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

[Tindarormkimcha]

the Moon has a moment of inertia of a solid body.  Seismic evidence also shows it to be solid.  Those who think it is hollow have nothing to back it up.

Jesus, have you even researched this area?

ALL our planets and the moon are HOLLOW!

I am sure you haven't read a thing about this, have you?

[Jason Thompson]

The evidence is everywhere. The question is why you believe it was all faked.

[Tindarormkimcha]

I thought you silenced me?

how did you conclude that? Do you do the same with the travel to the moon nonsense?

[frenat]

while there is no evidence

One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.

Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!

why do you lie?

[Tindarormkimcha]

while there is no evidence

One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.

Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!

why do you lie?

Duh? Why do you think I lie?

[Tindarormkimcha]

The evidence is everywhere.

THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!

Where are you waiting for?

[Miss Vocalcord]

No I don't believe in Van Allen Radiation.

BUT others do!

However you do claim the spacecraft weren't properly shielded against this non-existent danger, where is your evidence?

[onebigmonkey]

Read very carefully now, "boy" - this will "proof" everything you need to know about who is posting under the name Tindarormkimcha...

Same guy that's been trolling various physics forums for the past few months, making wild and unsupported claims about things he clearly doesn't understand, then whining about ad hominem attacks, government agents and trolls instead of answering legitimate queries about his reasoning.

If he's happy with van Allen as a source, then he will be happy that van Allen himself had no issue with the Apollo missions.

As for photographs, he's stating now that a photograph of the moon does not prove it was taken on the moon, Well, it does when that photograph contains details that were not known about prior to the photograph being taken, or TV images for that matter:



and when those same details are confirmed by probes form other countries like China and India then we have more evidence proving they were on the moon. When those images (still, 16mm and TV) contain time and date specific views of Earth, then there is more proof.

So far I don't see any proof from him other than a quote from a pre-Apollo article stating that people would need shielding from radiation in space. Hardly a revelation these days.

[onebigmonkey]

The evidence is everywhere.

THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!

Where are you waiting for?

I posted one tiny piece - you didn't understand it.

[Tindarormkimcha]

No I don't believe in Van Allen Radiation.

BUT others do!

However you do claim the spacecraft weren't properly shielded against this non-existent danger, where is your evidence?

I can show it to you, but you won't believe it,.


BUT you do religiously believe we have been to the moon.


Why o why do you believe such nonsense?

[onebigmonkey]

while there is no evidence

One simple question for you. What exactly do you consider evidence to be? If you cannot or will not answer that simple question there really is no point in further discussion.

Simple, evidence that is not faked! There is, very simply, none!

why do you lie?

Duh? Why do you think I lie?

Attention? Thrills? Not wanting to be thought of as a complete moron?

[frenat]

And why does nobody here goes into this:

Let me put it another way, why do a  lot of people here  blindly accept the 'evidence' ?

Prove they do.  People here have looked into BOTH sides far more than you have.  Nobody (except yourself) has accepted anything blindly.  the evidence (which you claim doesn't exist but only proves you haven't bothered to look) is completely internally and externally consistent.  In 40+ years, not a single hoax claim has stood up to scrutiny.

[frenat]

And the Apollo craft were shielded. Did you have a point?

No, they were not properly shielded.

Prove it.  I'll bet you won't even try.

And the article you cited is from 1959. Do you think science just stopped at that point?

No, but it seems the space missions have!!
Glad you bring that nonsense up.
First they went to the moon, allegedley, then
they stay UNDER  the Radiation Belt for years and years and years.
That is backwards, isn'it ? It is all soo hilarious to say the least.

when nobody wants to pay to go to the Moon or beyond, what is there between low Earth orbit and the Moon to go to?

And James Van Allen himself stated that such HB claims are baloney. Why do you ignore that?

O yeah, that stupid one always comes up!
Are you aware that he started to say that when he started to work for the liars of   nasa?
Hmm they pay him , don't they? Hmmm and they created the moon hoax!
That is telling us something, isn't it?

that's telling us you have no clue.

[Jason Thompson]

The evidence is everywhere.

THEN SHOW IT MATE! SHOW IT!

Where are you waiting for?

As I said, it is everywhere. Photos, documents, video, film, hardware, testimony, etc. is ALL evidence. Your dismissal of it as fake, or 'not evidence' is the question here.

I ask again, how do you distinguish between fake and genuine?

[frenat]

the Moon has a moment of inertia of a solid body.  Seismic evidence also shows it to be solid.  Those who think it is hollow have nothing to back it up.

Jesus, have you even researched this area?

ALL our planets and the moon are HOLLOW!

I am sure you haven't read a thing about this, have you?

I'm sure I've read more than you.  There is no evidence ANY planets and moons are hollow.  But that fact you think they are shows your level of critical thinking.  Thanks for that.