A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists

[najak]

Okay, a friend of mine just raised a really good point.  If you believe we're all paid by NASA to say these things, why don't you try outbidding?

I think this accusation simply underestimates the sheer power of Confirmation Bias, which tends to make us more dumb.

PNAs (Pro-NASA-Advocates) - cannot understand how a smart person can doubt the Moon Landing.

and MLD (ML Deniers) cannot understand how any smart person could BELIEVE we landed humans on the moon.

And so MLD's mistakenly just assume, "you PNAs must be doing this on purpose; you KNOW you're wrong, so you must be paid."

It's common.  Similarly, many Christians accuse Atheists like this -- "You know you're wrong; you know there is a God, but you simply want to sin more." as many Christians simply can't see how anyone else "doesn't see God the way they do."

[Allan F]

Nobody is trying to make you look like fools, You manage that all on your own.

You yourself is a prime example of confirmation bias. Every single argument put to your ideas, is dismissed without any consideration. You only look at the surface, not the causes of things. Like your flag idea. On Apollo 11, the flag points in one direction during EVA. When filmed before liftoff, it points in a totally different direction?`

Why?

Because procedures during the preparation for liftoff called for a brief test of the attitude control system, including firing a short burst from the thrusters, which impinged on the flag and turned it away from the LM. Maybe consider that happened on the rest of the landings too?

There is so much more to learn, when you step away from the usual hoaxnuttery. There is a reason why a certain unnamed person is referred to as "TBFDU". Because he is consistently wrong, been shown where he's wrong, totally disregards the corrections and keeps on trucking the same arguments again and again.

[najak]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

[Peter B]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

TBFDU = The Blunder From Down Under a.k.a. Jarrah White. Like me, he's Australian.

[Allan F]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

Apollo didn't "break physics". You are working with a very small subset of reality, which conforms to your delusion. Therefore the observed events don't match up to your expectations.

Now, to document your flag-claim, please use the Apollo picture numbers which are easier to follow, where we can find out exactly WHEN those pictures were taken. If you quote them out of order, your claim is obviously nonsense. Also look up the DAC recordings of the EVA activities. Where you can see the flag setup.

[bknight]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

You are so naive and ignorant, Apollo didn't break any laws of physics but your sophomoric understanding of physics is blatant. 
Consider that the flag/pole is acting as an object when one inputs an amount of force into the system that force builds to  a maximum and then declines if no more force is exerted, but the dynamic force in the system, now when that force is no longer acting on the object there is still a rotational element that must be dissipated, guess what, it dissipates in the opposite direction as the force applied, to a less degree since there is friction in the system that has dissipated some of the force, but not all.  So the flag is observed moving back towards its original state and because there is no atmosphere to dampen it only friction it will oscillate until all the force is dissipated.  You see no laws have been broken rather your incomplete understanding of physics.  No you haven't won anything except a clown's face.

[najak]

You are so naive and ignorant, Apollo didn't break any laws of physics but your sophomoric understanding of physics is blatant. 
Consider that the flag/pole is acting as an object when one inputs an amount of force into the system that force builds to  a maximum and then declines if no more force is exerted, but the dynamic force in the system, now when that force is no longer acting on the object there is still a rotational element that must be dissipated, guess what, it dissipates in the opposite direction as the force applied, to a less degree since there is friction in the system that has dissipated some of the force, but not all.  So the flag is observed moving back towards its original state and because there is no atmosphere to dampen it only friction it will oscillate until all the force is dissipated.  You see no laws have been broken rather your incomplete understanding of physics.  No you haven't won anything except a clown's face.

For anyone reading this, the debate about the "Flag moving TOWARDS the LM" -- here is the thread where this debate is taking place.  So far, I haven't seen any responses from anyone with even a basic understanding of physics...  they may "know some terms", but don't really grasp it -- and cannot relate their theories to the video footage in question.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2017.15

I'd like to see some more intelligent responses to my concerns.

[najak]

Apollo didn't "break physics". You are working with a very small subset of reality, which conforms to your delusion. Therefore the observed events don't match up to your expectations.

Well so far, no one with an adequate grasp of physics or science logic has responded.  I'm praying for a smarter mind to show up on this scene.  Please summon someone.

[Mag40]

Well so far, no one with an adequate grasp of physics or science logic has responded.  I'm praying for a smarter mind to show up on this scene.  Please summon someone.

Your puerile behaviour endears you to nobody. Quite why you HBs always seem to do this is baffling - I am by no means an expert in space-related travel, but the physics you are putting up is not even close to impressive.  This forum has debunked all-comers on every single one of these endlessly-repeated claims.  Many mission-specific experts who used to post frequently, only drop in to see if there is yet another Apollo denier spouting the same nonsense.

[najak]

Well so far, no one with an adequate grasp of physics or science logic has responded.  I'm praying for a smarter mind to show up on this scene.  Please summon someone.

Your puerile behaviour endears you to nobody. Quite why you HBs always seem to do this is baffling - I am by no means an expert in space-related travel, but the physics you are putting up is not even close to impressive.  This forum has debunked all-comers on every single one of these endlessly-repeated claims.  Many mission-specific experts who used to post frequently, only drop in to see if there is yet another Apollo denier spouting the same nonsense.

Things I'm aware of that have NOT been debunked that break physics:
1. The Lunar Launch Acceleration too Fast -- hasn't been debunked at all.   This BREAKS PHYSICS... undeniable.   I'm redoing my frame captures soon, to nail this home.
2. Apollo 14 Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - also not debunked.  It BREAKS PHYSICS.

I think I'll be able to do this with the Dust falling, and a few other things.

Then there is a mound of "Not Bloody Likely" Pills you have to swallow in order to hold to the Apollo Faith.  I'll be presenting those, as I have time.   I'm juggling about a half-dozen threads right now.

[JayUtah]

Things I'm aware of that have NOT been debunked that break physics:
1. The Lunar Launch Acceleration too Fast -- hasn't been debunked at all.   This BREAKS PHYSICS... undeniable.   I'm redoing my frame captures soon, to nail this home.
2. Apollo 14 Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - also not debunked.  It BREAKS PHYSICS.

Begs the question that your simplistic understanding of those problems is correct. For twenty years people have been coming to this forum and its predecessors with allegedly slam-dunk evidence based on the "laws of physics," only to realize that the real world is far more complicated than they learned about in high school.

Then there is a mound of "Not Bloody Likely" Pills you have to swallow in order to hold to the Apollo Faith.

According to whom?

I'm juggling about a half-dozen threads right now.

Whose problem is that Gish gallop?

[najak]

Begs the question that your simplistic understanding of those problems is correct. For twenty years people have been coming to this forum and its predecessors with allegedly slam-dunk evidence based on the "laws of physics," only to realize that the real world is far more complicated than they learned about in high school.

I'm here now, and you have nothing to offer to debunk these two specific examples.  ZERO.

Please show me a single paper where a rocket engine, with unburned fuel spitting out, during ignition phase, can produce 1 second of sustained DOUBLE-THRUST?   Just one.   Show me a sign of a science report or paper mentioning this phenomenon.   After 20 years, surely you can rattle off this defense, or show us something.  But you don't.

And do the same for what might push the Flag TOWARDS the LM 4x, which also correlates with what we saw on video.  Got anything at all?

So far -- nobody has anything to show for debunking these two IMPOSSIBILITIES shown by Apollo.

[JayUtah]

I'm here now, and you have nothing to offer to debunk these two specific examples.  ZERO.

Nonsense.

Please show me a single paper where a rocket engine, with unburned fuel spitting out, during ignition phase, can produce 1 second of sustained DOUBLE-THRUST?   Just one.

Straw man. Now that you've realized that high school physics isn't sufficient to describe the real world, your standard of proof goes way up. There's no "one weird trick" answer to your question. There is, however, the complicated world of rocket behavior in the real world.

After 20 years, surely you can rattle off this defense, or show us something.  But you don't.

Because you're simply trying to dictate what form the answer should take. You want it to be something easy to digest. You don't want the answer to be that you have to actually know the material.

And do the same for...

No. You don't get to start a Gish gallop and demand we address it all when you then go on to complain about how many threads you've got open and how you'll eventually get to all of it.