFreddy]

"It has been claimed that it is possible to make an entire area the size of several baseball fields, completely dust free. Regardless of whether this is possible and it most certainly is not, it is just another in a long line of ridiculous strawman claims.
The reason this claim is a strawman is because the circumstances of viewing much of the Apollo footage is in direct contrast to what such an environment would look like. Here it is summarized:-

• Dry sand dust free will not take ANY print.
• Wet sand will not allow un-clumped loose material to be kicked.
• In numerous pieces of footage up to an hour long, we see prints being made.
• In the same footage we see very fine particles flashing across the surface.
• There are no circumstances where this is possible on Earth.

You're ignoring the info in this video.

MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.

Viewers...

Please watch the video.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Too fat and lazy to even summarize?

 

[David C]

Too fat and lazy to even summarize?

Of course. Let me.

The video is the idiot Jarrah White making the claim that all the visual dust clouds we see are comprised of dust free sand particles. He uses cutting edge and skilful techniques to demonstrate this, such as blowing a flimsy hairdryer at a box of sand and saying look, it's similar!!

Of course what he and the deceitful Fraudfreddy fail to do is account for the visual record showing footprints being made, dust being kicked unfeasible Earth distances and heights and visually very fine.

The fraud failed to answer my long post above in addition to dozens of others. I wonder if any other "viewers" can give a rat's bottom about his stupid videos and claims. Seems not.

 

[David C]

Your dishonesty is blatant.

I need to thwart your stupidity, so here is logical argument (from the PF thread) that you avoided. You made zero sense, provided no proof in response and pretend that you can't see the obvious!

"It has been claimed that it is possible to make an entire area the size of several baseball fields, completely dust free. Regardless of whether this is possible and it most certainly is not, it is just another in a long line of ridiculous strawman claims.
The reason this claim is a strawman is because the circumstances of viewing much of the Apollo footage is in direct contrast to what such an environment would look like. Here it is summarized:-

• Dry sand dust free will not take ANY print.
• Wet sand will not allow un-clumped loose material to be kicked.
• In numerous pieces of footage up to an hour long, we see prints being made.
• In the same footage we see very fine particles flashing across the surface.
• There are no circumstances where this is possible on Earth.

The following 3 clips including the youtube video are part of an unbroken 35 minute sequence.

Clip number 1

In that video above, literally the first 3 seconds and his sideways hop shows the really fine material as it glides across the surface, when his shadow moves away from that spot a nice clear print covered completely at 46 seconds,(just like when they work around the rover and the idiotic crap about tracks!). One minute 20 seconds right on the floor as the camera zooms in, clear as day and a nice detailed print.

Clip number 2
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1482604.mpg

At the first 10 seconds we see the clearest of prints being made!

Clip number 3
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1482841.mpg
Replete with fine dust being kicked, same contnuous sequence(1:20 in particular for 5 seconds where it goes an un feasible Earth distance with the tiniest movement)
The following gifs are taken from clip number 3 above:-

The strawman taken apart in 2 easy gifs. Only someone in complete denial will refute the clear prints being made and the clear fine dust being kicked in virtually the same spot!"

ANYONE and I do mean anyone who denies that is fine dust and a clear print in the same sequence is a liar.



You total fraud. You know you are wrong, nobody can be that stupid. The landing has so much evidence to prove its authenticity, it was proven decades ago. You never sway a single person on any forum you post. In fact the opposite is always true, you get your pathetic argument taken to pieces.

The silence from this deceitful poster is deafening.

 

[FatFreddy]

Of course what he and the deceitful Fraudfreddy fail to do is account for the visual record showing footprints being made, dust being kicked unfeasible Earth distances and heights and visually very fine.

Anyone who watches the video can see that this is BS.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anyone who watches the video can see that this is BS.

Anyone watching that video voluntarily should not be trusted with children, money or small animals.

 

[David C]

Anyone who watches the video can see that this is BS.

Shut up you deceitful joke. Anyone who watches that video sees exactly what I said and sees the avoidance of everything I just listed.

Yet again you useless coward, you fail to respond to a large post.

You are like the Black Knight kicked out of the debating hall for gross ignorance.

You got owned again. Here, there and everywhere. Only the occasional simpleton agrees with you!

 

[sideshowbob]

You're ignoring the info in this video.

So where were you on July 20, 1969?

 

[FatFreddy]

Shut up you deceitful joke. Anyone who watches that video sees exactly what I said and sees the avoidance of everything I just listed.

Yet again you useless coward, you fail to respond to a large post.

You are like the Black Knight kicked out of the debating hall for gross ignorance.

You got owned again. Here, there and everywhere. Only the occasional simpleton agrees with you!

You can't make facts go away with rhetoric and invective.

The flag anomaly has already proven that the footage was taken in a studio.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-30#post-3493604


None of you passed the objectivity test.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-32#post-3494061
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989

None of you simply said that Jay Windley's* analysis of the dust-free sand issue was wrong so none of you has any credibility. You can pretend all you want. The case is closed. You lost.

All of you know the missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

You're trying to create the illusion of wide support for your view on the internet.


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