I really wonder why people still believe we have send men to the moon.

[bknight]

First off, the A11 astronauts gave NO moon rock samples on their Goodwill tour.  Secondly all samples were 4 small pieces encased in Lucite.  Thirdly the Prime Ministers heirs told the museum it was a moon rock.  Did the museum ask for evidence or just accept the "evidence" because someone else said so?  Check your references before posting this nonsense.

Is that the only thing you can do? empty quotes qwith no reply? Or is it a mistake?

Thanks, now I know you don't read posts my quote taken directly from the post no edits.

[Cat Not Included]

I sense we won't get very far with this one.

Rapid posting invective. Summarily dismissing everything any evidence as fake as a starting point, which I'm sure has a word in logic.
And now a sort of we're in the matrix type conspiracy theories.

Yeah, maybe its time we just stopped messing with him and told him that of course, EVERYONE knows the moon missions were fake. I mean, its like Santa - just a story you tell your kids because its fun for them. We all know we're actually living in an underground cave and the sky is just painted on. What happened with people like Tindarormkimcha? Did his parents just never tell him this stuff when he got old enough?  I mean, he seems to think NASA is real and he doesn't know the moon is just a big spotlight?

[Bob B.]

It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

You obviously don’t know what evidence is.  The thousands of photographs from and around the moon are evidence.  The hours of video from and around the moon are evidence.  The hundreds of pounds of lunar samples are evidence.  The thousands of engineering documents are evidence.  The testimony of those involved is evidence.  The observations of independent witnesses is evidence.  The scientific data obtained is evidence.  Etc.

Like it or not, Tindarormkimcha, all of that IS evidence.  If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position.

it is ALL faked!

Please explain in detail how every piece of existing evidence is faked.

[LunarOrbit]

So now I wonder why people still believe in this non-sense, while there is no evidence we have ever send men to the moon!

Yawn! I remember when conspiracy theorists used to actually try to make a case for why they believe the moon landings were faked. But we haven't seen anyone like that in years. You're boring us, Tindarormkimcha. Are you the best they've got?

NASA has claimed to have landed men on the moon. They have provided photographs and video, and moon rocks. They placed a laser reflector at specific locations on the moon. They took pictures of the Earth from the moon that show cloud patterns that match the weather forecasts for those dates. People watched the rockets launch, and viewed the spacecraft through telescopes. HAM radio operators tracked the spacecraft to and from the moon.  The astronauts and other NASA employees have provided consistent first hand accounts of their experiences for over 40 years. NASA has explained all of the math they used to get the spacecraft to the moon and back. They can even tell you the weight of the ice that formed on the Saturn V rocket before it launched. And all you can do is say "it's all fake!" without giving any details.

Come on.  Do you really think you have made a more convincing argument than NASA? You're a joke.

I'm going to ask you a few questions, and I expect answers.

1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?

[gillianren]

I just don't see the point, here.  I could say, "I don't 'believe.'  I accept the evidence, because all the evidence in the fields I understand meets any reasonable burden of proof.  It is also not physically possible to fake much of that evidence."  And he'd say, "Nuh uh!" or something else intelligent and convincing, and probably throw in a sexist comment while he was at it.  I'm with LO--yawn.

[nomuse]

Meh.

But it did give me a chance to realize why the "moon was designed to make eclipses" argument is so silly. That designer was pretty cruel. Set this whole thing up so only people within a 100 mile wide path would get to see a decent eclipse. Probably three quarters of the planet's population would miss the thing -- and that's weather permitting. To rub salt in, the designer jiggered things up so decades could pass between eclipses.

And still got it "wrong" (unless you happen to like annular eclipses, which I do).

Way back when I was still trying to write SF, I tinkered with a planetary arrangement that would allow an all-night solar eclipse. Time it just right and the sun would never rise for a fortnight. Even using a super-jovian as the primary, though, I think I busted Roche's limit and the magnetic field would probably kill everyone long before they had time to admire an eclipse, but anyhow...!

[onebigmonkey]

LO puts it very eloquently.  People used to try and justify their position and at least try and make an argument.

Now all people seem to think is necessary is to roll up, proclaim their unfounded and sneering disbelief and sit back admiring their achievement. Simultaneously they demand proofs from everyone else.

It's a poor do indeed when the blunder starts to seen as a paragon of hoax believing virtue.

[smartcooky]

When trolls gather in ignorant assemblage.....

Makes me wonder if there is a collective term for trolls?

An inanity? An ignorance? A mania? A twaddle, perhaps?

"A twaddle of trolls!!"

Sounds about right!

How about a "delusion of trolls"?

Yup! Your "delusion" trumps my "twaddle"!

[Tindarormkimcha]

Well, let's be honest now.

Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!


I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.

Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!



All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.

So far, ALL the evidence is fake!




Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS

wrong!!!


And so far, we have

Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)

Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!


I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.




o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?

I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.

[smartcooky]

It is very very simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

The thousands of engineering documents are evidence.

More like"The many hundreds of thousands of engineering documents

If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position

Have you any idea what you are asking for? A coherent argument from a Conspiracy Theorist?

You might as well ask a monkey for an explanation of General Relativity!!

I think we are dealing with a gold-plated fruit cake here folks

[Tindarormkimcha]

More like"The many hundreds of thousands of engineering documents

That is of course NO evidence,., as I pointed out before.
Otherwise the bible would be real! boy o boy.

Or explain to me why you think that is e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e ?

If you think there is something about the evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, then it is up to you to make a coherent argument to support your position

That, of course, is not enirely true. Why? Well isn't it up to the people who claim we have send men to the moon to proof that? So far, this has not been done.

Have you any idea what you are asking for? A coherent argument from a Conspiracy Theorist?

This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.

You might as well ask a monkey for an explanation of General Relativity!!

First of all General Relativity is indeed completely wrong!
But that is another topic. I leave it at that for now.

Furhermore, This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.

I think we are dealing with a gold-plated fruit cake here folks

This is very simply an Ad Hominem. Best to ignore them. Don't mean a thing.

wow! THREE Ad Hominems! That is telling us something.




Now, please people why do you believe the nonsense we have send men to the moon?

I am rather curious.

[Tindarormkimcha]

The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much
lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary
that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties and none of
them could be considered remotely watertight.

... we cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon by rights ought not to be
there. The fact that it is, is one of those strokes of luck almost too good to accept ...
Small planets, such as Earth, with weak gravitational fields, might well lack satellites ...
... In general, then, when a planet does have satellites, those satellites are much smaller
than the planet itself. Therefore, even if the Earth has a satellite, there would be every
reason to suspect ... that at best it would be a tiny world, perhaps 30 miles in diameter.
But that is not so. Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2,160 miles in
diameter. How is it then, that tiny Earth has one? Amazing.

Isaac Asimov

[Tindarormkimcha]

If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it holiow. At
the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous
space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled
into near-Earth trajectory.
It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of
which was filied with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work,
navigation instruments, observation equipment and ali manner of machinery ... in
other words, everything necessary to enable this 'caravelie of the Universe' to serve as a
Noah's Ark of inteliigence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging
a prolonged (thousands of miliions of years) existence and long wanderings through
space (thousands of millions of miles).
Naturaliy, the huli of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the
blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold.
Probably the sheIi is a double-layered affair - the basis a dark armouring of about 20
miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely-packed covering (a thinner
layer - averaging about three miles). In certain areas - where the lunar 'seas' and
'craters' are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.

Sputnik magazine

[BarnabyMoose]

Well, let's be honest now.

Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!


I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.

Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!



All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.

So far, ALL the evidence is fake!




Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS

wrong!!!


And so far, we have

Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)

Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!


I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.




o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?

I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.

What do you consider and accept as evidence?

[DD Brock]

Well, let's be honest now.

Most of the last postings were only a shot of Ad Hominems! CHEAP Ad Hominems that is!


I am NOT trolling. Why would I? I am way too old for that.

Furthermore there was in the above posting talk abaout lot of evidence. but nothing was shown!



All I ask for is evidence that we have send men to the moon.

So far, ALL the evidence is fake!




Let's take another example: the reflectors, allegedly put on the moon by astroNOTS

wrong!!!


And so far, we have

Fake moon rocks
lying astroNOTS
the 'c' rock (studio props)

Oh this one is also hilarious! nasa lost the moontapes!!!!


I love to look ar their non-sense. A lot seem to even be air brushed.
actually they are artists and nothing more.




o btw nasa is a militairy organization. Now that is telling us something, right?

I don't understand people take a psychopathic organisation like nasa seriously.

Yes, we heard you the first time. Now are you going to back your claims up with anything resembling supporting evidence, or are your merely going to keep throwing tired old hoax believer accusations  and wild conspiracy claims out there? Because that's all you've done so far.

Your word ain't good enough, in other words.