Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.

He's definitely paid to speak for NASA.  What else could he say (and keep his job)?

What I do know is - a bunch of other stuff that looks very very bad for Apollo.  The list is long.

And even Apollo can't make a Flag blow towards the LM with no atmosphere.  It's impossible.  Something is awry.

[Peter B]

Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.

He's definitely paid to speak for NASA.  What else could he say (and keep his job)?

Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.

[Mag40]

He's definitely paid to speak for NASA.  What else could he say (and keep his job)?

The circular reasoning of a committed HB.

What I do know is

Not an awful lot.

a bunch of other stuff that looks very very bad for Apollo.  The list is long.

The list is on HB Bingo.

And even Apollo can't make a Flag blow towards the LM with no atmosphere.  It's impossible.

The left edge of the flag is right on the right edge of the TV picture.

Something is awry.

Your troll-like repetition and ignoring:

1. All events occur during depressurisation - you said you were embarrassed not to notice.
2. You have no understanding of how gas is ejected from the LM.
3. You have no understanding of flow in low gravity vacuum.

[Mag40]

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.

What exactly are you even claiming here? The EVAs lasted hours, are you saying they voice sync'd them? From where? How did they add current events into this process? IIRC - Geologists interacted with Schmitt on the surface with back and forth dialogue.

Then prove a single thing. The HB bible, "I reckon they did it like this, therefore fake".

[Peter B]

Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.

He's definitely paid to speak for NASA.  What else could he say (and keep his job)?

Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.

So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?

You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.

[najak]

Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.

When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful.  Your theory rests on this guy's claim.   My doesn't.  I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.

And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.

To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth.  Just like every Christian minister will tell you Jesus rose from the Dead and is the Only Way to Heaven -- even though this is provably problematic at best.

So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS - of which LunarOrbit will not let me talk about...   because he doesn't like to see these "non-debunked" points.

[najak]

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.

If the Astronauts are hearing CAPCOM in real-time, they could respond immediately -- which approximates the delay perfectly.  No?

[najak]

Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.

So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.

When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.

So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....

Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together....  where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."

[onebigmonkey]

Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.

So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.

When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.

So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....

Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together....  where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."

PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.

[onebigmonkey]

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

Time delays. Takes time to send the replies up to the Moon.

If the Astronauts are hearing CAPCOM in real-time, they could respond immediately -- which approximates the delay perfectly.  No?

In order for that to work you would need to break physics.

[onebigmonkey]

Oh, and once again, how about you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it? Remember how earlier you said:

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.

So which is it? They can't tell, or they can but they're lying?
You're just a conclusion in search of supporting evidence.

When you see Apollo Break Physics, along with other damning evidence--- and notice something is awry -- all you can do is hypothesize.

So we start with "Apollo cannot break physics", along with MUCH OTHER STUFF that I am not allowed to go into here in a meaningful way -- one topic per thread....

Then you look for a way to make this puzzle fit together....  where physics is not being broken, and 500-page reports go missing for good reason, not just "oops, ... it's in a box."

Chinese scientists have a vested interest in their results. Find us one that says "...therefore Apollo is fake".

[BertieSlack]

What do you think is the significance of those words?

Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo.  Things had changed.   Grissom knew it.   Baron knew it.   Both said it.   Both died.   NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget.   James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8....  they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.

Why did Webb decide to step down from NASA? I'll leave you to find out.
BTW - it was after Webb had authorised re-designating Apollo 8 as a circumlunar mission.
And, yeah, a lot of the development for Apollo had already occurred. That's why the cost of the program fell after 1966. The Saturn V first flew in November 1967. NASA spending from 1967-1972 was still huge compared to what they spend now.

[Peter B]

Then present the evidence for this. At the moment, all you've done is claim something that needs to be true in order for you to reconcile what he said with your hoax hypothesis.

When it comes to claims by people with vested interest - we should NOT consider their claims as particularly meaningful.  Your theory rests on this guy's claim.   My doesn't.  I claim "uncertainty" as should you and others.

And so I stick look at the things where it doesn't involve a person with vested interest making statements.

To me, the substantial difference in Chinese samples (1/4th the size-in-weight of Apollo's average particle size, and the immense difference in composition) - is more meaningful than the words of various spoke people, who of course are going to proclaim NASA's truth.  Just like every Christian minister will tell you Jesus rose from the Dead and is the Only Way to Heaven -- even though this is provably problematic at best.

So I look for the dull facts.... and the instances of breaking physics -- like Flags blowing towards the LM with no atmosphere, and no physical way for this to happen, among a LIST OF THINGS - of which LunarOrbit will not let me talk about...   because he doesn't like to see these "non-debunked" points.

Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.

Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?

[najak]

#1: Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.

#2: Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?

#1: Correct - it only proves that they faked this footage.  Here it's a simple setup - with no explanations for the behavior.  Nothing can PULL this flag towards the LM in the ways that it was done, for the timing and subtle/steady nature of it all -- there was no "chaos factor" possible because of the steadiness and duration of it's appearances.


#2: I take interviews and claims of lone people in the spotlight with huge grains of salt - esp. when it comes to Apollo.
I've seen too much contrary evidence.  The 8-flags is the SIMPLEST OF THOSE - to help others SEE IT...

The missing 500-page Baron report - which they pretend now "never existed", is very damning.  Why would they pretend now that it did not exist?

Quote: “When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.”

[najak]

it was after Webb had authorised re-designating Apollo 8 as a circumlunar mission.

You assumption is that Webb approved of this sudden last-minute change without compulsion?

He also quit just a few months after RFK was shot -- who likely would have won the election.   RFK was honest though - this is  a problem.   JFK was too... also a problem.   Webb was done with it.  Same for Seamans.   They "documented excuses" can't say "because they were faking Apollo, and killing off Kennedys, throwing away 500-page reports, and I was done with it... "

Nothing fishy here?

Nixon was a good liar - perfect candidate.  Same for Johnson (who approved the knowingly false Gulf of Tonkin lie to send 2 million young men off to war - to satisfy our war machine).

I look at a bigger picture here, and smell fish.