The latest moon hoax documentary

[FatFreddy]

I made a collection of hoax evidence.
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034

Some of it is above my head. I can't do the calculations that Jarrah White does when he calculates how much psi it would take to dig a hole in different surfaces but I post his videos anyway.

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1

This makes sense.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

I don't have the background to prove it mathematically but I post it anyway so that people know about the theory. Other Apollo skeptics who otherwise wouldn't know about the issue can go and ask the opinon of someone who has the background to deal with it. I post a lot of stuff I can't prove myself. Some of it may turn out to be wrong. I usually don't try to opine on alleged anomalies that I don't have the background to prove. I think it's good to find out what the hoax-believers' alleged mistakes are. This is how we can find them and talk about them.

 

[billvon]

Beach sand can be pretty dry on a hot day.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

There's a gigantic difference in the way the sand behaves in the two cases.

The material on the moon is not sand.

Please address the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and the issue of Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. You're not going to make me forget about this.

I don't care what you remember or what you forget.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never said I had faith that the rover roostertail issue was proven. I didn't address it at all. I dealt with the other evidence of air put forth which was a lot simpler and clearer. You're misrepresenting my position.
That documentary puts a lot of evidence forward. Some of it is too complicated for me to deal with. I just deal with the simple clear stuff such as this evidence of wire supports.

Then it is pointless to discuss it here.

The authors of the video are not here to defend their choices or clarify their findings.

You have brought an assertion here - and it is you who are charged with supporting your assertion.

You can't do that by saying "just watch the video and don't ask questions". That's called advertizing, and it's against the rules.

 

[(Q)]

Beach sand can be pretty dry on a hot day. There's a gigantic difference in the way the sand behaves in the two cases.

Please address the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and the issue of Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. You're not going to make me forget about this.

The only issue is your staggering willful ignorance that we won't likely forget.

 

[paddoboy]

I've been warned that I can't discuss that on this forum. If you want to debate that with me, come over to this site.

Take note FF, that I will certainly not be going over to anywhere else, to discuss anything with you. Your beliefs are your problems, and first among those problems are stupidity, gullibility and trolling.
I havn't yet quite worked out if you are just trying to have a lend of people, or if you are really that stupid and gullible.
I try and tell myself, no one could really be that stupid, or that gullible.
While I'm fully open to free speech and such, these incredibly stupid beliefs of yours really borders on fairy tales and/or a psychopathic disorder.

 

[DaveC426913]

FF is well aware of photographic images of the lunar landing sites from LRO. That is direct and conclusive proof.

"I don't believe these things are there."
"Here are pictures of them, there."

Can't get more conclusive than that. It overrides all the hypothesizing in these amateur videos. There is no point in watching them.

We can see the landers and rover tracks.

On the other hand, there are zero artifacts of the hoax itself.

 

[paddoboy]

FF is well aware of photographic images of the lunar landing sites from LRO. That is direct and conclusive proof.

What I would like to suggest, is that all the sane members on this forum, pool all our resources, in gathering together all the surviving holocaust survivors, then get together all the Astronauts from the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs, get them all in the one area and stick FF right in the middle of them, and then let him explain why those holocaust survivors were just delusional, and how the Astronauts were simply victims of a great big government inspired sham...Oh and of course give those many survivors and Astronauts free reign to show FF how wrong he is in whatever manner they deem fit.

 

[exchemist]

A professional troll is expert at luring people into continuing to respond.

 

[Michael 345]

When FF talks about hoax believers is he talking about

• those who believe Moon landings are real (but he thinks are a hoax) OR
• himself and his ilk who believe Moon landings are a hoax

Do we need Theist / Atheists terminology? or is it just me confused?

Moonlandist / Amoonlandist anyone?

 

[DaveC426913]

When FF talks about hoax believers is he talking about

• those who believe Moon landings are real (but he thinks are a hoax) OR
• himself and his ilk who believe Moon landings are a hoax

The latter:

I think it's good to find out what the hoax-believers' alleged mistakes are.

I surmise that he is pretending to be objective, feigning an air of looking at both sides, in an attempt to fly under the radar of troll-spotters.


This adds credence to my initial suspicion that FF is in this for the sake of argument. He:

- finds incendiary topics that have an oppositional base,
- presumes it's a level playing field,
- that both sides have an equitable burden of proof,
- of what he presumes to be an "as-yet inconclusive issue",
- and that arguments are mostly to be made using archival evidence,
- which could, in his eyes, be argued indefinitely.

Moon Landings and the Holocaust, for example. I will be surprised if FF is not a 911 Conspiracist as well.

He doesn't want the answers; he wants the debate.

That's FF, wrapped up with a bow.


He's on Ignore; I have no need to feed trolls.

 

[Michael 345]

he wants the debate.

That makes it clearer

What again don't understand, about the roster tail, is why the, let's call it debate, has been about its shape

Has no-one noted how quickly the rooster tail falls? I'm sure you have seen motorbike and cars in dirt road races. How long does the dirt flung up hang in the air? Moon buggy has not even traveled its own length and there is nothing left of its rooster tail

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks Pad. This is telling.

This gives context to FF's incendiary trolling habits. I have better things to do than indulge such dark patterns of behavior.

Going on my Iggy List.

Agreed totally...Like I said in a previous post, such denial of historical facts, borders on criminality.
Put him in a midst of the descendants of the holocaust survivors I say...and the group of Astronauts involved in the Moon landings....Let them deal with such monstrous inane denial of facts.

 

[Michael 345]

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1

Debunked

1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.[95]

• No crater should be expected. The 4,500 kg (10,000 lb) thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing.[96] The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kPa (1.5 psi).[97][98]
• Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[99] A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 100 and 150 mm (4 and 6 in) of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[100]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

You can find many conspiracy theories debunked on the link above

Happy reading

 

[FatFreddy]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I used to live in South Florida and you had to dig a ways to reach moist sand if you were away from the high tide mark.

The material on the moon is not sand.

On the real moon it isn't sand but on the phoney Apollo moon set it looks pretty close to sand.

You have brought an assertion here - and it is you who are charged with supporting your assertion.

If you go back and look, you'll see that I wasn't the one who brought up the rover anomaly. I talked about some of the other evidence of air. One of your team brought up the rover anomaly.

FF is well aware of photographic images of the lunar landing sites from LRO. That is direct and conclusive proof.

"I don't believe these things are there."
"Here are pictures of them, there."

Can't get more conclusive than that. It overrides all the hypothesizing in these amateur videos. There is no point in watching them.

We can see the landers and rover tracks.

On the other hand, there are zero artifacts of the hoax itself.

You don't seem to have seen this thread I posted.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169366-gunzlepug-s-LRO-thread

This is a rebuttal to what you just said. Please read it and get back to me.

He's on Ignore; I have no need to feed trolls.

Translation:

If I try to address the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk footage*, I'll have to either use common sense and say it was in water, or try to obfuscate it and look like a horse's a-s. I can't do either one so I'd better give a lame excuse and bug out.

What again don't understand, about the roster tail, is why the, let's call it debate, has been about its shape

Has no-one noted how quickly the rooster tail falls? I'm sure you have seen motorbike and cars in dirt road races. How long does the dirt flung up hang in the air? Moon buggy has not even traveled its own length and there is nothing left of its rooster tail

I brought up that issue at the bottom of post #35. I debated the pro-Apollo team at the Clavius forum** and I maintained that the moon soil in the footage might have been large-grained dust-free sand which would explain why there were no dust clouds hanging in the air. Jay Windley*** lamely said that it would be impossible to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over and therefore, it was impossible for there to be dust-free sand on an artificial moon set.

I've asked you people to address this several times but you ignore it because you know he's wrong and this has you checkmated which means you lose the debate.

I want to hear analyses from all of you pro-Apollo posters on Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue and the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk.

The viewers are watching and judging.

1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.[95]

• No crater should be expected. The 4,500 kg (10,000 lb) thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing.[96] The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kPa (1.5 psi).[97][98]
• Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[99] A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 100 and 150 mm (4 and 6 in) of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[100]

Here's the footage.

Apollo 11: Landing on the Moon

Here's the hoax-believer view so that the viewers can see both sides of the issue.

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsnJSwKol68

Now please address the issues of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue.



*
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-latest-moon-hoax-documentary.163196/page-2#post-3636828

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

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

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's something else I should point out in case anyone didn't see it. Go to the 2:19:35 time mark of the video.

American Moon (English Version)

They point out past mistakes made by hoax-believers.

 

[(Q)]

It looks like FF has now achieved #15 on the Woo Woo hit parade...

15) As seen on TV! Links to Youtube videos are one of the hallmarks of cranks. Whether this is due to cranks getting most of their information from videos, or whether it is due to the fondness of conspiracy theorists for Youtube, masses of Youtube links are one of the most common signs of the crank.

 

[exchemist]

It looks like FF has now achieved #15 on the Woo Woo hit parade...

15) As seen on TV! Links to Youtube videos are one of the hallmarks of cranks. Whether this is due to cranks getting most of their information from videos, or whether it is due to the fondness of conspiracy theorists for Youtube, masses of Youtube links are one of the most common signs of the crank.

Someone tell Write4U........

 

[billvon]

I used to live in South Florida and you had to dig a ways to reach moist sand if you were away from the high tide mark.

Your error is in assuming the surface sand is at 0% water content. What you consider dry sand is ~.5% water by weight. And that has a dramatic effect on cohesion and clumping.

On the real moon it isn't sand but on the phoney Apollo moon set it looks pretty close to sand.

You can have your kooky religious beliefs all you like. Given that you've admitted you don't understand the math or the physics, why exactly should anyone take your beliefs seriously?

The viewers are watching and judging.

They are indeed. And they think you are nuts.

Here's the footage.
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1

I think it's hilarious that the video intended to show a "fake" shows a luminous, fiery exhaust from the descent module's engine. In reality the exhaust is clear. But why do they need to be accurate, eh? They're preaching to a bunch of religious believers, and the dramatic value of a fiery, violent exhaust excites them into their religious fervor far more effectively.

Now please address the issues of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue.

Nope. Because if I address it, you'll say something like "but that's not what he said! He really said xxx via a source I won't disclose."

However, if YOU want to present what you want me to reply to, it I will reply.[/quote][/quote]

 

[FatFreddy]

However, if YOU want to present what you want me to reply to, it I will reply.

I want you to reply to the issues I raised at the bottom of post #35.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-latest-moon-hoax-documentary.163196/page-2#post-3636828

Let's start with what makes the flag flutter at the 00:30 second mark of the video. I want to hear analyses from all of the pro-Apollo posters on this. After this plays out, we can do Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue.


Here's something else written by a hoax-believer.

https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------
Are believers in danger of extinction?

Coming up is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a surveyshowed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year. British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentage seems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americans doubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronaut on Mars by 2050.
----------------------------------------------------------

A lot of Apollo-believers left comments in the comment section of the video (some of them might have been shills*).
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/?showcomments#comments

That just shows how important it is to post the actual anomalies instead of just talking about them (see top of post #41).


*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

 

[billvon]

I want you to reply to the issues I raised at the bottom of post #35.

You mean "Jay Windley maintained that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over." ?

Even dust free sand raises a cloud when it is driven over and sand adheres to the wheels. So that's a meaningless statement. And also immaterial since the Moon does not have sand on its surface.

BTW 6% of Americans is pretty low. That means you have captured the people with below-80 IQ's and the clinically insane. I mean, more Americans think COVID-19 is a hoax than that.