We never went to the moon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
FatFreddy said:
Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon. If the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology to soft-land remote-control craft on the moon back then.

What Happened on the Moon
(3:26:18 time mark)
Click to expand...


Isn't there footage of the reflectors being placed by the astronauts?
 
So Fat thinks we had the technology to send all this equipment to the moon, perform soft landings by remote control, the ability to position all this equipment at various locations around the landing site, but did not have the technology to send up a manned craft? There's more than a little illogic in Fat's alleged mind.
 
AlexG said:
So Fat thinks we had the technology to send all this equipment to the moon, perform soft landings by remote control, the ability to position all this equipment at various locations around the landing site, but did not have the technology to send up a manned craft? There's more than a little illogic in Fat's alleged mind.
Click to expand...
You're not considering the theory of space radiation's being stronger than we're told.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...-levels-and-nature-of-space-radiation.152731/
 
It's hard to believe we still have morons that believe such nonsensical conspiracy issues.
When we see such arrogant criminals such as the following ratbag, [Sibrel] so eagerly pushing their nonsensical cause, it can be compared to the religious ratbaggery and extremism we are sometimes accustomed to in this day and age.
It appears mental instability is still amongst us...

 
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
 
It's truly amazing how in a world where conspiracies rule, such as the Moon landings, 9/11, Kennedy assassination, etc etc, that people such as our obese friend Freddy, is game enough to even get out of bed in the mornings! :rolleyes:
 
paddoboy said:
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Click to expand...
The idea behind this article is that Van Allen started working for NASA and, from then on, didn't say what he really believed.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...-levels-and-nature-of-space-radiation.152731/

The Clavius site is a disinfo site. The posters on its forum are paid sophists. Anyone who reads its threads in which they debate with hoax-believers can see the sophistry.

Here's some info on Clavius.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628

The links in post #6 are dead. Here's a page that has the live links.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=147&p=7712820&viewfull=1#post7712820

I debated with Jay Windley a few times. Here's a sample.

I said this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

He responded with this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326


Those posters from Clavius post at several forums. The can have a measure of success when they just talk to each other in front of a group of people who haven't seen the hoax proof. When the viewers are shown the proof they're discussing and they have to answer real questions from truthers, they have to say some pretty lame things to maintain their positions.
 
Do you understand that anomalies are subjective? Plenty of scientists see the same photos and videos and don't recognize the so-called anomalies that you do. I don't see anything unusual either. How do you feel that your whole argument is based on your personal feelings that something looks odd?
 
FatFreddy said:
The idea behind this article is that Van Allen started working for NASA and, from then on, didn't say what he really believed.
Click to expand...
:DOne more conspiracy after another and another and another etc etc etc.:rolleyes:
FatFreddy said:
The Clavius site is a disinfo site. The posters on its forum are paid sophists. Anyone who reads its threads in which they debate with hoax-believers can see the sophistry.
Click to expand...


You mean as opposed to the crazy impressionable conspiracy web sites you obtain your nonsense from?
In essence that's all you have...claims of one conspiracy after another after another, to obviously try and deride the overwhelming convincing evidence and the fact that we did go to the Moon, at least 9 times with 6 landings.
And no amount of conspiracies and irrational denials will ever change fact.
Buzz Aldrin should have been awarded a medal for his tremendous right cross to Bart Sibrel's jaw.
 
The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
 
="spidergoat, post: 3333057, member: 9733"]The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Click to expand...
It's just a summary of hoax info. There are about fifteen pro-Apollo sites for every hoax-believer site which makes the hoax info hard to come across. I just sifted through and found the hoax stuff as a favor for the viewers so that they wouldn't have to look for it.

Anyway, we can talk about just one anomaly at a time if you want. Here's some info on the flag anomaly.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html


Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement


Most of the pro-Apollo people I've debated insist that the astronaut brushed the flag with his elbow which caused the flag to move. The above video shows that the flag had already started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

 
FatFreddy said:
You're ignoring the hoax proof.
Click to expand...


Wrong I ignore nothing including the diatribe from you, the trumped up conspiracies that you obtain from crank websites, the impressionable nonsense, the anti establishment crap, the observational evidence of the factual Moon landings, and then I logically dismiss all that obviously is nonsensical, crazy and irrational, along with most reasonable, sensible people and conclude we did go to the Moon 9 times.
But you keep telling yourself we didn't...you may even convince yourself of that. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's ever been a conspiracy nut who's been dissuaded from believing in his pet theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top