ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Tindarormkimcha on September 30, 2015, 12:57:56 PM
-
The odds are realy against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever
send men to the moon!
-
The odds are realy against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever
send men to the moon!
There are literally tons of paper evidence, along with pounds of lunar rock. What part of any do you have a problem with?
-
The odds are realy against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever
send men to the moon!
There are literally tons of paper evidence, along with pounds of lunar rock. What part of any do you have a problem with?
All of course! There very simply is no evidence. You might BELIEVE there is. but you can't
show any that isn't fake.
and tons of paper evidence? what ? if that is your evidence then the movie "Star Wars" or
"Star Trek" or whatever is true too! It is a ridiculous argument.
And the rocks? Do you mean the 'false'' rocks by any change?
-
All of course! There very simply is no evidence.
Wrong.
You might BELIEVE there is. but you can't show any that isn't fake.
Wrong.
and tons of paper evidence? what ? if that is your evidence then the movie "Star Wars" or
"Star Trek" or whatever is true too! It is a ridiculous argument.
Stupid and wrong.
And the rocks? Do you mean the 'false'' rocks by any change?
Wrong.
Make a point about something specific instead of spraying a perfectly good forum with your hoax dung. Until then you have nothing but disbelief, a substandard education and a desperate desire for adult attention to sustain your fantasy world. Prove me wrong and provide actual evidence to support whatever claim you think you might be making.
-
All of course! There very simply is no evidence. You might BELIEVE there is. but you can't
show any that isn't fake.
What proof do you have that they are fake? Just your stating that you believe they are fake does not in any way prove the allegation.
and tons of paper evidence? what ? if that is your evidence then the movie "Star Wars" or
"Star Trek" or whatever is true too! It is a ridiculous argument.
Yes the movies are real your suggestion that images are in the same reality of those presented by NASA are purely imaginary. The subject of Apollo is ~240 thousand miles, not across the galaxy. If you have a problem differentiating the differences look at the enormous distances in the universe.[/quote]
And the rocks? Do you mean the 'false'' rocks by any change?
[/quote]
What "false" rocks are you referring?
-
There already is a thread that has collected all your "wisdom". Why not visit that and answer some of the questions that have asked of you, rather than spamming the board with another thread?
The odds are realy against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
"Tail"? I think that you mean "tale".
As for the odds, then I am happy to take your odds.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
Your belief has no bearing on what happened. No-one really cares about your beliefs, to be honest. You will accept that an argument from belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html) is a pretty poor argument.
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
If you want to debate your beliefs then put up your argument (please not another tedious cut'n'paste of long debunked nonsense from jokes like Jack White). Trolling won't get you too far here.
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
-
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of course not saying anything at all.
You might BELIEVE there is. but you can't show any that isn't fake.
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
and tons of paper evidence? what ? if that is your evidence then the movie "Star Wars" or
"Star Trek" or whatever is true too! It is a ridiculous argument.
Stupid and wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
and not explaining why it is stupid of course.
And the rocks? Do you mean the 'false'' rocks by any change?
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
Make a point about something specific instead of spraying a perfectly good forum with your hoax dung. Until then you have nothing but disbelief, a substandard education and a desperate desire for adult attention to sustain your fantasy world. Prove me wrong and provide actual evidence to support whatever claim you think you might be making.
This is just a stupid Ad Hominem and hence you are not saying anything relevant here.
And good forum? we will see. The proof is in the pudding, girly.
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
Oh but I have!
Don't be too sure.
-
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of course not saying anything at all.
You might BELIEVE there is. but you can't show any that isn't fake.
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
and tons of paper evidence? what ? if that is your evidence then the movie "Star Wars" or
"Star Trek" or whatever is true too! It is a ridiculous argument.
Stupid and wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
and not explaining why it is stupid of course.
And the rocks? Do you mean the 'false'' rocks by any change?
Wrong.
Wow! You just blown my mind! LOL Just stating it is wrong is of cours not saying anything at all.
Make a point about something specific instead of spraying a perfectly good forum with your hoax dung. Until then you have nothing but disbelief, a substandard education and a desperate desire for adult attention to sustain your fantasy world. Prove me wrong and provide actual evidence to support whatever claim you think you might be making.
This is just a stupid Ad Hominem and hence you are not saying anything relevant here.
And good forum? we will see. The proof is in the pudding, girly.
You owe me a new irony meter. You just blew mine up by stating someone else is doing the exact same thing you've done.
-
What "false" rocks are you referring?
Don't you people do research?
'Moon rock' in museums is just petrified wood
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
Ancient rock art from around the world"Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection," Van Gelder said.
The rock is not usually on display; the museum is primarily known for its paintings and other works of fine art by masters such as Rembrandt.
A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.
It was given at the opening of an exhibition on space exploration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
Oh but I have!
Don't be too sure.
And you've presented so much proof too!! ::)
-
What "false" rocks are you referring?
Don't you people do research?
'Moon rock' in museums is just petrified wood
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
Ancient rock art from around the world"Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection," Van Gelder said.
The rock is not usually on display; the museum is primarily known for its paintings and other works of fine art by masters such as Rembrandt.
A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.
It was given at the opening of an exhibition on space exploration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
Do you? The rock was not given by NASA. there is no evidence it was ever claimed to be a Moon rock. It is far more likely that it was assumed to be one when it was found in the estate of the former Prime Minister after his death.
Interestingly, no moon rocks were given out that year. They were never given to private citizens. and those that were given out looked nothing like that.
-
Your belief has no bearing on what happened. No-one really cares about your beliefs, to be honest. You will accept that an argument from belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html) is a pretty poor argument.
I agree here! But most believers who think we have send men to the moon don't get that!
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
No I am really not, I can promise you that. However, this is just an Ad Hominem again.
If I had agreed with the bullshit that we have send people to the moon you would never write that.So you are being dishonest.
-
Don't you people do research?
Yawn. Asked and answered here:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=909.msg30331#msg30331
-
Do you? The rock was not given by NASA. there is no evidence it was ever claimed to be a Moon rock. It is far more likely that it was assumed to be one when it was found in the estate of the former Prime Minister after his death.
Interestingly, no moon rocks were given out that year. They were never given to private citizens. and those that were given out looked nothing like that.
wow! talking about D E N I A L!
There is no point in talking this way if you right out reject anything you won't like and doesn't fit the stupid religion that we have send men to the moon.
It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
However, it seems you still insist that the Naked Emperor has Clothes. He hasn't. he is NAKED.
-
Let's see
the van Allen Belt and sun flares are way too dangerous.
there are too much photographs.
the moon rocks are fake.
the ''c' on the rock (no, it was fo sure no pubic hair)
The astronauts where freemasons, hence psychpaths and liars from the start.
and so on and so forth,.
how about this one:
The moon is artificial! There is nothing natural about the moon!
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
Oh but I have!
Don't be too sure.
And you've presented so much proof too!! ::)
I haven't finished yet.
(Do you like you knee jerk reflex?)
-
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
No I am really not, I can promise you that.
If I had agreed with the bullshit that we have send people to the moon you would never write that.So you are being dishonest.
Well, trolling is defined as "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."
I would think that description adequately describes your good self.
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
However, this is just an Ad Hominem again.
And this isn't?
The proof is in the pudding, girly.
Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?
What joy these psychopatjh have!!!
They are reallyu glowing after their great hoax oeps achievement! Halleluja!
-
How about instead of just saying the evidence is all faked you start explaining how it is?
Start with the video that shows a low gravity vacuum environment that would require sets far too large to fit into any vacuum chamber, includes continuous shots far too long to be done in any way of producing low gravity conditions on Earth, and include movement of people and objects too complex to be done with any wire rig.
-
Do you? The rock was not given by NASA. there is no evidence it was ever claimed to be a Moon rock. It is far more likely that it was assumed to be one when it was found in the estate of the former Prime Minister after his death.
Interestingly, no moon rocks were given out that year. They were never given to private citizens. and those that were given out looked nothing like that.
wow! talking about D E N I A L!
There is no point in talking this way if you right out reject anything you won't like and doesn't fit the stupid religion that we have send men to the moon.
It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
However, it seems you still insist that the Naked Emperor has Clothes. He hasn't. he is NAKED.
you have ONE rock that there is no evidence NASA ever saw it or had anything to do it. It proves NOTHING about all the other rocks that have been examined by thousands of geologists around the world.
-
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
No I am really not, I can promise you that.
If I had agreed with the bullshit that we have send people to the moon you would never write that.So you are being dishonest.
Well, trolling is defined as "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."
I would think that description adequately describes your good self.
Obvious attempt at trolling is, well, obvious.
However, this is just an Ad Hominem again.
And this isn't?
The proof is in the pudding, girly.
Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?
What joy these psychopatjh have!!!
They are reallyu glowing after their great hoax oeps achievement! Halleluja!
strange
actually you are saying that if I say something others won't like I am trolling?
So, you are hee not trolling if you agree with those idiotic ideas!
Get real mate!
Trolling is if I don't mean a word I am writing. I stand behind every word I write,
But you seem to have some troubles with that!
You know, that is YOUR problem, not mine!
-
Let's see
the van Allen Belt and sun flares are way too dangerous.
there are too much photographs.
the moon rocks are fake.
the ''c' on the rock (no, it was fo sure no pubic hair)
The astronauts where freemasons, hence psychpaths and liars from the start.
and so on and so forth,.
how about this one:
The moon is artificial! There is nothing natural about the moon!
-
Do you? The rock was not given by NASA. there is no evidence it was ever claimed to be a Moon rock. It is far more likely that it was assumed to be one when it was found in the estate of the former Prime Minister after his death.
Interestingly, no moon rocks were given out that year. They were never given to private citizens. and those that were given out looked nothing like that.
wow! talking about D E N I A L!
There is no point in talking this way if you right out reject anything you won't like and doesn't fit the stupid religion that we have send men to the moon.
It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
However, it seems you still insist that the Naked Emperor has Clothes. He hasn't. he is NAKED.
you have ONE rock that there is no evidence NASA ever saw it or had anything to do it. It proves NOTHING about all the other rocks that have been examined by thousands of geologists around the world.
oh boy oh boy here is the denial again!
well let put it another way
why exactly do you belief the hoax to be true?!
-
How about instead of just saying the evidence is all faked you start explaining how it is?
Start with the video that shows a low gravity vacuum environment that would require sets far too large to fit into any vacuum chamber, includes continuous shots far too long to be done in any way of producing low gravity conditions on Earth, and include movement of people and objects too complex to be done with any wire rig.
of course it is all faked. Why do you have a problem with that?
-
What "false" rocks are you referring?
Don't you people do research?
First off, the A11 astronauts gave NO moon rock samples on their Goodwill tour. Secondly all samples were 4 small pieces encased in Lucite. Thirdly the Prime Ministers heirs told the museum it was a moon rock. Did the museum ask for evidence or just accept the "evidence" because someone else said so? Check your references before posting this nonsense.
'Moon rock' in museums is just petrified wood
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
Ancient rock art from around the world"Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection," Van Gelder said.
The rock is not usually on display; the museum is primarily known for its paintings and other works of fine art by masters such as Rembrandt.
A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.
It was given at the opening of an exhibition on space exploration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
Edit to add lunar samples presented to countries
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+moon+samples+given+to+other+countries+from+apollo+11&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&imgil=d-E59Nr4Z6DyTM%253A%253Bncm96Ah61-H-uM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FApollo_11_lunar_sample_display&source=iu&pf=m&fir=d-E59Nr4Z6DyTM%253A%252Cncm96Ah61-H-uM%252C_&usg=__5ESB1M1ps_qO6PfZABjHR6tThYw%3D&ved=0CCoQyjdqFQoTCK-27JSon8gCFcbMgAodwCMH3g&ei=9B8MVq_sKMaZgwTAx5zwDQ#imgrc=d-E59Nr4Z6DyTM%3A&usg=__5ESB1M1ps_qO6PfZABjHR6tThYw%3D
-
How about instead of just saying the evidence is all faked you start explaining how it is?
Start with the video that shows a low gravity vacuum environment that would require sets far too large to fit into any vacuum chamber, includes continuous shots far too long to be done in any way of producing low gravity conditions on Earth, and include movement of people and objects too complex to be done with any wire rig.
of course it is all faked. Why do you have a problem with that?
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
-
Is that the only thing you can do? empty quotes qwith no reply? Or is it a mistake?
-
Let's see
the van Allen Belt and sun flares are way too dangerous.
there are too much photographs.
the moon rocks are fake.
the ''c' on the rock (no, it was fo sure no pubic hair)
The astronauts where freemasons, hence psychpaths and liars from the start.
and so on and so forth,.
how about this one:
The moon is artificial! There is nothing natural about the moon!
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
-
Let's see
the van Allen Belt and sun flares are way too dangerous.
not according to Van allen himself or anyone else that has actually studied it and didn't obviously get their talking points from a hoax site.
there are too much photographs.
Jack White may have thought so but he was wrong. he takes time out for experiments when part of the experiment was taking photos of the experiment. He also didn't account for how quickly one could take photos when doing the panoramas.
the moon rocks are fake.
so you say but you have no proof.
the ''c' on the rock (no, it was fo sure no pubic hair)
Zooming in on it it clearly looks to be not on the original photo and therefore on the scanner. It is not on any other copy of the photo. it is not on the same rock in other photos. It is not on the same rock in the same photo published in a magazine weeks after the landing.
The astronauts where freemasons, hence psychpaths and liars from the start.
and so on and so forth,.
what were you saying about ad hominems?
how about this one:
The moon is artificial! There is nothing natural about the moon!
that is wrong and I'm betting you can't prove it.
-
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
coudln't be faked?? are you for real??
it is ALL faked!
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
Oh but I have!
Don't be too sure.
And you've presented so much proof too!! ::)
I haven't finished yet.
(Do you like you knee jerk reflex?)
you haven't started. so far you're just regurgitating the long debunked nonsense you can find on any random hoax site.
-
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
coudln't be faked?? are you for real??
it is ALL faked!
Is this your monthly set of droppings? Prove anything is false
-
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
coudln't be faked?? are you for real??
it is ALL faked!
So are you gonna either explain how it was faked, what proves it was fake, or are you just gonna keep acting as if pronouncing something to be fake makes it fake?
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
for starters:
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/93ef854d4744bc37164b463a59c47dbd/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo10_r1_500.jpg)
-
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
coudln't be faked?? are you for real??
it is ALL faked!
So are you gonna either explain how it was faked, what proves it was fake, or are you just gonna keep acting as if pronouncing something to be fake makes it fake?
You are ****** up! Something I wrote? ;)
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
for starters:
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/93ef854d4744bc37164b463a59c47dbd/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo10_r1_500.jpg)
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/981340285b7ef597ed89e459dad48380/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo2_500.jpg)
-
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
what do you mean?
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/981340285b7ef597ed89e459dad48380/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo2_500.jpg)
Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun. See annular eclipses
-
Is this your monthly set of droppings? Prove anything is false
Yes, well, everything is indeed faked!
Not my fault is it?
-
if you really believe there is no evidence then all I can say is thank you for proving you haven't actually looked.
Oh but I have!
Don't be too sure.
And you've presented so much proof too!! ::)
I haven't finished yet.
(Do you like you knee jerk reflex?)
you haven't started. so far you're just regurgitating the long debunked nonsense you can find on any random hoax site.
That is correct, one has to start before one can even contemplate finishing.
-
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
what do you mean?
the pic you posted says it is too big to have been captured. the leading theory is that it was formed by a collision with Earth and a Mars sized body. So nobody claims it was captured. Again, your point?
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
Is this your monthly set of droppings? Prove anything is false
Yes, well, everything is indeed faked!
Not my fault is it?
Unfortunately you restating your original proposition doesn't prove it.
-
I already said the ways it couldn't be faked, are you going to address those or just keep saying its faked?
coudln't be faked?? are you for real??
it is ALL faked!
So are you gonna either explain how it was faked, what proves it was fake, or are you just gonna keep acting as if pronouncing something to be fake makes it fake?
You are ****** up! Something I wrote? ;)
So that is a no to having anything to back up your claims then?
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
-
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
what do you mean?
the pic you posted says it is too big to have been captured. the leading theory is that it was formed by a collision with Earth and a Mars sized body. So nobody claims it was captured. Again, your point?
oh boy oh boy
leading theory eh?? A leading theory is never wrong of course eh?
(actually most are, otherwise it wouldn't be a leading theory! lol)
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
-
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
what do you mean?
He means the Moon was not a captured object.
Also in 1963 when this was quoted from it was not known that the Moons orbit was increasing.
-
And the leading theory is not that it was captured. So your point?
what do you mean?
the pic you posted says it is too big to have been captured. the leading theory is that it was formed by a collision with Earth and a Mars sized body. So nobody claims it was captured. Again, your point?
oh boy oh boy
leading theory eh?? A leading theory is never wrong of course eh?
(actually most are, otherwise it wouldn't be a leading theory! lol)
it is the one that actually has evidence where the artificial nonsense does not.
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Time travel proponent?
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
-
Time travel proponent?
duh?
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
YOU brought it up. attempted shifting of burden of proof noted.
-
But I will ask again,
why do people belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvveeee we have send to the moon while there is no evidence?
And if people think there is evidence, then where is it, what is it etc?
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
YOU brought it up. attempted shifting of burden of proof noted.
so, you can't.
Noticed.
-
people here look really ****** up if I see how fast postings are posted.
Does say a thing of course, if they go on the defense.
Truth has never to be defended.
Truth is it is all fake.
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
YOU brought it up. attempted shifting of burden of proof noted.
so, you can't.
Noticed.
Still waiting for you to present something you think proves your point. Hilarious that you're avoiding that. But expected.
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
YOU brought it up. attempted shifting of burden of proof noted.
so, you can't.
Noticed.
Still waiting for you to present something you think proves your point. Hilarious that you're avoiding that. But expected.
you are right the whole moon thingie is hilarious! what non sense it all is!
-
Only for people who are really curious and interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oA-ghjBRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh Goody!!! More debunked nonsense!
Errrr let's guess. you haven't read the book, right?
have you? Come on know, be integer, real and honest!
I have actually and I KNOW it is nonsense.
Sure,
But you can't explain why of course.
Just stating won't be enough.
State what YOU think is convincing. It is YOUR claim to prove.
Same with you ,mate!
It seems you even can't do that
YOU brought it up. attempted shifting of burden of proof noted.
so, you can't.
Noticed.
Still waiting for you to present something you think proves your point. Hilarious that you're avoiding that. But expected.
you are right the whole moon thingie is hilarious! what non sense it all is!
thanks for proving you can't follow a conversation or present evidence for your assertion.
-
Truth has never to be defended.
When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage, those who know better feel obliged to help them understand the more simple stuff. Regarding your rock with a "C" on it, watch the following video and report back how you are now better able to see the truth:
ETA: Oh I forgot to put the link in to the space journal picture. I believe one of the current members posted this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
-
I don't need to read the book to find out who built the moon, I KNOW who built it.... it was
ALIENZ I TELLS YA, ALIENZ!!!!!!!!!!!
Just ask my chum Giorgio....
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Giorgio-triple%20Aliens.png)
... he has all the answers
-
Truth has never to be defended.
When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage, those who know better feel obliged to help them understand the more simple stuff. Regarding your rock with a "C" on it, watch the following video and report back how you are now better able to see the truth:
ETA: Oh I forgot to put the link in to the space journal picture. I believe one of the current members posted this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
This is the origin of the C rock, care to show everyone how smart you are by pointing the Letter C
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17445HR.jpg
And here is the old bulk scans, I don't have a Flickr account but you may look at the link about half way down to
Edit to add Flickr link
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658629322108
-
people here look really ****** up if I see how fast postings are posted.
Does say a thing of course, if they go on the defense.
Truth has never to be defended.
Truth is it is all fake.
and yet here you are racking up a post count like the good little troll you are.
Suck on this.
"The other thing about it is, this conspiracy theory, is [that] the truth needs no defense. I don't have to respond to that. I stepped on the surface of the Moon, and I don't really need to defend that, because I know it happened, I know I did."
Eugene Cernan, Oral History
-
I don't need to read the book to find out who built the moon, I KNOW who built it.... it was
ALIENZ I TELLS YA, ALIENZ!!!!!!!!!!!
Just ask my chum Giorgio....
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Giorgio-triple%20Aliens.png)
... he has all the answers
Was this before or after they built the pyramids?
-
When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage.....
Makes me wonder if there is a collective term for trolls?
An inanity? An ignorance? A mania? A twaddle, perhaps?
"A twaddle of trolls!!"
Sounds about right!
-
When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage.....
Makes me wonder if there is a collective term for trolls?
An inanity? An ignorance? A mania? A twaddle, perhaps?
"A twaddle of trolls!!"
Sounds about right!
How about a "delusion of trolls"?
-
The odds are realy[sic] against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
"The odds" implies a quantitative claim. What is your probability figure, and exactly how did you calculate it?
I once believed that fairy tail[sic], but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
You have waved your hands about radiation and petrified wood and so on, but all of these topics have been repeatedly examined, in detail, on this board and its predecessors. You clearly have not examined the Apollo record in any detail. Why, then, is either your alleged prior belief, or your current disbelief, worthy of any particular attention?
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense,
In my case, it's because I'm an experienced space systems engineer, with a space physics background, have worked with Apollo engineers, and have examined the record in reasonable detail.
while there is no evidence we have ever send[sic] men to the moon!
Good heavens, whatever gave you such a silly idea? The Apollo program, including its manned and unmanned predecessors, and its scientific and technical legacy, is the most heavily documented engineering program ever. There is an enormous amount of design, test, and operational information readily available, not to mention science telemetry, lunar samples, peer-reviewed research, imagery, test and flight hardware, and follow-on technical and operational heritage. You're simply trying to deny things you're not even dimly aware of.
What are your intentions by starting this thread? Do you want to just call people names and assert knowledge you don't actually have? Or would you like to actually learn something? If the former, you may provoke people into retaliating, but you can't bluff your way here. If the latter, you will find a number of knowledgeable people willing to help you.
Which would you rather do? Strut and pose, or learn something?
-
Someone else with a wooden spoon and time to kill.
-
I sense we won't get very far with this one.
Rapid posting invective. Summarily dismissing everything any evidence as fake as a starting point, which I'm sure has a word in logic.
And now a sort of we're in the matrix type conspiracy theories.
Plus I don't think the f bomb is allowed here.
-
The odds are realy against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
I once believed that fairy tail, but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever
send men to the moon!
Here we go again. Wow. Just. Wow.
Two generations of wannabe conspiracy theorists have failed to present one single piece of evidence indicating fakery on the part of NASA. ALL of their arguments have failed and some of their claims are hilariously stupid.
Nixon's Watergate...uncovered within weeks, he was gone in under 2 years.
Iraq...no evidence of WMD or Saddam's collusion with Al Quaeda, discovered in days. Moon hoax? No evidence after 40 years.
If a soldier with the rank of private can leak documents about US government covert operations then someone in NASA or at one of the subcontractors would have revealed something over a 40 year period if there had been a hoax.
No conspiracy that I know of was ever exposed by some amateur conspiracy theorist, (ie. the likes of Kaysing, René, Sibrel, Percy, Jarrah, etc). And when real evidence of a conspiracy is discovered by a legitimate source, it is picked up by the major news services immediately. If there was ANY credible evidence that the moon landings were faked, it would make worldwide headlines within hours.
Why do people, like many hoaxers, feel the need to lie to make their case? Why do they pretend to be engineers or scientists? Why do they take information out of context to make it look like it supports them? Why do they keep making the same fantasy claims even after they have been debunked? Why are they so delusional, ignorant and dishonest?
-
First off, the A11 astronauts gave NO moon rock samples on their Goodwill tour. Secondly all samples were 4 small pieces encased in Lucite. Thirdly the Prime Ministers heirs told the museum it was a moon rock. Did the museum ask for evidence or just accept the "evidence" because someone else said so? Check your references before posting this nonsense.
Is that the only thing you can do? empty quotes qwith no reply? Or is it a mistake?
Thanks, now I know you don't read posts my quote taken directly from the post no edits.
-
I sense we won't get very far with this one.
Rapid posting invective. Summarily dismissing everything any evidence as fake as a starting point, which I'm sure has a word in logic.
And now a sort of we're in the matrix type conspiracy theories.
Yeah, maybe its time we just stopped messing with him and told him that of course, EVERYONE knows the moon missions were fake. I mean, its like Santa - just a story you tell your kids because its fun for them. We all know we're actually living in an underground cave and the sky is just painted on. What happened with people like Tindarormkimcha? Did his parents just never tell him this stuff when he got old enough? I mean, he seems to think NASA is real and he doesn't know the moon is just a big spotlight?
-
It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
You obviously don’t know what evidence is. The thousands of photographs from and around the moon are evidence. The hours of video from and around the moon are evidence. The hundreds of pounds of lunar samples are evidence. The thousands of engineering documents are evidence. The testimony of those involved is evidence. The observations of independent witnesses is evidence. The scientific data obtained is evidence. Etc.
Like it or not, Tindarormkimcha, all of that IS evidence. If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position.
it is ALL faked!
Please explain in detail how every piece of existing evidence is faked.
-
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever send men to the moon!
Yawn! I remember when conspiracy theorists used to actually try to make a case for why they believe the moon landings were faked. But we haven't seen anyone like that in years. You're boring us, Tindarormkimcha. Are you the best they've got?
NASA has claimed to have landed men on the moon. They have provided photographs and video, and moon rocks. They placed a laser reflector at specific locations on the moon. They took pictures of the Earth from the moon that show cloud patterns that match the weather forecasts for those dates. People watched the rockets launch, and viewed the spacecraft through telescopes. HAM radio operators tracked the spacecraft to and from the moon. The astronauts and other NASA employees have provided consistent first hand accounts of their experiences for over 40 years. NASA has explained all of the math they used to get the spacecraft to the moon and back. They can even tell you the weight of the ice that formed on the Saturn V rocket before it launched. And all you can do is say "it's all fake!" without giving any details.
Come on. ::) Do you really think you have made a more convincing argument than NASA? You're a joke.
I'm going to ask you a few questions, and I expect answers.
1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?
-
I just don't see the point, here. I could say, "I don't 'believe.' I accept the evidence, because all the evidence in the fields I understand meets any reasonable burden of proof. It is also not physically possible to fake much of that evidence." And he'd say, "Nuh uh!" or something else intelligent and convincing, and probably throw in a sexist comment while he was at it. I'm with LO--yawn.
-
Meh.
But it did give me a chance to realize why the "moon was designed to make eclipses" argument is so silly. That designer was pretty cruel. Set this whole thing up so only people within a 100 mile wide path would get to see a decent eclipse. Probably three quarters of the planet's population would miss the thing -- and that's weather permitting. To rub salt in, the designer jiggered things up so decades could pass between eclipses.
And still got it "wrong" (unless you happen to like annular eclipses, which I do).
Way back when I was still trying to write SF, I tinkered with a planetary arrangement that would allow an all-night solar eclipse. Time it just right and the sun would never rise for a fortnight. Even using a super-jovian as the primary, though, I think I busted Roche's limit and the magnetic field would probably kill everyone long before they had time to admire an eclipse, but anyhow...!
-
LO puts it very eloquently. People used to try and justify their position and at least try and make an argument.
Now all people seem to think is necessary is to roll up, proclaim their unfounded and sneering disbelief and sit back admiring their achievement. Simultaneously they demand proofs from everyone else.
It's a poor do indeed when the blunder starts to seen as a paragon of hoax believing virtue.
-
When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage.....
Makes me wonder if there is a collective term for trolls?
An inanity? An ignorance? A mania? A twaddle, perhaps?
"A twaddle of trolls!!"
Sounds about right!
How about a "delusion of trolls"?
Yup! Your "delusion" trumps my "twaddle"!
-
Well, let's be honest now.
Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!
I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.
Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!
All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.
So far, ALL the evidence is fake!
Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS
wrong!!!
And so far, we have
Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)
Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!
I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.
o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?
I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.
-
It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
The thousands of engineering documents are evidence.
More like"The many hundreds of thousands of engineering documents
If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position
Have you any idea what you are asking for? A coherent argument from a Conspiracy Theorist?
You might as well ask a monkey for an explanation of General Relativity!!
I think we are dealing with a gold-plated fruit cake here folks
-
More like"The many hundreds of thousands of engineering documents
That is of course NO evidence,., as I pointed out before.
Otherwise the bible would be real! boy o boy.
Or explain to me why you think that is e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e ?
If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position
That, of course, is not enirely true. Why? Well isn't it up to the people who claim we have send men to the moon to proof that? So far, this has not been done.
Have you any idea what you are asking for? A coherent argument from a Conspiracy Theorist?
This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.
You might as well ask a monkey for an explanation of General Relativity!!
First of all General Relativity is indeed completely wrong!
But that is another topic. I leave it at that for now.
Furhermore, This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.
I think we are dealing with a gold-plated fruit cake here folks
This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.
wow! THREE Ad Hominems! That is telling us something.
Now, please people why do you believe the nonsense we have send men to the moon?
I am rather curious.
-
The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much
lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary
that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties and none of
them could be considered remotely watertight.
... we cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon by rights ought not to be
there. The fact that it is, is one of those strokes of luck almost too good to accept ...
Small planets, such as Earth, with weak gravitational fields, might well lack satellites ...
... In general, then, when a planet does have satellites, those satellites are much smaller
than the planet itself. Therefore, even if the Earth has a satellite, there would be every
reason to suspect ... that at best it would be a tiny world, perhaps 30 miles in diameter.
But that is not so. Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2,160 miles in
diameter. How is it then, that tiny Earth has one? Amazing.
Isaac Asimov
-
If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it holiow. At
the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous
space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled
into near-Earth trajectory.
It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of
which was filied with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work,
navigation instruments, observation equipment and ali manner of machinery ... in
other words, everything necessary to enable this 'caravelie of the Universe' to serve as a
Noah's Ark of inteliigence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging
a prolonged (thousands of miliions of years) existence and long wanderings through
space (thousands of millions of miles).
Naturaliy, the huli of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the
blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold.
Probably the sheIi is a double-layered affair - the basis a dark armouring of about 20
miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely-packed covering (a thinner
layer - averaging about three miles). In certain areas - where the lunar 'seas' and
'craters' are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.
Sputnik magazine
-
Well, let's be honest now.
Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!
I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.
Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!
All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.
So far, ALL the evidence is fake!
Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS
wrong!!!
And so far, we have
Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)
Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!
I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.
o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?
I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.
What do you consider and accept as evidence?
-
Well, let's be honest now.
Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!
I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.
Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!
All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.
So far, ALL the evidence is fake!
Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS
wrong!!!
And so far, we have
Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)
Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!
I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.
o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?
I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.
Your word ain't good enough, in other words.
-
Well, let's be honest now.
When do you plan on starting that?
Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!
I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.
Until you start making sensible rebuttals to the points made by others, you are nothing but a troll, and your posts are in themselves ad hominems. Don't think people here aren't smart enough to recognise that.
Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!
All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.
So far, ALL the evidence is fake!
Why, because you said so? Not good enough. Prove they are fake. Or at least make some sort of cogent argument as to why you believe they are fake. You demand proof from others but aren't prepared to supply any yourself.
Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS
wrong!!!
And your evidence for this is? You talk about evidence, where is yours?
And so far, we have
Fake moon rocks
Which you have failed to demonstrate are fake..
lying astroNOTS
Who you have failed to demonstrate are lying...
the 'c' rock (studio props)
Which is just complete bull.
Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!
Boring. Tell us specifically what was lost, when it was lost and what its significance is.
I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.
You have yet to demonstrate any signs that you have looked at anything other than some fraudster's youtube that you swallowed whole.
o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?
No, it isn't.
I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.
I don't understand what sort of delusional idiot thinks that an organisation is psychopathic.
You demand evidence?
Here is one piece, just one, see if you can work out its significance.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp202e9118_05_06.jpg)
-
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.
Your word ain't good enough, in other words.
I agree my words are not good enough. Fair enough! I have no problem with that at all.
But neither is yours! Or others for that matter!!
The people who BELIEVE the non-sense that we have send men to the moon, don't they have to proof THAT?
Of course they have to!
So far they haven't.
Ir really is all about believe.
If one BELIEFS the non-sense then very soon everything is accepted as 'evidence'
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ?
Most of them are not very critical to their own beliefs.
-
Here is one piece, just one, see if you can work out its significance.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp202e9118_05_06.jpg)
That piece is very illogical
why?
It start out with a lot of Ad Hominems:
They’re stupid.
is either an idiot or a liar.
If you seriously believe we didn’t go, maybe because you’ve read some garbage
or seen the nonsense over at Cluesforum or some other garbage conspiracy site
at least 4 Ad Hominems
That are no arguments mate. Just personal attacks that doesn't say a thing!
-
Here is one piece, just one, see if you can work out its significance.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp202e9118_05_06.jpg)
But anyway, thanks for the link!
I always appreciate a good laugh!
btw are most 'people' here citizens of the usa?
(do you know what a citizen is???)
-
I don't understand what sort of delusional idiot thinks that an organisation is psychopathic.
Indeed, you don't understand!
watch this movie to 'grok' it,mate!
(http://kutdekrep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/coorpv2.jpg)
-
Tindarormkimcha, you seem to have missed my post #33418, so for your convenience I repeat:
The odds are realy[sic] against the idea the we have sent men to the moon.
"The odds" implies a quantitative claim. What is your probability figure, and exactly how did you calculate it?
I once believed that fairy tail[sic], but now I am sure it was (and is) one big gigantic hoax.
You have waved your hands about radiation and petrified wood and so on, but all of these topics have been repeatedly examined, in detail, on this board and its predecessors. You clearly have not examined the Apollo record in any detail. Why, then, is either your alleged prior belief, or your current disbelief, worthy of any particular attention?
So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense,
In my case, it's because I'm an experienced space systems engineer, with a space physics background, have worked with Apollo engineers, and have examined the record in reasonable detail.
while there is no evidence we have ever send[sic] men to the moon!
Good heavens, whatever gave you such a silly idea? The Apollo program, including its manned and unmanned predecessors, and its scientific and technical legacy, is the most heavily documented engineering program ever. There is an enormous amount of design, test, and operational information readily available, not to mention science telemetry, lunar samples, peer-reviewed research, imagery, test and flight hardware, and follow-on technical and operational heritage. You're simply trying to deny things you're not even dimly aware of.
What are your intentions by starting this thread? Do you want to just call people names and assert knowledge you don't actually have? Or would you like to actually learn something? If the former, you may provoke people into retaliating, but you can't bluff your way here. If the latter, you will find a number of knowledgeable people willing to help you.
Which would you rather do? Strut and pose, or learn something?
-
Why, then, is either your alleged prior belief, or your current disbelief, worthy of any particular attention?
That is not up to me. People are free to do with information anything they want.
It is called freedom, mate ;)
In my case, it's because I'm an experienced space systems engineer, with a space physics background, have worked with Apollo engineers, and have examined the record in reasonable detail.
Well. well well. I am glad you wrote this. Your cognitive dissonance will be the greater!
This explains a lot. I mean a LOT.
Are you 'patriotic' too?
On the other hand, why should I believe you? You can write here anything you want!
But , if you are, it explains a LOT.
(so, why do YOU believveeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we have send men to the moon? something must have convinced you! was it the telly? ;)
Good heavens, whatever gave you such a silly idea? The Apollo program, including its manned and unmanned predecessors, and its scientific and technical legacy, is the most heavily documented engineering program ever. There is an enormous amount of design, test, and operational information readily available,
I don't doubt that, I don't doubt that at all! But it clearly doesn't say a thing.
not to mention science telemetry, lunar samples, peer-reviewed research, imagery, test and flight hardware, and follow-on technical and operational heritage. You're simply trying to deny things you're not even dimly aware of.
I am aware. I have to laugh at 'lunar samples' of courses, because there is none.
They have really taken you in, right?
Do you want to just call people names and assert knowledge you don't actually have? Or would you like to actually learn something? If the former, you may provoke people into retaliating, but you can't bluff your way here. If the latter, you will find a number of knowledgeable people willing to help you.
No, I don't want to call people names. BUT you don't adress that to people here who are
calling me names! Now what is that?
Which would you rather do? Strut and pose, or learn something?
Only two options? You ARE funny!
-
Here is one piece, just one, see if you can work out its significance.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp202e9118_05_06.jpg)
But anyway, thanks for the link!
I always appreciate a good laugh!
btw are most 'people' here citizens of the usa?
(do you know what a citizen is???)
So you can't work out the significance of the image then.
Suspected not.
-
Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!
What do you understand by that? The moon tapes referred to are the SSTV tapes, now these tapes were obsolete even in 1969. They were hard to obtain and extensively reused, all the transmissions were backed on standard recording devices by recording directly from a screen. These original recordings all still exist, nothing was lost.
What would these tapes be used for by hoax proponents? There is only one tape recorder in the world capable of playing them, that remains at the JSC. There is a method of direct conversion now and not all the tapes were lost, some of the 'cleaned up' live video has been available for sometime. But again I ask, how would these tapes somehow aid the hoax believers cause?
I repeat what others have said, you continually ask for proof, but hand wave it away when proffered, yet you offer no proof of your own, just derision and ridicule. You remind me of a combination of two of the worse hoax protagonists on the internet, Adrian and the rodent. If you think that's some form of compliment, think again! :D
-
Quick question, Tindarormkimcha, how do you know the Van Allen Belts even exist? You say they would be too dangerous to pass through, but can you see them from down here on Earth? How do you know anything about them?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
-
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.
Your word ain't good enough, in other words.
I agree my words are not good enough. Fair enough! I have no problem with that at all. But neither is yours! Or others for that matter!! The people who BELIEVE the non-sense that we have send men to the moon, don't they have to proof THAT? Of course they have to! So far they haven't. Ir really is all about believe. If one BELIEFS the non-sense then very soon everything is accepted as 'evidence'
Geologists looking at Apollo rocks have concluded that they show evidence of being formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and have been bathed in the Sun's solar wind for sometimes hundreds of millions of years.
In your opinion are these geologists mistaken or lying? Or do you consider it possible they know what they're talking about and the rocks are genuinely from the Moon?
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ? Most of them are not very critical to their own beliefs.
What evidence do you have that we "blindly accept the evidence"? Please choose one such piece and demonstrate that we must have accepted it blindly.
-
Here is one piece, just one, see if you can work out its significance.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp202e9118_05_06.jpg)
But anyway, thanks for the link!
I always appreciate a good laugh!
Hint: have a look at the round object and consider where the image came from.
btw are most 'people' here citizens of the usa?
(do you know what a citizen is???)
Not this little black duck.
You'll find here people who are from the UK, Australia and New Zullund, just for starters. We have no reason to automatically cheer for the USA; and if you look elsewhere on this forum you'll find examples where we criticise the USA (and even NASA).
-
btw are most 'people' here citizens of the usa?
Nope
(do you know what a citizen is???)
Yep
(though if I told you, you'd probably cry "fake")
-
Quick question, Tindarormkimcha, how do you know the Van Allen Belts even exist? You say they would be too dangerous to pass through, but can you see them from down here on Earth? How do you know anything about them?
yes you are right here:
However:
(http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/VanAllenSciAm1959March.jpg)
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
Then look up, this article, page 39
Radiation Belts around the Earth
Instruments borne aloft by artificial satellites and lunar probes
indicate that our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy
particles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded
by James A. Van Allen
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
Now, back tou you. what do you consider evidence and why?
-
(though if I told you, you'd probably cry "fake")
try me or are you a coward?
-
And why does nobody here goes into this:
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ?
A question I have asked earlier.
Can't do, or what?
-
If you think that's some form of compliment, think again! :D
I m not realy interested in compliments, mate!
Why bring these Ad Hominems up again and again?
It let's you look so desperate.
Now I ask again, why do people still BELIEVE we have sent men to the moon?
Documentation? That one is hilarious! Did you know there is a huge documentation about Star Trek! Does that make them real? No, of course not! It is not a valid argument.
-
Quick question, Tindarormkimcha, how do you know the Van Allen Belts even exist? You say they would be too dangerous to pass through, but can you see them from down here on Earth? How do you know anything about them?
yes you are right here:
However:
(http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/VanAllenSciAm1959March.jpg)
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
Then look up, this article, page 39
Radiation Belts around the Earth
Instruments borne aloft by artificial satellites and lunar probes
indicate that our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy
particles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded
by James A. Van Allen
And the Apollo craft were shielded. Did you have a point?
And the article you cited is from 1959. Do you think science just stopped at that point?
And James Van Allen himself stated that such HB claims are baloney. Why do you ignore that?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
How were the rocks faked?
-
Now I ask again, why do people still BELIEVE we have sent men to the moon?
Quite simply the evidence and one you can trace its evolution and check the provenance.
You can try to dance around it and play silly word games, as is all you are doing anyway, but I predict this. You will not now or ever bring anything to the table, other than word games, that will present me with enough information to change my mind.
That there is the bit you need to focus on, disproving what is there. You will not and cannot do that.
Other than that, keep stirring, it was rather amusing but getting a bit same old now, wonder what forum you are giggling to your compadres over this?
-
Simple, evidence that is not faked!
That is not an answer, it is a given. Thank you for demonstrating your inability or unwillingness to take any of this remotely seriously. Now tell us why we should waste our time on you.
-
And the Apollo craft were shielded. Did you have a point?
No, they were not properly shielded.
And the article you cited is from 1959. Do you think science just stopped at that point?
No, but it seems the space missions have!!
Glad you bring that nonsense up.
First they went to the moon, allegedley, then
they stay UNDER the Radiation Belt for years and years and years.
That is backwards, isn'it ? It is all soo hilarious to say the least.
And James Van Allen himself stated that such HB claims are baloney. Why do you ignore that?
O yeah, that stupid one always comes up!
Are you aware that he started to say that when he started to work for the liars of nasa?
Hmm they pay him , don't they? Hmmm and they created the moon hoax!
That is telling us something, isn't it?
-
Then look up, this article, page 39
Sorry that is a document, according to yourself that is not valid evidence; now please try again and explain why you think the van Allen belts even exist.
-
Now I ask again, why do people still BELIEVE we have sent men to the moon?
Quite simply the evidence and one you can trace its evolution and check the provenance.
You can try to dance around it and play silly word games, as is all you are doing anyway, but I predict this. You will not now or ever bring anything to the table, other than word games, that will present me with enough information to change my mind.
That there is the bit you need to focus on, disproving what is there. You will not and cannot do that.
Other than that, keep stirring, it was rather amusing but getting a bit same old now, wonder what forum you are giggling to your compadres over this?
So, you really can't answer the question?
-
Then look up, this article, page 39
Sorry that is a document, according to yourself that is not valid evidence; now please try again and explain why you think the van Allen belts even exist.
O I do agree with you here!!!!
As far as I am concerned I don't believe anything mainstream, including this one!
So, yea, you are right!
it is just that some people need this mainstream nonsense.
So, no poblem here,
Now we agree that documents don't proof a thing!
That one is out of the way now
Thanks mate! I mean that.
Now, is there any other evidence?
Of course not!
Just take a photograph!
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT IS TAKEN ON THE MOON?
There is NO PROOF
It is really take on FAITH.
-
Now we agree that documents don't proof a thing!
No we don't; you say a document doesn't proof a thing, not me.
So now please explain why you think the van Allen Belts do exist.
-
What, to you, does prove an event happened? And don't say 'evidence that is not faked'. What is evidence that is not faked? How do you distinguish it from evidence that is faked?
-
Now we agree that documents don't proof a thing!
No we don't; you say a document doesn't proof a thing, not me.
So now please explain why you think the van Allen Belts do exist.
oh boy oh boy
You really don't read my postings, now do you?
Yep, I will tell you again
Read carefully now, boy.
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.
-
What, to you, does prove an event happened? And don't say 'evidence that is not faked'. What is evidence that is not faked? How do you distinguish it from evidence that is faked?
As I have written before. WHY do you uncritically accept photos allegedly taken on the moon?
Because nasa told you or what?
-
That is not answering my question. Please answer it before you try turning it back on me, or must I assume you don't actually have an answer? How do you determine what evidence is fake and what is not?
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
Then why did you use a document to talk about the van Allen belts?
So now you are saying you don't have any evidence for the existence of the van Allen belts?
-
Read very carefully now, "boy" - this will "proof" everything you need to know about who is posting under the name Tindarormkimcha...
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
Then why did you use a document to talk about the van Allen belts?
So now you are saying you don't have any evidence for the existence of the van Allen belts?
So, You do indeed NOT read all my postings! Go back and re-read.
-
Read very carefully now, "boy" - this will "proof" everything you need to know about who is posting under the name Tindarormkimcha...
you have no clue, no clue at all.
-
That is not answering my question. Please answer it before you try turning it back on me, or must I assume you don't actually have an answer? How do you determine what evidence is fake and what is not?
Let's turn the question around
How do you know it is all REAL?
If you are fair and square you know you don't know.
unless you BELIEVE.
That's all folks.
-
So, You do indeed NOT read all my postings! Go back and re-read.
Your claim:
No, they were not properly shielded.
Shielded against what?
-
Let's not turn the question around. That is classic evasion. How do you know it's fake? Is it your belief? Why is your conclusion more valid than mine, then?
-
And what exactly have I no clue about there, mr mindreader - because you seem to be the only one who could extraploate any meaning from the sentence I wrote?
-
So, You do indeed NOT read all my postings! Go back and re-read.
Your claim:
No, they were not properly shielded.
Shielded against what?
oh ok that one, silly one.
No I don't believe in Van Allen Radiation.
BUT others do!
Jesus!!!! Read better next time!
-
If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it holiow. At
the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous
space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled
into near-Earth trajectory.
It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of
which was filied with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work,
navigation instruments, observation equipment and ali manner of machinery ... in
other words, everything necessary to enable this 'caravelie of the Universe' to serve as a
Noah's Ark of inteliigence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging
a prolonged (thousands of miliions of years) existence and long wanderings through
space (thousands of millions of miles).
Naturaliy, the huli of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the
blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold.
Probably the sheIi is a double-layered affair - the basis a dark armouring of about 20
miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely-packed covering (a thinner
layer - averaging about three miles). In certain areas - where the lunar 'seas' and
'craters' are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.
Sputnik magazine
the Moon has a moment of inertia of a solid body. Seismic evidence also shows it to be solid. Those who think it is hollow have nothing to back it up.
-
And what exactly have I no clue about there, mr mindreader?
you don't even know? lol
nevermind
Now again, about the evidence we have send men to the moon
Where is it??????
-
Funny you would pick up on me posting. Why is that?
-
I thought you silenced me?
-
the Moon has a moment of inertia of a solid body. Seismic evidence also shows it to be solid. Those who think it is hollow have nothing to back it up.
Jesus, have you even researched this area?
ALL our planets and the moon are HOLLOW!
I am sure you haven't read a thing about this, have you?
-
The evidence is everywhere. The question is why you believe it was all faked.
-
I thought you silenced me?
how did you conclude that? Do you do the same with the travel to the moon nonsense?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
Duh? Why do you think I lie?
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
-
No I don't believe in Van Allen Radiation.
BUT others do!
However you do claim the spacecraft weren't properly shielded against this non-existent danger, where is your evidence?
-
Read very carefully now, "boy" - this will "proof" everything you need to know about who is posting under the name Tindarormkimcha...
Same guy that's been trolling various physics forums for the past few months, making wild and unsupported claims about things he clearly doesn't understand, then whining about ad hominem attacks, government agents and trolls instead of answering legitimate queries about his reasoning.
If he's happy with van Allen as a source, then he will be happy that van Allen himself had no issue with the Apollo missions.
As for photographs, he's stating now that a photograph of the moon does not prove it was taken on the moon, Well, it does when that photograph contains details that were not known about prior to the photograph being taken, or TV images for that matter:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/wpimages/wp9f15b330_05_06.jpg)
and when those same details are confirmed by probes form other countries like China and India then we have more evidence proving they were on the moon. When those images (still, 16mm and TV) contain time and date specific views of Earth, then there is more proof.
So far I don't see any proof from him other than a quote from a pre-Apollo article stating that people would need shielding from radiation in space. Hardly a revelation these days.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
-
No I don't believe in Van Allen Radiation.
BUT others do!
However you do claim the spacecraft weren't properly shielded against this non-existent danger, where is your evidence?
I can show it to you, but you won't believe it,.
BUT you do religiously believe we have been to the moon.
Why o why do you believe such nonsense?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
Duh? Why do you think I lie?
Attention? Thrills? Not wanting to be thought of as a complete moron?
-
And why does nobody here goes into this:
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ?
Prove they do. People here have looked into BOTH sides far more than you have. Nobody (except yourself) has accepted anything blindly. the evidence (which you claim doesn't exist but only proves you haven't bothered to look) is completely internally and externally consistent. In 40+ years, not a single hoax claim has stood up to scrutiny.
-
And the Apollo craft were shielded. Did you have a point?
No, they were not properly shielded.
Prove it. I'll bet you won't even try.
And the article you cited is from 1959. Do you think science just stopped at that point?
No, but it seems the space missions have!!
Glad you bring that nonsense up.
First they went to the moon, allegedley, then
they stay UNDER the Radiation Belt for years and years and years.
That is backwards, isn'it ? It is all soo hilarious to say the least.
when nobody wants to pay to go to the Moon or beyond, what is there between low Earth orbit and the Moon to go to?
And James Van Allen himself stated that such HB claims are baloney. Why do you ignore that?
O yeah, that stupid one always comes up!
Are you aware that he started to say that when he started to work for the liars of nasa?
Hmm they pay him , don't they? Hmmm and they created the moon hoax!
That is telling us something, isn't it?
that's telling us you have no clue.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
As I said, it is everywhere. Photos, documents, video, film, hardware, testimony, etc. is ALL evidence. Your dismissal of it as fake, or 'not evidence' is the question here.
I ask again, how do you distinguish between fake and genuine?
-
the Moon has a moment of inertia of a solid body. Seismic evidence also shows it to be solid. Those who think it is hollow have nothing to back it up.
Jesus, have you even researched this area?
ALL our planets and the moon are HOLLOW!
I am sure you haven't read a thing about this, have you?
I'm sure I've read more than you. There is no evidence ANY planets and moons are hollow. But that fact you think they are shows your level of critical thinking. Thanks for that.
-
O I do agree with you here!!!!
As far as I am concerned I don't believe anything mainstream, including this one!
So, yea, you are right!
it is just that some people need this mainstream nonsense.
So, no poblem here,
Now we agree that documents don't proof a thing!
That one is out of the way now
Thanks mate! I mean that.
Now, is there any other evidence?
Of course not!
Just take a photograph!
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT IS TAKEN ON THE MOON?
There is NO PROOF
It is really take on FAITH.
It is clear that you don't understand what evidence is. As posted before in this thread. How do you refuse to accept all of the engineering, scientific research conducted by NASA and its contractors conducted prior to travelling to the moon.
Please give the group something else besides "it is all fake". Just saying so doesn't prove your allegation. You need to try a little.
No, it is not faith but reading the research papers, the technical reports and understanding the work that many people put into the missions.
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
Duh? Why do you think I lie?
Because that is all you have? Because you're nothing but a troll? And likely a sock-puppet?
-
I can show it to you, but you won't believe it,.
No you can't, this is just very simplistic evasive answer. You simply don't have any evidence, otherwise you would have posted it.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
The evidence is easy to find:- thousands of images, hundreds of pounds of moon rock, the scientific packages left on the moon, independent validation of the landing sites by LRO and other craft, the testimonies of the astronauts, the validation of the data from the moo rocks by scientist the world over, the independent tracking of the Apollo craft by Joderell Bank and others (including the Russians), in 46 years + not ONE whistleblower has come forward this from an administration that could not cover up a simple break in, the millions of eye witnesses that saw the Saturn V launches live at the cape, the Billions that saw the whole event LIVE on TV, the eyewitnesses that saw the TLI burns with there naked eyes, etc etc. Extraordinary claims of a hoax need you to PROVE that it didn't happen, your side have been trying for over 40 years and have come up with, NOTHING, NADA, NOT A SAUSAGE. Now either try and argue your point or show yourself up for a typical HB, who waves away the truth and believes, idiotic YouTube videos from people with either an axe to grind or a propensity to believe crackpot theories from conspiracy believers.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
maybe, maybe not
Just another Ad Hominem here. How cheap you really are.
-
The evidence is easy to find:- thousands of images, hundreds of pounds of moon rock,
Let's start here.
How do you KNOW those images where taken on the moon? Be fair now, you don't know.
You have FAITH my son!
hundreds of pounds of moon rock,
O really? How do YOU know? Again, you don't. You BELIEVE my son.
-
I can show it to you, but you won't believe it,.
No you can't, this is just very simplistic evasive answer. You simply don't have any evidence, otherwise you would have posted it.
lol, you don't even understand what I wrote, so there is no point here.
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
Duh? Why do you think I lie?
Because that is all you have? Because you're nothing but a troll? And likely a sock-puppet?
Only Ad Hominems and Ad Hominems. Don't you have anything of substance?
-
while there is no evidence
One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.
Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!
why do you lie?
Duh? Why do you think I lie?
Because that is all you have? Because you're nothing but a troll? And likely a sock-puppet?
Only Ad Hominems and Ad Hominems. Don't you have anything of substance?
You first. I based my post on the evidence of YOUR behavior. It isn't an ad hominem when its true.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
maybe, maybe not
Just another Ad Hominem here. How cheap you really are.
You frequently use this statement the only attack on your character is your inability to post/link any evidence that attempts to prove your position. You just continue re-posting nothing more than "it is all fake". Are you paranoid?
-
How do you refuse to accept all of the engineering, scientific research conducted by NASA and its contractors conducted prior to travelling to the moon.
Duh? Where did I wrote that I "refuse to accept all of the engineering, scientific research conducted by NASA and its contractors conducted prior to travelling to the moon."
I really think it is there. So I agree with you on that! Got that, mate?
But that doesn't make going to the moon real! Why should it?
I am convinced a lot of people scientifi and not have worked on it. So what?
They have been duped too. What is there not to understand?
-
So I ask again: how do you decide what is fake and what is genuine?
-
lol, you don't even understand what I wrote, so there is no point here.
Again no evidence at all, just empty words, or to quote yourself again:
Only Ad Hominems and Ad Hominems. Don't you have anything of substance?
-
So again you just hand wave away, you make statements but back it up with, NOTHING! You are a mere troll, that also is a fact, that is not ad homniem.
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
maybe, maybe not
Just another Ad Hominem here. How cheap you really are.
You frequently use this statement the only attack on your character is your inability to post/link any evidence that attempts to prove your position. You just continue re-posting nothing more than "it is all fake". Are you paranoid?
Very strange reaction, again. Paranoid? Maybe , maybe not.
But you haven't seen all the Ad Hominems then?
I really think some people here are too despearte and want to cling to a fictitious story.
At least that can explain so many Ad Hominems.
-
So again you just hand wave away, you make statements but back it up with, NOTHING! You are a mere troll, that also is a fact, that is not ad homniem.
Yes, that is an Ad Hominem. again, I lost count of that stupidity.
I am only asking why you accept the 'evidence'
Don't you agree it is done in FAITH (nasa told us so! ughh)
what else is it?
-
Otherwise , let's start with one piece of evidence.
better this way because I see a lot of people here are 'all over the place"
Come'on!
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
maybe, maybe not
Just another Ad Hominem here. How cheap you really are.
You frequently use this statement the only attack on your character is your inability to post/link any evidence that attempts to prove your position. You just continue re-posting nothing more than "it is all fake". Are you paranoid?
Very strange reaction, again. Paranoid? Maybe , maybe not.
But you haven't seen all the Ad Hominems then?
I really think some people here are too despearte and want to cling to a fictitious story.
At least that can explain so many Ad Hominems.
Then prove you allegation by posting a link to a paper indicating the moon missions were faked, instead of repeating the "its all fake" phrase.
-
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.
Your word ain't good enough, in other words.
I agree my words are not good enough. Fair enough! I have no problem with that at all.
But neither is yours! Or others for that matter!!
The people who BELIEVE the non-sense that we have send men to the moon, don't they have to proof THAT?
Of course they have to!
So far they haven't.
Ir really is all about believe.
If one BELIEFS the non-sense then very soon everything is accepted as 'evidence'
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ?
Most of them are not very critical to their own beliefs.
Doesn't work that way. You are making the claim, burden of proof is on you.
Evidence for Apollo was submitted and accepted as factual 4 decades ago. Your turn.
-
Doesn't work that way. You are making the claim, burden of proof is on you.
Evidence for Apollo was submitted and accepted as factual 4 decades ago. Your turn.
But Apollo has not to be proved it was real?
accepted as factual ?
By whom?
What nonsense again!
-
The evidence is everywhere.
THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!
Where are you waiting for?
I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.
maybe, maybe not
Just another Ad Hominem here. How cheap you really are.
You frequently use this statement the only attack on your character is your inability to post/link any evidence that attempts to prove your position. You just continue re-posting nothing more than "it is all fake". Are you paranoid?
Very strange reaction, again. Paranoid? Maybe , maybe not.
But you haven't seen all the Ad Hominems then?
I really think some people here are too despearte and want to cling to a fictitious story.
At least that can explain so many Ad Hominems.
Then prove you allegation by posting a link to a paper indicating the moon missions were faked, instead of repeating the "its all fake" phrase.
a paper?
Are you getting mad?
-
12 pages of reply in such a short time?
Are people that desperate here?
-
I thought you silenced me?
how did you conclude that? Do you do the same with the travel to the moon nonsense?
How did you determine I was speaking to you?
-
12 pages of reply in such a short time?
Are people that desperate here?
You forgot to put "Jesus" at the front of the sentence and end it with "son".
-
I thought you silenced me?
how did you conclude that? Do you do the same with the travel to the moon nonsense?
How did you determine I was speaking to you?
How did you?
-
12 pages of reply in such a short time?
Are people that desperate here?
You forgot to put "Jesus" at the front of the sentence and end it with "son".
that is true,
Now about all that non existent evidence...
-
I ask again: how do you distinguish between what is fake and what is genuine?
-
The quote function you used helped me greatly, I thank you for that. If you aren't addressing me, then I suggest you don't use it.
-
The quote function you used helped me greatly, I thank you for that. If you aren't addressing me, then I suggest you don't use it.
I don't really care, my sun lol
where do these people come from?
-
I ask again: how do you distinguish between what is fake and what is genuine?
Good question!
How do you or do you?
-
Oh and Jason, I thought you silenced me? I am sorry I wasn't clear.
-
The quote function you used helped me greatly, I thank you for that. If you aren't addressing me, then I suggest you don't use it.
I don't really care, my sun lol
where do these people come from?
But you do care, otherwise you wouldn't even bother responding. See I care. very much so. My life depends on it, not.
-
I ask again: how do you distinguish between what is fake and what is genuine?
Good question!
Do you care to offer an answer to it?
How do you or do you?
Evasion noted. Answer the question before turning it around. After all, if you won't answer, why should I?
-
Some people here are trying to avoid the evidence problem.
Please answer why you accept the nasa evidence?
Because they told you so?
-
I ask again: how do you distinguish between what is fake and what is genuine?
Good question!
Do you care to offer an answer to it?
How do you or do you?
Evasion noted. Answer the question before turning it around. After all, if you won't answer, why should I?
ok, so we do agree you can't answer that!
Q.E.D.
-
Jason did you ever notice how the LM took off - just like a rocket??
-
ok, so we do agree you can't answer that!
No, that is your assumption. I will not be sidetracked by your evasion. Your answer is required first.
-
Doesn't work that way. You are making the claim, burden of proof is on you.
Evidence for Apollo was submitted and accepted as factual 4 decades ago. Your turn.
But Apollo has not to be proved it was real?
accepted as factual ?
By whom?
What nonsense again!
Nice try, but you don't get to play that little game. YOU are making the claims, YOU back it up.
And while you are at it, if you are going to complain about Ad Hominems how's about you refrain from engaging in them yourself?
-
I'm going to add my voice (hopefully this ground has not been gone over too much already).
Tindarormkimcha, why do you believe in invisible belts of radiation out in space despite your evidence being documents you have repeatedly exclaimed are obvious fakes, and the writings of a man you have already characterized as an outright liar on the payroll of a suspect organization?
This does not seem to me to be a rational (or consistent) position.
Edit: Ah, I see Tindarormkimcha eventually replied he believes the VARB are also a fake. Which he still uses as evidence against Apollo because a fake program using completely consistent fake science to explain how they ameliorated a fake problem proves..........what?
-
Tindarormkimcha, why do you believe in invisible belts of radiation out in space despite your evidence being documents you have repeatedly exclaimed are obvious fakes, and the writings of a man you have already characterized as an outright liar on the payroll of a suspect organization?
He/She already said not to believe in the radiation belts, but also claimed the spacecraft wasn't properly shielded against this non-existent danger. However when asked for evidence Tindarormkimcha ran away with the tail between the legs, left with nothing but an Ad Hominem...
Edit; I just missed your edit...
-
Don't you agree it is done in FAITH (nasa told us so! ughh)
what else is it?
But it's not just NASA. It's the space programs of other countries. It's independent observers that tracked the missions. It's the thousands of scientists since then who have never shown any reason why the landings *couldn't* have occurred, and supported the principles on which they did.
It comes down to, is it reasonable to have faith that the combined observations of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people are correct? Or to assume that some evil entity has lied to us, to the point of warping even our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, in order to persuade us that the landings occurred.
You, like many hoax supporters, take refuge in solipsism. How, you ask, can we be sure we are seeing the True Truth? Perhaps we're living in our own version of the Truman Show, perpetually lied to and tricked. How would we know otherwise? Perhaps. But what would a rational person think is the most likely interpretation? You may proclaim "It could all just be a Grand Illusion," but I'm not planning to base my interpretation of reality on that.
-
Some people here are trying to avoid the evidence problem.
Please answer why you accept the nasa evidence?
Because they told you so?
No, you are trolling and obviously so. Divvy up the goodies that lead you to say this. What am I thinking, you have nothing to back you up. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Nothing.
If you cannot or will not provide anything then you are just blowing hot air.
More of the same to come me old china?
-
I'm finding it massively ironic that the only actual evidence so far from him is hosted by a website for religious types.
-
Some of his spelling leads me to believe he's hunchbacked.
-
I'm going to add my voice (hopefully this ground has not been gone over too much already).
Tindarormkimcha, why do you believe in invisible belts of radiation out in space despite your evidence being documents you have repeatedly exclaimed are obvious fakes, and the writings of a man you have already characterized as an outright liar on the payroll of a suspect organization?
This does not seem to me to be a rational (or consistent) position.
Edit: Ah, I see Tindarormkimcha eventually replied he believes the VARB are also a fake. Which he still uses as evidence against Apollo because a fake program using completely consistent fake science to explain how they ameliorated a fake problem proves..........what?
so, you also don't read my postings.
-
Don't you agree it is done in FAITH (nasa told us so! ughh)
what else is it?
But it's not just NASA. It's the space programs of other countries. It's independent observers that tracked the missions. It's the thousands of scientists since then who have never shown any reason why the landings *couldn't* have occurred, and supported the principles on which they did.
It comes down to, is it reasonable to have faith that the combined observations of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people are correct? Or to assume that some evil entity has lied to us, to the point of warping even our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, in order to persuade us that the landings occurred.
You, like many hoax supporters, take refuge in solipsism. How, you ask, can we be sure we are seeing the True Truth? Perhaps we're living in our own version of the Truman Show, perpetually lied to and tricked. How would we know otherwise? Perhaps. But what would a rational person think is the most likely interpretation? You may proclaim "It could all just be a Grand Illusion," but I'm not planning to base my interpretation of reality on that.
I know. So what?
-
Why, then, is either your alleged prior belief, or your current disbelief, worthy of any particular attention?
That is not up to me. People are free to do with information anything they want.
It is called freedom, mate ;)
I'm not your "mate", and you missed the point of my question. I'm not here simply to argue with you; I want you to learn something. But you don't show any understanding of the topic, and don't show any interest in alleviating your ignorance. So why should I, and other posters who have attempted to engage you, waste our time trying to help you?
And please, spare us the appeal to "freedom". You are of course free to render any opinion you want on topics you know nothing about. But you're not entitled to have knowledgeable people take you seriously.
In my case, it's because I'm an experienced space systems engineer, with a space physics background, have worked with Apollo engineers, and have examined the record in reasonable detail.
Well. well well. I am glad you wrote this. Your cognitive dissonance will be the greater!
This explains a lot. I mean a LOT. Are you 'patriotic' too?
No, I'm afraid you can't bluff or smokescreen your way past this. I actually understand the things I'm talking about; you don't. It's up to you whether you want to change that. You can't do that by insinuating that I'm acting out of purely nationalistic reasons, when (a) many of the posters here are not Americans, and (b) you're incapable of putting together any kind of technical justification for your claims, or even (c) coherent claims in the first place.
On the other hand, why should I believe you? You can write here anything you want!
If you have a test you wish to propose, feel free to do so. I used to work for guys like Max Faget; it's no skin off my nose whether an anonymous internet conspiracy theorist believes me or not.
But, if you are, it explains a LOT. (so, why do YOU believveeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we have send men to the moon? something must have convinced you! was it the telly? ;)
Asked and answered in the very paragraph to which you are responding. I can of course provide more detail, but don't feel any need to indulge you unless you start paying attention.
Good heavens, whatever gave you such a silly idea? The Apollo program, including its manned and unmanned predecessors, and its scientific and technical legacy, is the most heavily documented engineering program ever. There is an enormous amount of design, test, and operational information readily available,
I don't doubt that, I don't doubt that at all! But it clearly doesn't say a thing.
Simple denial is not an argument.
not to mention science telemetry, lunar samples, peer-reviewed research, imagery, test and flight hardware, and follow-on technical and operational heritage. You're simply trying to deny things you're not even dimly aware of.
I am aware. I have to laugh at 'lunar samples' of courses, because there is none.
Simple denial is not an argument. And no, you're not even remotely aware of the breadth and depth of evidence behind the Apollo program. You haven't even figured out that all of the standard hoax believer claims you've tossed out have been addressed in great detail on this very board and its immediate predecessor, all laid out for you in bite-sized chunks. So, I ask again - given your demonstrated ignorance of the topic, and your persistence in refusing to learn about it, why should anyone bother engaging with you?
They have really taken you in, right?
Posturing won't help you. You echo ridiculous claims from conspiracist web sites. I do this for a living.
Do you want to just call people names and assert knowledge you don't actually have? Or would you like to actually learn something? If the former, you may provoke people into retaliating, but you can't bluff your way here. If the latter, you will find a number of knowledgeable people willing to help you.
No, I don't want to call people names. BUT you don't adress that to people here who are
calling me names! Now what is that?
Because you came in here calling people "f*'d up" and condescendingly telling us how we all just believe what we're told, etc. But, consider this my request for everyone else who has gotten into the slanging-off to please stop. It doesn't help the conversation.
Which would you rather do? Strut and pose, or learn something?
Only two options? You ARE funny!
You've been doing option 1. You're not learning anything that way. Option 2 is orthogonal to Option 1. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
-
Well, I also wrote let start somewhere with some 'evidence'
A lot of people look very 'hyper' from here,and seem to be 'all over the place"
And don't seem to be able to focus properly.
So. start discussing some evidence?
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
-
I'm not your "mate", and you missed the point of my question.
Of course not, mate!
what a looooooooooooooooooooooooong posting. It is getting ridiculous now, mate!
-
You've been doing option 1. You're not learning anything that way. Option 2 is orthogonal to Option 1. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I don't feel you have to apologise for your nonsense.
It is ok.
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Where is your evidence props are labeled with letters?
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Where is your evidence props are labeled with letters?
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
(https://pseudoastro.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/c-rock-actual-c.jpg)
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Interesting, the one item he picks has already been comprehensively debunked on this thread, and he accuses others of not reading his posts.
In case you missed it, Tinda, the C isn't there on pictures published at the time, it only appeared on a later scan, therefore most likely a hair in the scanner.
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Where is your evidence props are labeled with letters?
I've given this original image and its back-up care to point out to us where the "c" is?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17446HR.jpg
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Interesting, the one item he picks has already been comprehensively debunked on this thread, and he accuses others of not reading his posts.
Oh yes I have seen it. But as I said, people are all over the place here.
So start concentrating on one.
btw it is not debunked as we will see.
-
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Where is your evidence props are labeled with letters?
I've given this original image and its back-up care to point out to us where the "c" is?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17446HR.jpg
LOL
A link from nasa? ok ok it is getting hilarious now! Now the question:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS THE ORIGINAL PHOTO?
Answer: You don't! You have faith in nasa!!!!
It is getting hilarious now!
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Interesting, the one item he picks has already been comprehensively debunked on this thread, and he accuses others of not reading his posts.
Oh yes I have seen it. But as I said, people are all over the place here.
So start concentrating on one.
btw it is not debunked as we will see.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
-
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
why bother if you are already convinced there is no 'c'?
Why did you wrote that there is no '' c ". Don't you TRUST the photo?
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Where is your evidence props are labeled with letters?
I've given this original image and its back-up care to point out to us where the "c" is?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17446HR.jpg
LOL
A link from nasa? ok ok it is getting hilarious now! Now the question:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS THE ORIGINAL PHOTO?
Answer: You don't! You have faith in nasa!!!!
It is getting hilarious now!
Evasive answer but that is what I expected. How do you think the image you posted came from? This site and was copied and during the copying procedure a hair got on the copy., but the original came from this exact site.
What a troll.
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
Doesn't work on my browser.
Get this message
Grass could be greener on this side
You seem to be using an unsupported browser. To get the most out of Flickr please upgrade to the latest version of Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Internet Explorer.
What do you want us to show, mate? Just tell me what you are showing, mate.
-
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
And again no answer and no evidence. So show me where in the movie industry the use letters on the props.
-
Evasive answer but that is what I expected. How do you think the image you posted came from? This site and was copied and during the copying procedure a hair got on the copy., but the original came from this exact site.
What a troll.
And you are sure of this, because.....?
-
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
And again no answer and no evidence. So show me where in the movie industry the use letters on the props.
NO!
-
Well, I also wrote let start somewhere with some 'evidence'
A lot of people look very 'hyper' from here,and seem to be 'all over the place"
And don't seem to be able to focus properly.
So. start discussing some evidence?
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
already talked about. Zoom in and it is clearly not on the photo. It looks like a hair on the scanner. It is NOT on the same rock in other photos. It is NOT on the same rock in other versions of the same photo. It is NOT on the same rock in the same photo in a magazine published just weeks after the landing. There is no evidence props are marked that way.
-
NO!
Why not? It should be easy if it was true...
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
Doesn't work on my browser.
How convenient for you
Just tell me what you are showing, mate.
A magazine cover from 1972, same picture, no C.
-
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
Interesting, the one item he picks has already been comprehensively debunked on this thread, and he accuses others of not reading his posts.
Oh yes I have seen it. But as I said, people are all over the place here.
So start concentrating on one.
btw it is not debunked as we will see.
yes it is.
-
already talked about. Zoom in and it is clearly not on the photo. It looks like a hair on the scanner. It is NOT on the same rock in other photos. It is NOT on the same rock in other versions of the same photo. It is NOT on the same rock in the same photo in a magazine published just weeks after the landing. There is no evidence props are marked that way.
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
-
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
why bother if you are already convinced there is no 'c'?
Why did you wrote that there is no '' c ". Don't you TRUST the photo?
Apparently you aren't either. The movie industry does not mark props like that.
-
Evasive answer but that is what I expected. How do you think the image you posted came from? This site and was copied and during the copying procedure a hair got on the copy., but the original came from this exact site.
What a troll.
And you are sure of this, because.....?
I'm sure if you read my posts you will understand why I know this is an image from the moon, during A16. Turn this around why isn't it taken from the moon, and not the "it is all fake" moronic phrase. Back up the allegation
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
I've shown you a picture without the C from days after the mission. Where is your earlier picture?
-
A magazine cover from 1971, same picture, no C.
Problem is, there are earlier, official pictures, WITH the "c'" , mate!
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
-
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
why bother if you are already convinced there is no 'c'?
Why did you wrote that there is no '' c ". Don't you TRUST the photo?
Apparently you aren't either. The movie industry does not mark props like that.
yes, it does.
-
already talked about. Zoom in and it is clearly not on the photo. It looks like a hair on the scanner. It is NOT on the same rock in other photos. It is NOT on the same rock in other versions of the same photo. It is NOT on the same rock in the same photo in a magazine published just weeks after the landing. There is no evidence props are marked that way.
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
No it isn't. You have no evidence for that. Already shown it is NOT on a magazine cover that was published just weeks after the landing. Give it up, it makes you look silly.
-
A magazine cover from 1971, same picture, no C.
Problem is, there are earlier, official pictures, WITH the "c'" , mate!
Show me one.
-
A magazine cover from 1971, same picture, no C.
Problem is, there are earlier, official pictures, WITH the "c'" , mate!
No, there are not. why do you lie?
-
Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!
Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?
o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?
why bother if you are already convinced there is no 'c'?
Why did you wrote that there is no '' c ". Don't you TRUST the photo?
Apparently you aren't either. The movie industry does not mark props like that.
yes, it does.
Then prove it. Stop waving your hands.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
-
Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:
An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in your character on the basis of your arguments.
If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.
If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
-
Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:
An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in your character on the basis of your arguments.
If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.
If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.
You clearly have no clou to what an Ad Hominem is!
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
What makes you think that book pre-dates the magazine cover?
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in. I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice. The book was published well AFTER the magazine.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
-
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
The earliest mention in that video is a print of 1981, the magazine is from 1972. So you proved yourself wrong.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I've said you are a liar because it has been shown you are lying. That is just the truth, NOT an ad hominem.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in. I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice. The book was published well AFTER the magazine.
Yes you are right. I pointed to the beginning,.
But because you don't 'get it' maybe watch the whole 2 video's?
Of course you can's stand his voice! He is telling you some truths!
-
Tindarormkimcha
Could you please address my post from earlier?
Thank you.
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.
Your word ain't good enough, in other words.
I agree my words are not good enough. Fair enough! I have no problem with that at all. But neither is yours! Or others for that matter!! The people who BELIEVE the non-sense that we have send men to the moon, don't they have to proof THAT? Of course they have to! So far they haven't. Ir really is all about believe. If one BELIEFS the non-sense then very soon everything is accepted as 'evidence'
Geologists looking at Apollo rocks have concluded that they show evidence of being formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and have been bathed in the Sun's solar wind for sometimes hundreds of millions of years.
In your opinion are these geologists mistaken or lying? Or do you consider it possible they know what they're talking about and the rocks are genuinely from the Moon?
Let me put it another way, why do a lot of people here blindly accept the 'evidence' ? Most of them are not very critical to their own beliefs.
What evidence do you have that we "blindly accept the evidence"? Please choose one such piece and demonstrate that we must have accepted it blindly.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I've said you are a liar because it has been shown you are lying. That is just the truth, NOT an ad hominem.
I am not lying, hence an Ad Hominem
Now, go away.
-
Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Truth is, he is quite successful at that...
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in. I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice. The book was published well AFTER the magazine.
Yes you are right. I pointed to the beginning,.
But because you don't 'get it' maybe watch the whole 2 video's?
Of course you can's stand his voice! He is telling you some truths!
No, I can't stand his voice because it is an annoying voice. he should really get someone else to do his voiceovers.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I've said you are a liar because it has been shown you are lying. That is just the truth, NOT an ad hominem.
I am not lying, hnece an Ad Hominem
Now, go away.
You claimed there are official photos predating the magazine that was published just weeks after the landing. You were WRONG. Therefore you lied. Therefore you are a liar.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in. I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice. The book was published well AFTER the magazine.
Yes you are right. I pointed to the beginning,.
But because you don't 'get it' maybe watch the whole 2 video's?
Of course you can's stand his voice! He is telling you some truths!
No, I can't stand his voice because it is an annoying voice. he should really get someone else to do his voiceovers.
Me and others have NO PROBLEMS with that! So, it really is probably the information he has!
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I've said you are a liar because it has been shown you are lying. That is just the truth, NOT an ad hominem.
I am not lying, hnece an Ad Hominem
Now, go away.
You claimed there are official photos predating the magazine that was published just weeks after the landing. You were WRONG. Therefore you lied. Therefore you are a liar.
whatever idiot. Oeps yes that was an Ad Hominem. Finally!
-
Ah well, maybe it is no soo important that the whole thing was a hoax.
who cares?
Most people here react is such strange and crazy ways.
They look desperate to defend the false story
so be it.
-
Some people here are trying to avoid the evidence problem.
Please answer why you accept the nasa evidence?
Because they told you so?
We don't need to rely on NASA alone.
1. The Soviet Union accepted the reality of the landings. Are you going to say that at the height of the Cold War, when the propaganda value for demonstrating NASA faked the landings would have been huge, the Soviets couldn't be bothered? Or are you going to say the Cold War was faked too?
2. Scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks: dozens of scientific papers on every rock. Not one of these scientists has found any evidence that the rocks are anything other than Moon rocks - chemically they're too different from Earth rocks to be Earth rocks. Are they all mistaken or lying? Or do they know what they're talking about.
3. Ham radio operators from around the world listened in to the Apollo spacecraft. Swede Sven Grahn is one example who's put his information on the Internet. Was he mistaken or lying? Or did he know what he was doing?
-
We don't need to rely on NASA alone.
But you do.
1. The Soviet Union accepted the reality of the landings. Are you going to say that at the height of the Cold War, when the propaganda value for demonstrating NASA faked the landings would have been huge, the Soviets couldn't be bothered? Or are you going to say the Cold War was faked too?
yes, and not only that, the whole spoetnik thing was faked as well!
2. Scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks: dozens of scientific papers on every rock. Not one of these scientists has found any evidence that the rocks are anything other than Moon rocks - chemically they're too different from Earth rocks to be Earth rocks. Are they all mistaken or lying? Or do they know what they're talking about.
Make the lie big enough..... ( A.Hitler)
3. Ham radio operators from around the world listened in to the Apollo spacecraft. Swede Sven Grahn is one example who's put his information on the Internet. Was he mistaken or lying? Or did he know what he was doing?
Very interesting one! I don't know yet about this one. But I will look into that. Thanks!
-
Please answer why you accept the nasa evidence?
Because it has survived all attempts to prove it fake.
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
Why you think that Jarrah is correct? Just because he happens to present a case that you support? Did you check the information he presented? I didn't think you did. I don't have to edit anything, I've watched the video and the "evidence" are wrong, but at least has tried to present a case which you don't
-
Because it has survived all attempts to prove it fake.
No it didn't. You might BELIEVE it did.That is a different story, eh?
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
It is all hilarious if you look at the fake photos etc.
But eh, I love a good laugh!
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
Why you think that Jarrah is correct? Just because he happens to present a case that you support? Did you check the information he presented? I didn't think you did. I don't have to edit anything, I've watched the video and the "evidence" are wrong, but at least has tried to present a case which you don't
evidence wrong? Because you don't like it of course.
I agree I did not, so what?
It is soo funny to see people o edit the information so it fits within their religion.
-
What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official, photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!
Post a link that proves this allegation.
First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE)
that doesn't prove your allegation. The book was published AFTER the magazine.
oh boy have you seen the whole video?
I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in. I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice. The book was published well AFTER the magazine.
Yes you are right. I pointed to the beginning,.
But because you don't 'get it' maybe watch the whole 2 video's?
Of course you can's stand his voice! He is telling you some truths!
No, I can't stand his voice because it is an annoying voice. he should really get someone else to do his voiceovers.
Me and others have NO PROBLEMS with that! So, it really is probably the information he has!
Nope. doesn't matter what the content. it grates on the ears. if you have no problems then you may not have as good of hearing.
-
No, there are not. why do you lie?
You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.
Truth is, it is all a hoax.
No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying. Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.
Man o man
Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,
You just can't handle that.
You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I've said you are a liar because it has been shown you are lying. That is just the truth, NOT an ad hominem.
I am not lying, hnece an Ad Hominem
Now, go away.
You claimed there are official photos predating the magazine that was published just weeks after the landing. You were WRONG. Therefore you lied. Therefore you are a liar.
whatever idiot. Oeps yes that was an Ad Hominem. Finally!
Whatever liar.
-
Nope. doesn't matter what the content. it grates on the ears. if you have no problems then you may not have as good of hearing.
whatever nonsense you want, mate.
-
Because it has survived all attempts to prove it fake.
No it didn't. You might BELIEVE it did.That is a different story, eh?
Then submit your proof that it's fake.
-
Whatever liar.
Something I wrote, mate?
You really love to call me a liar eh?
Have some mental problems?
-
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
It is all hilarious if you look at the fake photos etc.
But eh, I love a good laugh!
You are posting this comment to the WRONG person, but I'm sure Bob will be back to completely refute the adolescent thought.
-
Whatever liar.
Something I wrote, mate?
You really love to call me a liar eh?
Have some mental problems?
What part of you lied, therefore you are a liar do you not understand?
-
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
It is all hilarious if you look at the fake photos etc.
But eh, I love a good laugh!
You are posting this comment to the WRONG person, but I'm sure Bob will be back to completely refute the adolescent thought.
oh well sorry my bad. I don't pay too much attention to some trolls here. ;)
You see, most are.
-
Whatever liar.
Something I wrote, mate?
You really love to call me a liar eh?
Have some mental problems?
What part of you lied, therefore you are a liar do you not understand?
f.o.
-
Time to call it a day.
It is very late overhere.
And still.....no evidence has been shown that we have send men to the moon.
Maybe tomorrow?
-
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
Please explain in detail what about it was too dangerous.
Please explain in detail what about it was too complex.
Please provide your detailed analysis that proves the rocket was too small.
Please provide a detailed explanation of the additional items that you lump together as "so forth".
-
Whatever liar.
Something I wrote, mate?
You really love to call me a liar eh?
Have some mental problems?
What part of you lied, therefore you are a liar do you not understand?
f.o.
So, all of it then?
-
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
Please explain in detail what about it was too dangerous.
Please explain in detail what about it was too complex.
Please provide your analysis that proves the rocket was too small.
Please provide a detailed explanation of the additional items that you lump together as "so forth".
[/quote]
Cant; you read, mate=
Time to call it a day.
-
Of course not, mate!
what a looooooooooooooooooooooooong posting. It is getting ridiculous now, mate!
I was doing you the favor of treating you like an adult. But let me shorten it up for you:
1. You don't know what you're talking about.
2. Your claims are regurgitated drivel from various conspiracy crackpots who don't know what they're talking about, either.
3. Your claims aren't even coherent.
4. There are people here who do understand the subject, and would gladly help you learn, but for whatever reason you prefer to remain ignorant.
5. You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you can't fool anyone here.
-
Cant; you read, mate=
I asked for details, so far you haven't given any.
-
We don't need to rely on NASA alone.
But you do.
What do you mean? I provided three examples where we don't rely on NASA alone, and you chose to respond to those examples.
1. The Soviet Union accepted the reality of the landings. Are you going to say that at the height of the Cold War, when the propaganda value for demonstrating NASA faked the landings would have been huge, the Soviets couldn't be bothered? Or are you going to say the Cold War was faked too?
yes, and not only that, the whole spoetnik thing was faked as well!
Just to clarify, you're saying the entire Cold War was faked, and Sputnik was faked as well? What about other space missions? Do you believe any spacecraft are in space?
2. Scientists from around the world have studied the Apollo rocks: dozens of scientific papers on every rock. Not one of these scientists has found any evidence that the rocks are anything other than Moon rocks - chemically they're too different from Earth rocks to be Earth rocks. Are they all mistaken or lying? Or do they know what they're talking about.
Make the lie big enough..... ( A.Hitler)
And how do you say that was applied here? How have thousands of scientists from around the world been convinced to lie for 40+ years?
3. Ham radio operators from around the world listened in to the Apollo spacecraft. Swede Sven Grahn is one example who's put his information on the Internet. Was he mistaken or lying? Or did he know what he was doing?
Very interesting one! I don't know yet about this one. But I will look into that. Thanks!
Thank you.
-
And still.....no evidence has been shown that we have send men to the moon.
The evidence is all the stuff you're claiming is fake. If there were NO evidence then you wouldn't have anything to do.
-
Time to call it a day.
It is very late overhere.
And still.....no evidence has been shown that we have send men to the moon.
Maybe tomorrow?
And still no evidence that men did not land on the moon.
-
Tindarormkimcha, this is the way it works. NASA submits their evidence, which has been done. It includes imagery, documents, testimony, samples, etc. Then, if somebody thinks it's fake, they put the evidence to the test to try to prove it is faked. When those tests fail, the default position is that the evidence is authentic.
So the ball is in your court, prove that the evidence is fake. So far you have only claimed it to be fake.
-
Because it has survived all attempts to prove it fake.
No it didn't. You might BELIEVE it did.That is a different story, eh?
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
It is all hilarious if you look at the fake photos etc.
But eh, I love a good laugh!
Do you suppose you are ever going to get around to backing that claim up, or are you just going to continue running your mouth?
-
Mate, I think this hoaxer's visit reminds me of a rager of a christmas party, where copious amounts of alcohol have been cosnumed. Where you experience the party as flashes of lights, loud music, and many varied moments of weirdness, followed by a fist fight - only to wake up after all the people have gone, nursing a cracking hangover and wondering what the hell just happened.
-
Mate, I think this hoaxer's visit reminds me of a rager of a christmas party...
Indeed, I've never seen anyone who can close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears for 19 whole pages. Screaming "No, that's fake!" over and over again is funny for about five pages. Now it's just sad.
-
It is soo funny to see people o edit the information so it fits within their religion.
My Gods, you don't even know what "edit" means.
-
Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.
He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.
Starve the fire.
-
can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...
What a lot of hogwash again.
Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue
Let start with the Van Allen Belts.
Here a lot of circular reasoning is used. Like 'they went to the moon, so the must have passed the Van Allen Belt."
Yes, sure. And some even don't see how flawed that 'logic' is!
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
-
can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...
What a lot of hogwash again.
Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue
You still haven't proven it is a prop. You STILL have to provide evidence of official photos from BEFORE the magazine was published, AND evidence that movie sets label props that way. You have FAILED in both respects.
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
Why? Because they know that a longer mission such as to Mars, would result in far more exposure?
-
can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...
What a lot of hogwash again.
Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue
You still haven't proven it is a prop. You STILL have to provide evidence of official photos from BEFORE the magazine was published, AND evidence that movie sets label props that way. You have FAILED in both respects.
You just want to think whatever you wan to think.
You only want it all in line with your religion or BELIEF system.
what else is new, mate?
You just don't 'grok' it.
btw that is okay with me.
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
Didn't read the whole article? They are discussing the need for better/more protection for a mission that last many moths. Apollo missions were less than 14 days, so the capsules protected them from all the radiation.
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
Why? Because they know that a longer mission such as to Mars, would result in far more exposure?
lol
Nice try! But wrong!
Please read the whole article? Why not?
-
can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...
What a lot of hogwash again.
Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue
You still haven't proven it is a prop. You STILL have to provide evidence of official photos from BEFORE the magazine was published, AND evidence that movie sets label props that way. You have FAILED in both respects.
You just want to think whatever you wan to think.
You only want it all in line with your religion or BELIEF system.
what else is new, mate?
You just don't 'grok' it.
btw that is okay with me.
Translation: Of course I never proved those things. I was hoping nobody could notice so I could move on to something different. Perhaps I can sling a few insults about religion and they'll forget about how I can't prove diddly.
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.
If documents don't prove a thing, why did you quote (mine) one when Doctor Van Allen says that they exist?
Incidentally, how long was the exposure in the Van Allen Scientific American document?
*new post*
Poison is on the dose,Tindarormkimcha. A three year long journey to Mars is going to expose the astronauts to a lot more radiation from cosmic rays than Apollo's, fortnight at most, brief sorties. And, again, you are quoting a document!
-
You still haven't proven it is a prop. You STILL have to provide evidence of official photos from BEFORE the magazine was published, AND evidence that movie sets label props that way. You have FAILED in both respects.
You beat me to it! :)
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
Why? Because they know that a longer mission such as to Mars, would result in far more exposure?
lol
Nice try! But wrong!
Please read the whole article? Why not?
I did read it. Obviously you did not.
Any mission to Mars using current technology would take three years, van Hoften said. That long in space would subject astronauts to too much radiation
That's from your article.
-
How hilarious the whole nasa company is!
What's keeping us from Mars? Space rays, say experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/01/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080401)
Didn't read the whole article? They are discussing the need for better/more protection for a mission that last many moths. Apollo missions were less than 14 days, so the capsules protected them from all the radiation.
As I have written before, you even don't recognise your own circular reasoning,
But I think I have a clue why that is.
I think most we-went-to-the-moon-believers, are too close to the whole thing and can't see the forest for the trees. They need more distance to really see how ridiculous it all is.
-
I did read it. Obviously you did not.
I did, but it is still circular reasoning.
-
Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.
He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.
Starve the fire.
Agreed. Ignoring this troll seems to be the best course of action.
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.
If documents don't prove a thing, why did you quote (mine) one when Doctor Van Allen says that they exist?
Incidentally, how long was the exposure in the Van Allen Scientific American document?
*new post*
Poison is on the dose,Tindarormkimcha. A three year long journey to Mars is going to expose the astronauts to a lot more radiation from cosmic rays than Apollo's, fortnight at most, brief sorties. And, again, you are quoting a document!
about quoting, ah well, what's a guy going to do, mate?
Further more, unrecognised circular reasoning.
-
Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.
He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.
Starve the fire.
Agreed. Ignoring this troll seems to be the best course of action.
Really? based on what? That I see the whole thing as one big Hoax?
Does that scare you, or what?
-
I did read it. Obviously you did not.
I did, but it is still circular reasoning.
No, it is not. Should I use shorter sentences? Apollo short, Mars long. short less bad rays. long more bad rays. More bad rays bad.
-
Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.
He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.
Starve the fire.
Agreed. Ignoring this troll seems to be the best course of action.
Really? based on what? That I see the whole thing as one big Hoax?
Does that scare you, or what?
Scare me? Hardly. You are merely tiresome. Crying "FAKE!!" over and over again gets old really fast. Good day to you.
-
Scare me? Hardly. You are merely tiresome. Crying "FAKE!!" over and over again gets old really fast. Good day to you.
Don't forget the casual chucking around of "ad hominem" as if it were some scared talisman to ward of the unknown.
Like I said, he/she brings nothing and can provide nothing. And that is all it will be.
-
I did read it. Obviously you did not.
I did, but it is still circular reasoning.
No, it is not. Should I use shorter sentences? Apollo short, Mars long. short less bad rays. long more bad rays. More bad rays bad.
OK, "More bad rays bad" made me laugh for real, lol!
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.
If documents don't prove a thing, why did you quote (mine) one when Doctor Van Allen says that they exist?
Incidentally, how long was the exposure in the Van Allen Scientific American document?
*new post*
Poison is on the dose,Tindarormkimcha. A three year long journey to Mars is going to expose the astronauts to a lot more radiation from cosmic rays than Apollo's, fortnight at most, brief sorties. And, again, you are quoting a document!
about quoting, ah well, what's a guy going to do, mate?
Exactly, what are you going to do? Why are documents proof for you, but not for us? He was working for NASA when he wrote that article, incidentally. I found a copy of the whole article, and it talks about days of exposure at the maximum being a danger. How long was Apollo in the (document proven) Belts, what of that part was in the maximum exposure area.
Further more, unrecognised circular reasoning.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-
André the Giant?
-
Indeed, I've never seen anyone who can close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears for 19 whole pages. Screaming "No, that's fake!" over and over again is funny for about five pages. Now it's just sad.
It's why I did not get involved. At least Fattydash and Neil Baker attempted to present an argument for their doubts.
-
can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...
What a lot of hogwash again.
Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue
Let start with the Van Allen Belts.
Here a lot of circular reasoning is used. Like 'they went to the moon, so the must have passed the Van Allen Belt."
Yes, sure. And some even don't see how flawed that 'logic' is!
I've got a better idea.
How about you tell us:
1. Was the Cold War was faked?
2. Are all spacecraft fake? Or only Apollo and Sputnik? Or some other combination?
3. How has NASA convinced thousands of scientists from around the world not to make any claims about fake moon rocks for more than 40 years?
Thanks, um, sport.
-
André the Giant?
Inigo Montoya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
-
Indeed, I've never seen anyone who can close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears for 19 whole pages. Screaming "No, that's fake!" over and over again is funny for about five pages. Now it's just sad.
It's why I did not get involved. At least Fattydash and Neil Baker attempted to present an argument for their doubts.
I think it is awesome how the fine folks here will spend lots of effort explaining and refuting even fairly deluded ideas.
But when you are dealing with someone who's unwilling to even spend the effort on coherent statements to plausibly pass a Turing test, its just not worth the trouble.
-
I did read it. Obviously you did not.
I did, but it is still circular reasoning.
No, it is not. Should I use shorter sentences? Apollo short, Mars long. short less bad rays. long more bad rays. More bad rays bad.
OK, "More bad rays bad" made me laugh for real, lol!
Me too. I was laughing when I wrote it.
-
André the Giant?
Inigo Montoya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
close
-
Still you have to agree, it was thoughful of him, despite being unable to sleep, to come in and check on us.
-
Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:
An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in your character on the basis of your arguments.
If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.
If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.
You clearly have no clou to what an Ad Hominem is!
Your persistent spelling errors identify you and your persistent lies. What is odd is that you seem utterly unaware of it.
-
DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!
If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.
What are you smoking there chum? Must be some powerful stuff to make you so delusional
Apollo astronauts walked on the moon. There are mountains of evidence to prove, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ANY doubt, that it really did happen...
the thousand of photographs
the hours of film footage
the hundred of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon
the hundreds of thousands of eyewitness accounts of those involved in the project
the accounts of private citizens who were not involved in the project (HAM Radio operators)
the 24 personal accounts from astronauts who travelled to the moon, including 12 who walked on its surface
This is ALL evidence that Apollo really happened as claimed, and the vast majority of the world accept the reality of the Apollo missions as fact. Therefore, if you want to claim that it did not, the burden of proof is upon YOU to supply the evidence to back up your claim. So far, all we have had from you is hand-waving, baseless dismissals, ignorance, contradiction and a wide range of stupid unilateral comments, all of which go to show that, not only do you not have any evidence, but even if you did, you would be incapable of presenting it in any coherent fashion.
IMO, LO should put you on moderation until you answer the questions put to you, and show us that you are capable of honest debate.
-
Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha. In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.
So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.
Please explain in detail what about it was too dangerous.
Please explain in detail what about it was too complex.
Please provide your analysis that proves the rocket was too small.
Please provide a detailed explanation of the additional items that you lump together as "so forth".
Dunno, are you so hard of thinking that you cannot quote correctly? Are you really that moronic? It seems so...
Cant; you read, mate=
Time to call it a day.
[/quote]
-
for those who aren't following the banned posters thread, Tindarormkimcha was put on moderation today.
-
Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.
He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.
Starve the fire.
Agreed. Ignoring this troll seems to be the best course of action.
Really? based on what? That I see the whole thing as one big Hoax?
Does that scare you, or what?
Nope. It makes me wonder why you are flat out bonkers.
-
for those who aren't following the banned posters thread, Tindarormkimcha was put on moderation today.
That's the point where I joined the thread, once I found he was moderated, as I couldn't give a rat's chuff before that. There was simply no substance.
-
Again I ask, Tinda: how do you distinguish between what is genuine and what is fake? I will continue to ask until I either get an answer or you get banned for trolling.
And turning it back on me is pointless. You are the one making claims. As yet I have made none and therefore have no defence required.
-
And I ask again,Tindarormkimcha, why 'documents' are evidence for you (ignoring that you simply quote mine them without understanding) but not for us? Are you really so blind as to not see the double standard in that?
-
And still NO evidence.
G'night!
-
In all the nonsense about the c-rock, it often gets forgotten that the photograph in question is also to be found in the Preliminary Science Report published in 1972 - probably because online copies tend to be poor quality scans, rather than the full colour versions in the print edition.
Like the one I own:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/veaxpc.jpg)
My copy belonged to El Camino College and was ordered by James Lund of their Physics Department. I am fairly confident that a number on the address label on the back '730413' is the date - April 13 1973.
So this photograph, published in 1972 in this book, was available for public inspection by students in the Physics Department at this college from 1973 onwards.
Somehow this image has less veracity than a scan on the internet.
Some more on the crock that is the c-rock:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAOApqFQoTCIP3jOOOosgCFYU7Pgod6JcJqg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F7980806%2F1022074389%2Fname%2FMoon&usg=AFQjCNEy3KBOe9MBR_XuiB8YZ50dWPEbgg&sig2=C6XFud7GH6dE40EmuHqQhg
Tinderbutt needs to prove all that wrong.
-
Besides, why would NASA or Kubrick use a prop labelling system for a set that would require hundreds, if not thousands of unique rocks that only handles 26 separate props. Moreover, why would he put it on the side, instead of on the bottom, even if he were to do such a thing?
-
More like"The many hundreds of thousands of engineering documents
That is of course NO evidence,., as I pointed out before.
Otherwise the bible would be real! boy o boy.
Or explain to me why you think that is e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e ?
Engineering documents are evidence of the moon landings just as a suicide note is evidence of an apparent suicide. It supports the physical evidence and oral testimony.
Suppose that a person is found dead in bed of an overdose with a half empty bottle of sleeping piles on the nightstand. Also on the nightstand is a suicide note written by the victim. Friends and family testify that the victim had been very depressed lately and was acting suicidal. All of that together is strong evidence that the person committed suicide. The note by itself may not be proof, but it is corroborating evidence.
Now let’s consider NASA, who says they went to the moon. Not only is there the testimony of thousands of people who were involved in the missions, but there is physical evidence in the form of lunar samples and spacecraft hardware. To go along with the hardware are the related engineering documents. NASA doesn’t just say they went to the moon, they show us how they did it, and the how is in the documents. The documents are a major component in the body of evidence. They alone aren't proof that we went, but they do answer any questions about Apollo's feasibility from an engineering standpoint.
Not having the documents is like you claiming that everything is fake without providing any of the details of how it was faked. For example, your claim that the rocket was too small is completely baseless unless you can provide an engineering analysis to show why it was too small. That analysis would be a document that supports your argument. Neither I nor anyone else here will take you seriously unless you can produce the necessary supporting documentation.
-
Supporting documentation? Tindarormkimcha hasn't even put together a coherent argument.
Tindarormkimcha, up til now I have done you the favor of treating you like an adult. But you have yet to act like one, so until you do, all you get is this reminder:
1. You don't know what you're talking about.
2. You're not even dimly aware of the scale of the evidence you reflexively deny.
3. Your claims, such as they are, are regurgitated drivel you've eagerly lapped up from various conspiracy crackpots who don't know what they're talking about, either. Meanwhile, you tell people who have studied the subject that they just believe what they're told. Fortunately, the grown-ups have no difficulty seeing through this flimsy hypocrisy.
4. Never mind being right; your claims aren't even internally consistent.
5. There are people here who do understand the subject, and would gladly help you learn, but for whatever reason you prefer to remain ignorant.
6. You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you can't fool anyone here.
-
And still NO evidence.
G'night!
None from you. Plenty from the other side.
-
And still NO evidence.
G'night!
No evidence?
How about:
1. The Soviets accepted the reality of Apollo at the time during the Cold War when revealling a hoax would have had a huge propaganda effect.
2. Thousands of scientists have examined the Apollo rocks in the 40+ years since they were retrieved. They universally accept that the rocks show evidence of having come from the Moon - formation in a low-gravity vacuum, alteration by the solar wind, impacts by dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second.
3. People from countries other than the USA tracked and listened to the spacecraft in real time.
There's three pieces of evidence, and not one of them relies on NASA.
How about responding to that, cobber?
-
And still NO evidence.
G'night!
No evidence?
How about:
1. The Soviets accepted the reality of Apollo at the time during the Cold War when revealling a hoax would have had a huge propaganda effect.
2. Thousands of scientists have examined the Apollo rocks in the 40+ years since they were retrieved. They universally accept that the rocks show evidence of having come from the Moon - formation in a low-gravity vacuum, alteration by the solar wind, impacts by dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second.
3. People from countries other than the USA tracked and listened to the spacecraft in real time.
There's three pieces of evidence, and not one of them relies on NASA.
How about responding to that, cobber?
Not likely to happen as his/her past behavior has exhibited.
-
...
How about responding to that, cobber?
Somehow I get the feeling that his answer is that everything is fake and everyone is lying. Even him.
-
Just read the whole thread.
Give it up everyone, this Tindersminkywinky guy is either a total moron or is just pulling your chains. You will never get any information out of him and you will just get frustrated.
Ignore him, he is likely a 12 year old kid who has just discovered the boy blunder's YouTube videos. After 22 pages he hasn't given anything that is close to an argument or explanation on his views. He thinks all the planets are hollow, NASA are nothing but liars, everyone is a freemason blah, blah, blah. It's the usual case of not having enough intelligence to tie his own show laces let alone understand the science of space exploration.
If he could provide a coherent argument you may get somewhere but I seriously doubt it.
-
And still NO evidence.
G'night!
Tindarormkimcha
I have placed you under moderation for trolling. Being under moderation means that your posts will require my approval before they can appear in the forum.
From the forum rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.0):
8. Trolling
Trolling is not tolerated for very long on this forum, so if you make a claim or accusation you better be prepared to defend it.
The definition of trolling on this forum is:
a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.
You have repeatedly made claims without providing any kind of supporting evidence. You have repeatedly ignored comments from others that dispute your claims. This leads me to believe that you are only posting here in order to provoke us for your own amusement.
In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:
1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?
Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.
If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.
Honestly, I am tired of your "it's all fake!" accusations without any proof. I'm at the point now where I feel like if you can't prove your case then you aren't worthy of our time.
NASA has made their claims and provided supporting evidence. If you expect us to believe that NASA's evidence is fake then by all means, prove it. But simply saying it is fake without providing any proof is tantamount to admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Well, I also wrote let start somewhere with some 'evidence'
A lot of people look very 'hyper' from here,and seem to be 'all over the place"
And don't seem to be able to focus properly.
So. start discussing some evidence?
Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!
I know someone else will have already covered this, but if I read through all the posts that were made while I was away at work, I'd be left with nothing to contribute.
Can you show in any way that a "C" is typical and/or expected on items of set dressing within the motion picture or television world? Can you show other examples? I'm sure that with all the sites out there (like IMDB) that love to list on-screen goofs, you should have no trouble coming up with examples.
-
Thank you, LO. I, for one, don't find this fun. I find it depressing.
-
I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?
And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.
-
I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?
And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.
But you aren't a conspirator either.
-
How about responding to that, cobber?
Peter, are you Australian or are you implying something (or both)?
-
I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?
And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.
Also, why are there only 26 rocks allowed?
-
I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?
And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.
Also, why are there only 26 rocks allowed?
I find the whole label thing rather amusing, with respects to C that is. If I were to be asked to label up a load of rocks then it would be a multiple digit system, 100000, 100002 etc.
At the very least you would have a box, "Rocks, Large" "Rocks, Small" but of course you would need a lot of boxes.
But then it will need filming in one continuos timeline for the hoaxed filming to work, so there really is no need for a label, for the hoax that is. The hoax it out hoaxed by its own hoax. Wish the people pushing this would see that, it really is simple.
I believe JayUtah has expanded on this in the past. What goes on, on the set that is?
-
I work in the industry, having been involved in both film and television productions. I can say most definitely that props were NEVER labelled with letters. Nor were they even labelled with numbers. NEVER EVER.
In fact last Tuesday I was in a shoot and NOTHING was labelled that was a prop.
-
I am not suggesting they are, it was if I had to label something. I find it rather odd that this needs to start from A. That is the need that it has to be labelled and you start with a single digit. Of course for the hoax then it has to but even if it needed labelling I could not see it starting with A, which sort means that C was never on the cards anyway.
Not sure if that is clear as to my intent, it has been covered before. :)
-
wow
Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
THIS MOD IS A VERY SICK ONE!!!
AND OF COURSE THAT IDIOT OF A MOD DOESN'T BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY THE **** HE IS DOING THIS!!!!!!
VERY SICK VERY SICK
Maybe if you actually read what other people are writing you would know that I did explain why (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=984.msg33706#msg33706) your posts are being moderated.
Try again.
-
Hi Tedward, not a problem. It is just my professional observation that props are not labelled. The area in which they are stored is, but not the props themselves.
I definitely agree with you.
And to L.O. I thank you. Funny to see such people show their true colours, isn't it?
-
wow
Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
THIS MOD IS A VERY SICK ONE!!!
AND OF COURSE THAT IDIOT OF A MOD DOESN'T BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY THE **** HE IS DOING THIS!!!!!!
VERY SICK VERY SICK
Maybe if you actually read what other people are writing you would know that I did explain why (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=984.msg33706#msg33706) your posts are being moderated.
Try again.
Wow. He's got issues.
-
The whole problem with the "c" rock lies in its origin, Ralph Rene. Need I say anymore?
-
Maybe if you actually read what other people are writing you would know that I did explain why (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=984.msg33706#msg33706) your posts are being moderated.
Try again.
It never ceases to amaze me how many hoax believers lately can't follow simple, straightforward statements.
LO: If you do not respond to these questions your posts will be moderated
HB: (Fails to respond to any questions and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop swearing you will be moderated
HB: (Continues to swear and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop trying to be the mod on my board your posts will be moderated
HB: (Continues to try and be the mod and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop posting irrelevant spam your posts will be moderated
HB: (Posts irrelevant spam and gets moderated)
LO: If you continue posting holocaust denial your posts will be moderated
HB: (Continues with holocaust denial and gets moderated)
In all cases:
HB: WHY ARE YOU MODERATING MY POSTS?
How could it be any clearer?!
-
wow
Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
THIS MOD IS A VERY SICK ONE!!!
AND OF COURSE THAT IDIOT OF A MOD DOESN'T BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY THE **** HE IS DOING THIS!!!!!!
VERY SICK VERY SICK
Maybe if you actually read what other people are writing you would know that I did explain why (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=984.msg33706#msg33706) your posts are being moderated.
Try again.
Another whiner bites the dust.
-
Maybe if you actually read what other people are writing you would know that I did explain why (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=984.msg33706#msg33706) your posts are being moderated.
Try again.
It never ceases to amaze me how many hoax believers lately can't follow simple, straightforward statements.
LO: If you do not respond to these questions your posts will be moderated
HB: (Fails to respond to any questions and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop swearing you will be moderated
HB: (Continues to swear and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop trying to be the mod on my board your posts will be moderated
HB: (Continues to try and be the mod and gets moderated)
LO: If you do not stop posting irrelevant spam your posts will be moderated
HB: (Posts irrelevant spam and gets moderated)
LO: If you continue posting holocaust denial your posts will be moderated
HB: (Continues with holocaust denial and gets moderated)
In all cases:
HB: WHY ARE YOU MODERATING MY POSTS?
How could it be any clearer?!
Don't forget "free speech!!!11!!1" and "censorship!".
I, for one, am grateful to LO for hosting this site and doing the moderation for us. It's like being in someone's home, no-one has the right to break the homeowner's rules and still expect to be treated as a welcome guest.
-
Time to roll this one out again.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Tindawhatshisface will not doubt cry "Ad Hominem", "Fake" or "Its a document, so it can't be trusted"
::) ::) ::)
-
Time to roll this one out again.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Tindawhatshisface will not doubt cry "Ad Hominem", "Fake" or "Its a document, so it can't be trusted"
::) ::) ::)
First time I scrolled through the series. :)
-
Just occurs to me there is a label that is NOT visible in any of the scenes.
If we in the theater had a rock that had to go back in the right place on stage every night, there wouldn't be a label on the rock or anywhere else to make sure you got the right one. That's what Stage Manager's diagrams (and crew memory) is for. After all, the cast can remember two hours of blocking and choreography -- the crew can certainly remember that the slightly brownish rock is the one on the left, and the l-shaped rock is near the leg.
No, what is marked in these cases is the FLOOR. Spiked (behind the prop, so the audience shouldn't see them when the item is in place) so you can get it to the exact geometric relationship each time.
I haven't seen anything like all those little bits of colored tape in any of the Apollo Surface Record.
(At least the astronauts wouldn't need glow tape -- they aren't required to find their way on set in the dark!)
-
Hi Tedward, not a problem. It is just my professional observation that props are not labelled. The area in which they are stored is, but not the props themselves.
I definitely agree with you.
And to L.O. I thank you. Funny to see such people show their true colours, isn't it?
It is always interesting to hear from people such as yourself and other web informed people on here.
-
How about responding to that, cobber?
Peter, are you Australian or are you implying something (or both)?
Guilty, Your Honour.
It was just the way our guest was calling everyone Mate, I thought I'd provide a bit of Aussie alternative.
But then the old brain cells started to fire up. Back around 2000 a mobile phone company produced this TV ad:
And more recently a minister in the Federal government had a torrid interview with a radio shock jock who'd previously been a good friend. At the start of the interview the minister called his interviewer Ray (Hadley) but as the questions turned hostile, Ray was replaced by Mate, uttered increasingly tersely: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-1-ray-hadley-0-and-god-were-still-not-sure-what-he-thinks-20150918-gjpq2e.html
ETA: Not that anyone uses the term "cobber" these days. I've never heard anyone use it, except as a joke.
-
I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?
And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.
Sputnik?
After all, Tindarormkimcha claims that Sputnik was faked too...
(Yes, I know, the chronology doesn't make sense, but obviously that's what they want you to think!)
-
In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:
1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?
Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.
If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.
Tindarormkimcha,
You have made 7 post since I asked you to answer those questions, and I will not approve them until you have answered me.
-
In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:
1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?
Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.
If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.
Tindarormkimcha,
You have made 7 post since I asked you to answer those questions, and I will not approve them until you have answered me.
Disbelief goes well beyond Apollo.
-
Make a point about something specific instead of spraying a perfectly good forum with your hoax dung. Until then you have nothing but disbelief, a substandard education and a desperate desire for adult attention to sustain your fantasy world. Prove me wrong and provide actual evidence to support whatever claim you think you might be making.
It is exactly the opposite: those who cling to the ificial version of trips to the moon are like those stubborn children who get angry when they discover that Santa Claus does not exist, and refuse to admit though others assure them that parents who place toys next to the Christmas tree.
-
On the contrary you'll find that many or most of us here are actually quite aware of the relevant facts, and that at least a few of us are professionally qualified in the sciences and techniques that apply to space, including travel to the Moon. It is not simply a matter of rote belief or wishful thinking.
In contrast we find that many hoax claimants, yourself included (see your newly minted thread), are astoundingly ignorant of the specific factors that affect your claims as well as the general knowledge of what it takes to prove a point.
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/981340285b7ef597ed89e459dad48380/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo2_500.jpg)
Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun. See annular eclipses
Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
-
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
Please explain this statement.
-
Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
Factually misleading. Annular eclipses occur roughly half again as often as total eclipses.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
Leaving aside the factual incorrectness in your presentation of the data, you seem to be inferring from the relative sizes and distances of Earth, Moon, and Sun that the Moon must be an artificial construct. That's a non sequitur.
-
All a bit of a coincidence really.
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/981340285b7ef597ed89e459dad48380/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo2_500.jpg)
Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun. See annular eclipses
Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
The Moon is getting ever further from the Earth, and as it does so, annular eclipses will become the norm. Claiming that because it so happens that the Moon is in it's current location by divine providence of something you are unable to identify is no different than claiming leprechauns dunnit. Or mermaids. Or bigfoot.
Basically that is abject crankery. We have seen it all and done it all. One chunk of crankery is much like another.
-
So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/981340285b7ef597ed89e459dad48380/tumblr_nkf9tmPs311svefdfo2_500.jpg)
Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun. See annular eclipses
Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
Wrong. The majority are annular eclipses.
-
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
Wrong. The majority are annular eclipses.
At least you understood what he was asking. The sentence structure is all wrong
-
It is exactly the opposite: those who cling to the ificial version of trips to the moon are like those stubborn children who get angry when they discover that Santa Claus does not exist, and refuse to admit though others assure them that parents who place toys next to the Christmas tree.
Your premise is undermined when you make posts where you get almost everything wrong. It's also undermined, in my case anyway, by having a couple of dozen years of space systems engineering under my belt. But there are lots of people here who have studied Apollo extensively - more than me - and could actually help you learn something, if you can set aside the attitude.
-
Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.
Tindarormkimcha Tarkus,
You do realise, don't you, that total solar eclipses happen on other planets in the solar system?
-
In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:
1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?
Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.
If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.
Tindarormkimcha,
You have made 7 post since I asked you to answer those questions, and I will not approve them until you have answered me.
I don't care, you are a bit mad.
So you don't care that you appear to be unable to answer a few simple questions?
1) NASA has told us where Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins were on July 20th, 1969. They have even shown us photographs and video to support this. You say NASA is lying but you can't tell us where the astronauts really were. So why should we believe you and not NASA?
2) NASA has provided us with moon rocks, and allowed scientists from around the world to examine them for over 40 years. You say the rocks are fake, but you can't explain how that is possible.
3) NASA told us about the Van Allen Radiation Belt... the very thing that many hoax believers claim makes going to the moon impossible. NASA can't lie about it's existence, or downplay the potential danger it poses, because they can't control it. It is what it is. But you expect us to believe they told us about a hazard that they could have just as easily kept secret. And that makes sense to you?
You accuse NASA of lying, but you have not presented an alternative to their claims. Saying something is fake isn't good enough. If you can't prove it you have failed to make a case and left us no reason to doubt NASA is telling the truth. You either can't understand that, or you're just trolling. Either way you're just making yourself look like a fool.
You're really one of the most pathetic hoax believers I've encountered... any moron with a keyboard can write "it's all fake!". You don't have what it takes to support that accusation. Aren't you embarrassed?
If that is how you want to end your participation in this forum, that is fine with me.
-
I don't care, you are a bit mad.
So you don't care that you appear to be unable to answer a few simple questions?
1) NASA has told us where Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins were on July 20th, 1969. They have even shown us photographs and video to support this. You say NASA is lying but you can't tell us where the astronauts really were. So why should we believe you and not NASA?
2) NASA has provided us with moon rocks, and allowed scientists from around the world to examine them for over 40 years. You say the rocks are fake, but you can't explain how that is possible.
3) NASA told us about the Van Allen Radiation Belt... the very thing that many hoax believers claim makes going to the moon impossible. NASA can't lie about it's existence, or downplay the potential danger it poses, because they can't control it. It is what it is. But you expect us to believe they told us about a hazard that they could have just as easily kept secret. And that makes sense to you?
You accuse NASA of lying, but you have not presented an alternative to their claims. Saying something is fake isn't good enough. If you can't prove it you have failed to make a case and left us no reason to doubt NASA is telling the truth. You either can't understand that, or you're just trolling. Either way you're just making yourself look like a fool.
You're really one of the most pathetic hoax believers I've encountered... any moron with a keyboard can write "it's all fake!". You don't have what it takes to support that accusation. Aren't you embarrassed?
If that is how you want to end your participation in this forum, that is fine with me.
Rather like the pot calling the kettle black.