Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Mag40]

You are stalling to get to the end of this road - because you know you cannot give a reasonable refute to these Launch acceleration behaviors for the full 1 second.

Saying you think I won't believe you when you simply tell us the A50 combustion energy - is ludicrous.  It's stalling, because the end of this road we're on, ends very badly for the Apollogy.

Troll posturing again. Are you still at school?

[LunarOrbit]

I have defended ALL of my threads so far.   And drawn reasonable conclusions.

You have not.

Example: 8 Flag movements has "no viable Apollogist hypothesis to explain it" -- you terminated this thread saying "he won't defend it" - but you STILL no one can provide a viable hypothesis that THEY are willing to defend... NONE.  ZERO.

The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim which you merely ignored or dismissed. Your response is nothing more than "you are wrong because I said so". That is what I mean when I say you refuse to defend your claims. Stubbornly refusing to accept any explanation that contradicts your belief is not a valid defence.

Your overlord conclusions

I will repeat... insulting me (or anyone else) will not do you any good. It stops now.

But you don't like that the ones I've opened so far -- simply don't look so good for the Apollogy.  So it's time to shut me down.

Drop the "apollogy" nonsense too, while you're at it. It makes you look like a child.

[najak]

The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim which you merely ignored or dismissed. Your response is nothing more than "you are wrong because I said so". That is what I mean when I say you refuse to defend your claims. Stubbornly refusing to accept any explanation that contradicts your belief is not a valid defence.

They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.

There remains NO VIABLE explanation for the 8 flag movements, especially the ones where it's being pushed towards the LM.

For 8-flag motions - Show me even ONE hypothesis that was DEFENDED..  they didn't even attempt the defense, because there was no defense.   The few hypotheses presented were critically flawed so badly that the person who made the proposal would not even try to defend it.

[bknight]

The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim which you merely ignored or dismissed. Your response is nothing more than "you are wrong because I said so". That is what I mean when I say you refuse to defend your claims. Stubbornly refusing to accept any explanation that contradicts your belief is not a valid defence.

They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.

There remains NO VIABLE explanation for the 8 flag movements, especially the ones where it's being pushed towards the LM.

For 8-flag motions - Show me even ONE hypothesis that was DEFENDED..  they didn't even attempt the defense, because there was no defense.   The few hypotheses presented were critically flawed so badly that the person who made the proposal would not even try to defend it.

I have provided proof that the LM and crew were on the Moon, so "they left the door open" is nonsense.  Infact all you have presented are idle speculations.  Then you hand wave anything that shows were you are in correct or throw in a bit of HB to obfuscate.

[najak]

I have provided proof that the LM and crew were on the Moon, so "they left the door open" is nonsense.  Infact all you have presented are idle speculations.  Then you hand wave anything that shows were yo are in correct or throw in a bit of HB to obfuscate.

During these 175-seconds, they had been inside already for 15+ minutes...    A couple minutes AFTER these flag motions they start tossing out the bags.

During these movements - there is no one on the moon's surface.  Yet the Flag is gently pushed-and-held TOWARDS the LM in an on-screen position, with slanted top showing this pressure.

You are seriously trying to claim that at least one was NOT in the LM?  This is your magic refutation that I ignored?   Does anyone else agree with you?   I'd love to see you actually defend this claim.

No one will stand to defend their claims against the 8-flag movement phenomenon.

Apparently this flag thread needs to be re-opened.

[LunarOrbit]

The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim...

They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.

Says you. Like I said, you dismiss their explanations as "non-viable" but you do not provide a viable counter-argument to explain WHY they are wrong. You are basically saying they are wrong because you say so. That is not satisfactory.

[najak]

Says you. Like I said, you dismiss their explanations as "non-viable" but you do not provide a viable counter-argument to explain WHY they are wrong. You are basically saying they are wrong because you say so. That is not satisfactory.

Says Physics.  They are *so* wrong that so far, no one has bothered to even try to defend against my rebuttals to their critically flawed proposals.

Name ONE -- one viable hypothesis that can be reasonably defended, to explain this 175-second episode.  Just one.

[LunarOrbit]

Says Physics.  They are *so* wrong that so far, no one has bothered to even try to defend against my rebuttals to their critically flawed proposals.

Find one credible physics expert who agrees with you and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Name ONE -- one viable hypothesis that can be reasonably defended, to explain this 175-second episode.  Just one.

My hypothesis is that you have miscalculated or misinterpreted something. That is far more plausible than "physics is broken" or "every thing about Apollo is a hoax". You're only considering those two options and ignoring the much more likely possibility that you are just wrong.

I will let someone more knowledgeable of physics than me educate you. All I know is that the hoax theory makes no logical sense at all.

[najak]

I will let someone more knowledgeable of physics than me educate you. All I know is that the hoax theory makes no logical sense at all.

Until then, my claim remains intact.  For being a such a long and solid claim - why does there not yet exist a valid debunking?  You should just be able to "reference someone's post" -- but we cannot, because such a post doesn't seem to exist..   because there's no good way with moon physics to explain it.

Your conclusion should be removed - made more accurate.   I conceded that "this doesn't mean the landing was a hoax" -- it simply means that "no one, yet, has been able to offer a viable physics hypothesis to explain these movements."  Period.    Leave it at that.

And lets move on - I have more "unchallenged stuff" in my head now - and would make for good new threads.   I won't find anyone to challenge these ideas within a MLH forum; so I come here.  But then I'm not allowed to bring these up.   Like a gag order.  Like a witch on trial.

[LunarOrbit]

I will let someone more knowledgeable of physics than me educate you. All I know is that the hoax theory makes no logical sense at all.

Until then, my claim remains intact.

No, until then your claim remains unproven. You've made a claim, there have been reasonable explanations for why your claim is wrong, and you have provided no counter-argument or any experts who support your claim. Therefore you have failed to make your case and there remains no reason to throw away our history books.

For being a such a long and solid claim - why does there not yet exist a valid debunking?

You have been debunked. You don't get to declare the arguments made by others invalid, you have to prove it.

If you claimed gravity wasn't real and that you could jump out of an airplane without a parachute, and I wasn't able to convice you otherwise, that doesn't prove that gravity isn't real... it just proves that you're too hard headed to accept any argument that contradicts you.

And lets move on - I have more "unchallenged stuff" in my head now - and would make for good new threads.

No, you have other unfinished business to attend to first.

[Mag40]

No, you have other unfinished business to attend to first.

He keeps running away from this thread below. He dips in, avoids questions, offers ridiculous, poor-observational answers and then flounces:

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59013#msg59013

@najak - I see no "100% integrity" from you. The only physics broken is your understanding of it.

[najak]

#1: No, until then your claim remains unproven. You've made a claim, there have been reasonable explanations for why your claim is wrong, and you have provided no counter-argument or any experts who support your claim. Therefore you have failed to make your case and there remains no reason to throw away our history books.
#2: You have been debunked. You don't get to declare the arguments made by others invalid, you have to prove it.
that you're too hard headed to accept any argument that contradicts you.

#1: My claim is that there exists no known viable physics explanation for the flag motions.  If my claim is wrong - show me JUST ONE.
#2: The people who made those claims won't even defend them.  Name one that has been defended, and still stands the scrutiny that I have provided.

Unless someone can do this - my claim stands.   Unless someone even TRIES to do so - thread is complete.   Folks have made loose vague claims - but when discussed more specifically - they back down and stop defending.... because their vague claims were critically flawed...  and they didn't even try to defend against the critical flaws.  Show me where I'm wrong on this.

This doesn't mean throw out the history books, it simply means that no one has been able to offer a viable physics explanation for these motions.

I'll be happy document whichever refutation you believe is worthy of being called "the best explanation we can find."  Which explanations do you believe are "viable" which I am ignoring?  And then lets talk about it, and find someone to defend it.   So far, no luck at this -- because there really isn't a good physics explanation - because the scenario is SO SIMPLE... SO DEVOID of options to viably explain it.

[Mag40]

#1: My claim is that there exists no known viable physics explanation for the flag motions.  If my claim is wrong - show me JUST ONE.

Yeah? You first! Show how "some bloke left the door open" during the only instances where gas was being ejected from the LM during depressurisation. Explain how this made these movements! Logic of a toaster.

#2: The people who made those claims won't even defend them.  Name one that has been defended, and still stands the scrutiny that I have provided.

All of mine in your idiotic sand-too-fast thread.

[najak]

Yeah? You first! Show how "some bloke left the door open" during the only instances where gas was being ejected from the LM during depressurisation. Explain how this made these movements! Logic of a toaster.

My claim is no longer "therefore it was a hoax".  I've conceded to not connect any dots.

My ONLY remaining claim for the Flag motion is that there exists no known viable hypothesis to explain all of these motions.   That's it.  I've conceded the rest.

My my remaining claim, is accurate.  If not - show me the one viable claim that I'm missing.

[TimberWolfAu]

My ONLY remaining claim for the Flag motion is that there exists no known viable hypothesis to explain all of these motions.   That's it.  I've conceded the rest.

My my remaining claim, is accurate.  If not - show me the one viable claim that I'm missing.

Interior atmosphere of the LM being vented in the direction of the flag.

There we go, one perfectly viable hypothesis.

A lot more viable than 'it was filmed in a studio'.