# We never went to the moon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The size of the reflection of the sun in the astronauts' visors is obviously not that of the real sun.
That's exactly what you get when you use Vidicon and Plumbicon tubes for imagers instead of modern solid state imagers.

Myth - BUSTED.

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1
Let's do the math!

Landing weight of LM: 30,000 lbs (4800lbs in the Moon's weaker gravity)
Diameter of engine bell: 59 inches
Area of engine bell: 2800 square inches
Pressure on the ground at hover if the landing bell were flush with the ground (which it isn't) - 1.7psi

That's about the pressure you can create in your mouth when you blow hard.

Try to go outside and "blow a crater" with your mouth. I bet you'll just end up blowing some dust around (which is exactly what happened.)

Myth - BUSTED.

Did you skip high school math?

Spam and evasion. You keep posting your bullshit claims about the media when the issue of the rocks is about thousands of peer reviewed reports across multiple countries from thousands of people.

You gigantic fake. You are totally cornered and know it. The rocks prove the missions all on their own.
The entire record of science gets reported this way. You are one of the most deluded people on the planet to arm wave away that level of conclusive corroborated evidence.
Done and answered. Also ignored by you. I know for a fact all the below was addressed in detail on the politicalforum.
No it does not. You don't know what the word prove means. That video takes a one second tiny section, speeds up the video and sort of aligns it with an example on Earth. If you elongate the section it comes from, the astronauts cross over! The regolith during that section moves too slowly when kicked.

This speed up factor, does not work in any way against the visible regolith being seen kicked about in virtually every available video. It is always very noticeably too slow. There are hundreds of videos showing astronaut activity with falling objects and soil, that PROVE properly that this is on the Moon. Needless to say you ignore them and come up with some meaningless claim about the video speed. I wonder if it is because you are trolling or just don't understand this basic thing.
Idiotic spam debunked hundreds of times. Needless to say ignored by you. Your autospam response is that you haven't seen them debunked. Yes you have.
Your dishonesty is appalling. It's a smudge on the visor and is visible on several other images.

1. This is pareidolia, the smudge resembles a massive Fresnel with barn doors light. It creates a visible SPOTLIT area. What stupid reason would they use such a thing? Based on estimated distance and its size on the visor it is several feet across!
2. It is "off". How the hell would it show up against a dark background?
3. Explain why the mark appears in other images in the same place!
Pathetic spam, answered and ignored by you. These two videos on this page completely and 100% debunk that stupid claim. Your stock bullshit reply is "it may turn out to be right but doesn't make the bullshit mountain of hoax crap go away".

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/superlight-contention.html?m=1
The internet is littered with hundreds of debunks to this, but hey, stupid NASA, takes pictures of under the LM, gets astronauts to comment on the lack of any serious crater, then forget to simply dig one out on every mission. Explain why a throttled back much lighter LM(from depleted fuel), would produce a crater.
No spammer, as noted you have this back to front.

The rocks and the vast catalog of totally consistent evidence prove the missions. Idiotic and ignorant observations, debunked for decades can be consigned to the garbage bin.
Spam cut and paste response. This is the point the coward runs away or resorts to flooding the thread with already answered bullshit.

...says the guy who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agrees with Jay Windley's* lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue*. You can pretend all you want. Your stand on those two issues destroys your credibility. You obviously don't even believe your own arguments. I might as well just say it. I think you're a paid sophist*** who knows the moon missions were faked.

Don't lamely say the Chinese spacewalk is off-topic. NASA's official position is that the Chinese spacewalk was real and NASA's credibility is part of this issue. Don't lamely say Jay Windley's analysis is off-topic. Jay Windly is the biggest Apollo-defender on the internet and his credibility is an Apollo-related issue.

*

**

***
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

Let's do the math!

Landing weight of LM: 30,000 lbs (4800lbs in the Moon's weaker gravity)
Diameter of engine bell: 59 inches
Area of engine bell: 2800 square inches
Pressure on the ground at hover if the landing bell were flush with the ground (which it isn't) - 1.7psi

That's about the pressure you can create in your mouth when you blow hard.

Try to go outside and "blow a crater" with your mouth. I bet you'll just end up blowing some dust around (which is exactly what happened.)

Myth - BUSTED.

Did you skip high school math?

At about the 12:35 time mark of this video...
Apollo 11 landing - full sequence

...the astronaut says that they're at seventy five feet. The soil can be seen blowing from that height. That's a lot harder than the pressue you create in your mouth when you blow hard. Can you comment on this?

...says the guy who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agrees with Jay Windley's* lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue*. You can pretend all you want. Your stand on those two issues destroys your credibility. You obviously don't even believe your own arguments. I might as well just say it. I think you're a paid sophist*** who knows the moon missions were faked.

Says the gigantic fraud who claims the Chinese space walk was filmed in a water tank. Says the person who arm waves away thousands of analyses on the lunar samples brought back from the Moon by Apollo. Says the person who posts spam post after spam post and completely ignores responses. Says the person who is afraid to admit they are wrong. Says the person who lies, evades, obfuscates and knows the Moon missions landed as stated.

Hey Fats, answer my rebuttal. Answer Billvon's rebuttal. Gee, anyone would think you were once again getting your woeful butt kicked!

Regarding the dust moving at 75ft, it's a vacuum. At that height the spread is over 75ft, the exhaust is 90 degrees. There is no air to stop the exhaust gasses. I would be surprised if it didn't occur earlier but not yet visible due to the LM pitch angle.

Last edited:
At about the 12:35 time mark of this video...the astronaut says that they're at seventy five feet. The soil can be seen blowing from that height. That's a lot harder than the pressue you create in your mouth when you blow hard. Can you comment on this?

The same pressure just spread out more. Hey Fats, answer the maths in that post. Any comments on the Tv tubes? Or the video showing how curved plastic or glass diffuses the sun the same on Earth? Or the video showing that the diffused sun on the visor disappears completely when a metal rod barely 1/5 the width of the Sun blocks ALL the diffusion?

No? Of course not - fraud.

...the astronaut says that they're at seventy five feet. The soil can be seen blowing from that height. That's a lot harder than the pressue you create in your mouth when you blow hard. Can you comment on this?
Sure.

Get the finest talcum powder you can find. Put it on the floor of a room 75 feet tall. Get a strong fan, put it on the ceiling and turn it on.

Will it create a crater? Or will you see the powder blowing away from the area under the fan?

(Of course this will be a much larger effect on the moon due to the lower gravity.)

As I understand SpaceX land part of their launch rockets on a platform out at sea.
In the few landing videos I have seen the rocket engines appear to be much more powerful than a puny moon lander engine
How strong would the floating landing pad need to be to prevent a crater being blown into it?

Also the existing moon craters were made by meteors at high speed impact, not a softly blowing rocket motor

Just a thought bubble

Does anybody else agree with billvon?

As someone mentioned strange after seeing no crater under 11 the dumb ass studio crew repeated the same mistake 5 more times

Hoax confirmed 6 times

Hard to get quality studio film crews these days

Wonder no hoax believer ever got a job on a film crew to show them tricks like
• Putting stars in the background
• How to work the puppet cables to get a realistic low gravity jump
• How to get the moon rock dust just right for the perfect rooster tail
• How to position the studio lights so only 1 shadow
• And of course the granddaddy give away - turn off the airconditioning so the flag doesn't wave (how dumb is this one)
OK kiddies story time over

Does anybody else agree with billvon?

Listen up you evasive coward. You've armwaved the rocks away, posted a barrage of debunked spam and yet again fail to address the rebuttal.

His maths is pretty spot on. If you disagree, show yours! Explain why the exhaust wouldn't hit the surface from 75ft and using physics explain why there would be a bloody crater. You are the most dishonest "truther" on the internet.

What is the matter with you!? How can you post so much bullshit and ignore replies. There is a life out there away from the land of woooo. Go get it.

What is the matter with you!?

Don't get a coronary or stroke over it please

So Fats, explain why these videos don't debunk the idiotic spotlight claim

Another point: For a light that is supposedly really wide to impossibly illuminate acres of land, the shadows would be very much narrower than those cast by the Sun.

Just ignore that as well.

Don't get a coronary or stroke over it please

I won't. Or a logical and coherent response.

(from post #1021)
That's about the pressure you can create in your mouth when you blow hard.

Don't you see that this contradicts the official version? In the "Bogus" footage taken from the Apollo 11 window the soil is blown away at seventy five feet. Billvon committed a big slip-up when he tried to obfuscate this issue and you people are trying to obfuscate his slip-up. You people are pretty much washed up now. This slip-up is as big as Jay Windley's* slip-up**

Here's something for the viewers to check out.

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 4
(2:15 time mark)

*

**
Start reading at post #20 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

So Fats, explain why these videos don't debunk the idiotic spotlight claim
Those videos were made by Betamax. He's a known sophist. He tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked and he agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.

He's deliberately showing glare in the car rear windshield and calling it the actual reflection. There are two factors: glare and reflections. He's using glare to obfuscate this issue.

edit
----------------------

The second one has got me stumped. I'd need a big superlight to test this one and I don't have one. Anyway, it doesn't make the other anomalies go away and as it's untested, it's not proof.

another edit.
----------------------

Last edited:
Don't you see that this contradicts the official version?
Nope. Not at all.
In the "Bogus" footage taken from the Apollo 11 window the soil is blown away at seventy five feet.
Which makes perfect sense.

Blow as hard as you can at a counter full of talcum powder from a foot away. See if you can blow any away.

Now use the same pressure (1.5 psi) but make a "mouth" five feet across, or roughly 60 times the diameter of your mouth while blowing. Now try again from 75 feet. You'll see even more blowing of powder over a much wider area.

So you've been proven wrong again. Why would anyone listen to you after you have been proven wrong time and time again? At some point even you have to realize you look like a fool.

Which makes perfect sense.

Blow as hard as you can at a counter full of talcum powder from a foot away. See if you can blow any away.

Now use the same pressure (1.5 psi) but make a "mouth" five feet across, or roughly 60 times the diameter of your mouth while blowing. Now try again from 75 feet. You'll see even more blowing of powder over a much wider area.

So you've been proven wrong again. Why would anyone listen to you after you have been proven wrong time and time again? At some point even you have to realize you look like a fool.
This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

edit
---------------------

Here's one I forgot to post.

Physics of the Apollo Moon Reflection

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.
Not a good study, but surely a very good example - from the very first post.

Nope. Not at all.
Well, billvon commited a big slip-up and it's too late to remove it so everybody's unashamedly agreeing with it. I suppose that's all you can do. Maybe I'll forget about it and it will get buried.

Jay Windley* committed a big slip-up when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.