Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Miss Vocalcord]

No all your comments you make about " that'll explain it well enough" is well before the your so called magic show has ever happened.

Most things go like this -- you "try to get it right".  Sometimes you miss a mistake, and sometimes you see it, but say "good enough".

For the biggest scam in the world? Even David Copperfield wouldn't settle with that; Again your logic fails.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Look. It. Up. Enlighten yourself.

I looked it up - there is no good reason, other than Apollo's rendezvous weren't real.   What's the reason you think is so obvious?

You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.

If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.

[najak]

Gee, what more differs between the earth and the moon besides the vacuum?

If the flag doesn't extend straight down, even in 1/6th gravity, then "stiffness" prevents it.   Should a flag have enough stiffness to prevent this?

This isn't a big point for me... but to me, doesn't look natural.  I don't think normal flags are stiff AT ALL - and thus should be hanging down straight.

This could be a sign that they "stiffened it" a bit - on purpose, to minimize the motion that might result from very subtle atmospheric disturbances.

[najak]

You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.

If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.

You could tell me quickly what it is that you are getting at -- or not.   I'm not going to play this game of "guessing which aspect/difference" you had in mind.  There are many.  Say it, and we can discuss it.  Or if you think your point sucks, don't say it, so that you won't be exposed.

[najak]

For the biggest scam in the world? Even David Copperfield wouldn't settle with that; Again your logic fails.

Amazing, huh?   And Yes, David Copperfield had to do a better job, because in his case EVERYONE KNOWS it was a trick, and are scrutinizing it.

For Apollo, no one hardly suspected, and everyone felt great about the achievement and believed it was true.  At that time, to poop on Apollo was to poop on "World Peace and Unity", which is how Nixon was framing it.

Clearly, a lot more mistakes were forgiven and overlooked.  This is human-wiring.  Group-think dynamics.  Especially for a message that everyone loves to believe.  Plus it lead to a USA-Russian Space Alliance by April of 1972... how long was this "in-the-works"?   Why poop on this goodness if you might be a skeptic?  This is the guy who doesn't get invited to the parties.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Amazing, huh?

No they didn't know if it was good enough; they only knew afterwards; so why would they take the risk if all the had to do was simply do it again. Time or money wasn't an issue.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

You obviously either didn't look it up at all, or you're an incompetent person. I just confirmed my answer within 15 seconds on Google.

If you can't handle something this easy then I'm questioning everything you've said about your intellect and your professional qualifications. I don't find it credible that someone with a STEM background and military level contracts could be this incompetent.

You could tell me quickly what it is that you are getting at -- or not.   I'm not going to play this game of "guessing which aspect/difference" you had in mind.  There are many.  Say it, and we can discuss it.  Or if you think your point sucks, don't say it, so that you won't be exposed.

I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach. The fact that you still don't understand after being told there is an obvious explanation is evidence of incompetence.

If you don't know the differences between the Apollo docking and ISS docking situations then you shouldn't be drawing comparisons between them as evidence of anything. If you are aware of the differences and somehow still believe this is evidence, then cite those differences and why you somehow believe they are immaterial. Failing to do this is you exposing the weakness of your claim. Me refusing to spoon feed you readily available information that you should already have investigated prior to any discussion about it isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that you aren't prepared. Do your own homework for a change. I'm done doing it for you.

[najak]

No they didn't know if it was good enough; they only knew afterwards; so why would they take the risk if all the had to do was simply do it again. Time or money wasn't an issue.

NASAX - time and money was an issue.   Tax payer money is not free, and they were under immense pressure to cancel Apollo after Apollo 1.    And they had time deadlines too.   Plus a touch of laziness.  Once Apollo 11 was a flaming success -- there was much less worry.   Sorta how Trump (correctly) declared "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters"... (of course this was hyperbole, but generally proves to be true).

I intend to address this sloppiness and mistakes in new threads... but no one here wants to address these.

[Miss Vocalcord]

I intend to address this sloppiness and mistakes in new threads... but no one here wants to address these.

One moment you have a whole team of people working out the exact starchness needed for the flag, but then the next moment when the flag comes into sight when it isn't supposed to you claim "oh it is good enough'.

Again you can't wave your magic wand and make it sound like an logic argument; it isn't.

[najak]

I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach.

Aware of what?  You are the one playing a game -- writing lots of words, wasting time, when you could just say something quickly that is more specific.  Is this some form of teaching technique?

[najak]

One moment you have a whole team of people working out the exact starchness needed for the flag, but then the next moment when the flag comes into sight when it isn't supposed to you claim "oh it is good enough'.  Again you can't wave your magic wand and make it sound like an logic argument; it isn't.

I have them saying "we need to stiff the flag slightly to reduce the potential issue of draft motion, but not too much that it looks unnatural" - so they do it.  When things mess up a little bit, either they didn't notice, or simply weren't worried - because you know, "group think" -- people aren't looking for mistakes - and even if they see them -- NO IMPACT.   This is how it works.

Try showing Biblical errors to a Fundamentalist..  See if they alter their beliefs.   It's human wiring.   Well-known.   Once they got past Apollo 11 - they were "in the clear". 

You are seeing this FULLY UNEXPLAINED 8 MOTIONS today -- and it's not changing your beliefs at all.

The DoD has big budgets for studying/learning human psychology - as it's vital to use of a primary tool of War/defense -- deception.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Again this is a agree to disagree. I see you wave your wooden stick; you think it is a magic wand.

You are seeing this FULLY UNEXPLAINED 8 MOTIONS today -- and it's not changing your beliefs at all.

No I'm not ; stop making stupid assumptions.

The explanation by depressurisation has been given multiple times to you. Especially if you know the depressurisation took 3 times before it succeeded.

[najak]

The explanation by depressurisation has been given multiple times to you. Especially if you know the depressurisation took 3 times before it succeeded.

That's a start.

Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM)  It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds..  What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild.  Much more than other movements.

For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.

Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds =>  PSI 5.0 to 2.0  (1 PSI per 9 seconds)  (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0  (1 PSI per 23 seconds)   (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4  (1 PSI per 50 seconds)  (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds)  (9% rate)
5. DONE

[jfb]

Or, it is acting exactly how a common-or-garden flag acts in a vacuum.

Myth-Busters showed a flag in a vacuum, and there was no "vertical wrinkling"...

Here's a shot from the moon, that seems to show unnatural wrinkling, with some vertical components.

Oh for crap's sake...

It's a cheap-ass nylon flag, it spent several days tightly rolled up in a tube (unlike the Mythbusters flag), anyone who's unpacked a tent knows it takes time for nylon fabric to "relax", and since it's in 1/6 gravity that takes a little longer than a similar flag on Earth. 

Dude. 

If there was any wind blowing hard enough to create that level of flappage there would be highly visible amounts of dust in the air. 

[TimberWolfAu]

For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.

Easy. A mass of gas hits the flag. The flag, suspended by a horizontal cross bar, and attached to the flag pole on one side vertically, only has a single corner that is free to move. The mass moves the flag, which can now swing back and forth, since there is no air resistance to slow it down, only gravity and the structure of the flag itself, resulting in longer movement than we would expect to see on Earth, even in a vacuum chamber. As the venting happens in stages, this allows for multiple mass' of gas to strike the flag.

There we go, and no stupidly complicated conspiracy is required. And before you ask, no, I'm not going to give any more details than that, since you have already set the bar of acceptability at 'claims without evidence'.

Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds =>  PSI 5.0 to 2.0  (1 PSI per 9 seconds)  (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0  (1 PSI per 23 seconds)   (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4  (1 PSI per 50 seconds)  (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds)  (9% rate)
5. DONE

... Why are you using details from post EVA 1, when the video you are referring to is post EVA 2?

Many of the names you listed are ex-military... Patriots -- who simply understand how to Patriotically NOT reveal National Secrets to the world, that might weaken America.  They've lied for OUR BENEFIT... not malicious.

Other names/institutions - You might want to look at funding and "hiring of graduates" -- when it comes to Moon Studies and outer-space - nearly all funding originates with governments.  You don't bite the hands that feed you, and there is no money in Atheism.

Probably about 90% of the people on the list are civilians, but still, I love that HB's can only ever play the 'they lied for a good cause' card, or 'they're all paid shills'. Oh, if only everyone was as honest and open as you, hey? The absurd amount of people that would have been required to pull off nine manned flights to the moon, including six manned landings, boggles the mind. I will quite happily state that there is no way, what so ever, that such a secret could be kept, by so many people, for over 50 years.