...DID we go to the moon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
David C said:
Yes. I agree with him.
Click to expand...
Well, your credibility is shot.


David C said:
Please try not to dismiss it because you have labelled the author unfavourably. Address the arguments.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that he's wrong about the flag.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...pollo-footage-was-filmed-in-air-here-on-earth

It starts moving before the astronaut gets close enough to touch it.

Anyway, Betamax agrees with Jay Windley on the dust-free sand issue so he has no credibility either.

billvon said:
Large grained dust free sand is effectively gravel. Putting it in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would create dust, because the act of dumping it in, transporting it over a bumpy road and dumping it would cause a lot of friction, and that friction would generate small fragments (dust.) Not erosion, friction.

So the question doesn't make sense to begin with. If you started out with dust-free large grained sand (or gravel) and transported it you wouldn't end _up_ with dust free large grained sand.
Click to expand...
Any seventh-grader could tell you that it wouldn't cause enough friction to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. It would take a gang of men hitting the sand with sledgehammers for several days straight to create that much dust. Your credibility is shot.
 
FatFreddy said:
Any seventh-grader could tell you that it wouldn't cause enough friction to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. It would take a gang of men hitting the sand with sledgehammers for several days straight to create that much dust.
Click to expand...
I take it you have never driven on a gravel road before! Try it. Try it after a rain - then a week after that rain. See if there's more dust, less dust or the same amount of dust after a week of being dry.

You had no credibility to begin with, so I won't claim it's shot. But getting some real world experience might help you start building some up.
 
FatFreddy said:
Well, your credibility is shot.
Click to expand...

You poor spammer. I suppose somewhere in that addled brain of yours lies a phrase, action or claim that you haven't made a hundred times before. You are so painfully predictable it is like watching an ant trying to escape a gigantic boot treading on it!

David C said:
I believe this is the point where you, the sole arbitrator of this ridiculous straw man argument, now say that I have no credibility. Thus, you can dismiss every argument made by me. This is what you did with Windley's website that absolutely destroys your wall of spam. It is your stop gap response to everyone who tears you multiple butt holes.
Considering all the crazy things you assert, credibility is not yours to judge with.
Click to expand...

You have no credibility whatsoever. For some crazy reason you think your opinion on this matter gives you carte blanch to assess other people agreeing with somebody who absolutely owns you.

It's pretty clear that he's wrong about the flag.
Click to expand...

Clear to you? The most ridiculous person on the internet?

It starts moving before the astronaut gets close enough to touch it.
Click to expand...

Way before the ignorant claim that air moves it. Not only does he highlight that fact, but shows why it is significant in debunking your mega-spammed madness about the Apollo 15 flag.

Anyway, Betamax agrees with Jay Windley on the dust-free sand issue so he has no credibility either.
Click to expand...

You have no concept of why that argument is so circular it comes round and bites you in the butt. Everyone agrees with Windley, everyone who knows what they are talking about.

Any seventh-grader could tell you that it wouldn't cause enough friction to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. It would take a gang of men hitting the sand with sledgehammers for several days straight to create that much dust. Your credibility is shot.
Click to expand...

You are a ridiculous joke. As if you have any idea about this straw man argument! I have a little picture as my avatar. It shows a boot print being made, during footage that has clear fine dust being kicked about. You are cornered, check mated and acting like the Black knight. The debate hall wouldn't let in somebody as ignorant as you. You will never debate honestly - no amount of evidence or expert testimony can get past Dunning and Kruger.
 
Just find the equipment left behind by the Apollo . What's the problem of doing so ?

Is this not easy to do ?

It should be .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Just find the equipment left behind by the Apollo . What's the problem of doing so ?
Click to expand...
There's no problem in finding it. We know exactly where it is. The problem is that moon conspiracist nuts will never accept any evidence of the moon landings, no matter what you put in front of them. It's a religion to these guys. Any physical evidence that is put in front of them is always immediately dismissed by them as a fake - part of the Grand Conspiracy.

Believing the moon landings never happened is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, or pyramid power, or that the moon is made of cheese.
 
river said: ↑
Just find the equipment left behind by the Apollo . What's the problem of doing so ?
Click to expand...

James R said:
There's no problem in finding it. We know exactly where it is. The problem is that moon conspiracist nuts will never accept any evidence of the moon landings, no matter what you put in front of them. It's a religion to these guys. Any physical evidence that is put in front of them is always immediately dismissed by them as a fake - part of the Grand Conspiracy.

Believing the moon landings never happened is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, or pyramid power, or that the moon is made of cheese.
Click to expand...

Agreed James .

But where are the pictures , photos of the equipment ? Left behind .
 
river said:
Agreed James .

But where are the pictures , photos of the equipment ? Left behind .
Click to expand...
Here are some. All you have to do is look for them.

Apollo-all-LRO-views_ST.jpg


https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
 
James R said:
The problem is that moon conspiracist nuts will never accept any evidence of the moon landings, no matter what you put in front of them. It's a religion to these guys. Any physical evidence that is put in front of them is always immediately dismissed by them as a fake - part of the Grand Conspiracy.
Click to expand...

If you honestly believe all of that to be True, then why waste the effort to put any physical evidence in front of them?

If physical evidence will never get them to accept the moon landings, do you suppose calling them names will?

Why even waste the effort to engage them, or let alone talk about them, at all?

(edited just now to add) Nice pictures you Posted while I was typing!!
 
FatFreddy said:
It's pretty clear that he's wrong about the flag.
Click to expand...

link to the official nasa footage
sitting on the nasa server

getting everyone half drunk and sitting in the dark while you get someone to poke the curtains and then replaying the video over and over as a logical sound scientific reason why logical sound reasonable science is not real...
 
dmoe:

dumbest man on earth said:
If you honestly believe all of that to be True, then why waste the effort to put any physical evidence in front of them?
Click to expand...
I don't actually spend much of my time doing that, as you will see if you follow my postings on the topic.

I mean, it's clear that Fat Freddy is either a troll or so desperately deluded that he's beyond help, so engaging with him in a serious way is bound to be a waste of time. He's good for a laugh now and then, but that's about it.

It's no different than talking to a Flat Earth campaigner, or similar.

If physical evidence will never get them to accept the moon landings, do you suppose calling them names will?
Click to expand...
Calling them names? You mean when I referred to them as conspiracy nuts? No, I don't think that will change their minds. The campaigners like Fat Freddy are already well aware they are conspiracy nuts, and it hasn't made any impact on them.

Why even waste the effort to engage them, or let alone talk about them, at all?
Click to expand...
Because other people read these threads. They might learn something. You know, honest enquirers after truth and all that. There are some of them out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top