“And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll”
“4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.”
“He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake.”
“There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid”
Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us. I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA. Your stubborn refusal to even consider any evidence that goes against NASA’s version of events is typical of you NASA fans, and you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.
For instance, let’s take a look at the Apollo 16 jump salute, where we observe the sand falling quicker than the bloke in the spacesuit. First, we see the sand leave his boots and fall back to “earth” before he reaches the top of his jump. We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together, and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.
That doesn’t happen in this case, and some of the sand is higher than the alleged astronauts’ boots, but for some reason it stops and falls back to the ground while he is still rising. His jump would only be the same height as the sand, if it wasn’t for those wires. It’s quite simple to measure how fast the sand and the alleged astronaut fall in relation to each other by simply drawing horizontal lines and counting the number of frames from the upper line to the bottom line, as the object falls. I counted seven frames for the sand and twelve frames for the bloke in the suit, and the only way to debunk this, would be to lie, as this foul mouthed NASA troll has done.
In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.
So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying, so let the hand waving begin.
“let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems”
Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? Do you assume that if you make it sound overly technical, we will all run away scratching our heads? First of all, the samples are given out in slivers, for which metal tools are used, and only a very small portion of the alleged moon rocks have been analysed, and the rest are allegedly under lock and key, apart from the ones that have been lost or stolen. As for the pits, it would be easily done with a laser, and Helium 3 would still be present, and in any case, who do you think told the rest of the world they were moon rocks, and why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”
“Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side”
“Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?”
It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”
“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”
A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”
So when did you last unfold a LRV?
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”
Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AviationPardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”
The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.
The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”
Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.
There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.
“7 Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”
The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.
“8 Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon“9 How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”
I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”
A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”
Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g) so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.
After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”
On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”
It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?
