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

[raven]

DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!

If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.

If documents don't prove a thing, why did you quote (mine) one when Doctor Van Allen says that they exist?
Incidentally, how long was the exposure in the Van Allen Scientific American document?
*new post*
Poison is on the dose,Tindarormkimcha. A three year long journey to Mars is going to expose the astronauts to a lot more radiation from cosmic rays than Apollo's, fortnight at most, brief sorties. And, again, you are quoting a document!

about quoting, ah well, what's a guy going to do, mate?

Exactly, what are you going to do? Why are documents proof for you, but not for us? He was working for NASA when he wrote that article, incidentally. I found a copy of the whole article, and it talks about days of exposure at the maximum being a danger. How long was Apollo in the (document proven) Belts, what of that part was in the maximum exposure area.

Further more, unrecognised circular reasoning.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Allan F]

André the Giant?

[Luke Pemberton]

Indeed, I've never seen anyone who can close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears for 19 whole pages.  Screaming "No, that's fake!" over and over again is funny for about five pages.  Now it's just sad.

It's why I did not get involved. At least Fattydash and Neil Baker attempted to present an argument for their doubts.

[Peter B]

can't sleep yet. so, for a short litle while...


What a lot of hogwash again.

Anyway, now it is clear that the rock with the "c" is indeed a prop and fake. we can continue

Let start with the Van Allen Belts.

Here a lot of circular reasoning is used. Like 'they went to the moon, so the must have passed the Van Allen Belt."

Yes, sure. And some even don't see how flawed that 'logic' is!

I've got a better idea.

How about you tell us:

1. Was the Cold War was faked?

2. Are all spacecraft fake? Or only Apollo and Sputnik? Or some other combination?

3. How has NASA convinced thousands of scientists from around the world not to make any claims about fake moon rocks for more than 40 years?

Thanks, um, sport.

[raven]

André the Giant?

Inigo Montoya

[Cat Not Included]

Indeed, I've never seen anyone who can close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears for 19 whole pages.  Screaming "No, that's fake!" over and over again is funny for about five pages.  Now it's just sad.

It's why I did not get involved. At least Fattydash and Neil Baker attempted to present an argument for their doubts.

I think it is awesome how the fine folks here will spend lots of effort explaining and refuting even fairly deluded ideas.

But when you are dealing with someone who's unwilling to even spend the effort on coherent statements to plausibly pass a Turing test, its just not worth the trouble.

[frenat]

I did read it.  Obviously you did not.

I did, but it is still circular reasoning.

No, it is not.  Should I use shorter sentences?  Apollo short, Mars long.  short less bad rays.  long more bad rays.  More bad rays bad.

OK, "More bad rays bad" made me laugh for real, lol!

Me too.  I was laughing when I wrote it.

[Allan F]

André the Giant?

Inigo Montoya

close

[dwight]

Still you have to agree, it was thoughful of him, despite being unable to sleep, to come in and check on us.

[Abaddon]

Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:

An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in  your character on the basis of your arguments.

If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.

If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.

You clearly have no clou to what an Ad Hominem is!

Your persistent spelling errors identify you and your persistent lies. What is odd is that you seem utterly unaware of it.

[smartcooky]

DOCUMENTS DON'T PROOF A THING!

If you really think they do, please be so kind and explain why? Thank you.

What are you smoking there chum? Must be some powerful stuff to make you so delusional

Apollo astronauts walked on the moon. There are mountains of evidence to prove, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ANY doubt, that it really did happen...

the thousand of photographs
the hours of film footage
the hundred of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon
the hundreds of thousands of eyewitness accounts of those involved in the project
the accounts of private citizens who were not involved in the project (HAM Radio operators)
the 24 personal  accounts from astronauts who travelled to the moon, including 12 who walked on its surface

This is ALL evidence that Apollo really happened as claimed, and the vast majority of the world accept the reality of the Apollo missions as fact. Therefore, if you want to claim that it did not, the burden of proof is upon YOU to supply the evidence to back up your claim. So far, all we have had from you is hand-waving, baseless dismissals, ignorance, contradiction and a wide range of stupid unilateral comments, all of which go to show that, not only do you not have any evidence, but even if you did, you would be incapable of presenting it in any coherent fashion.

IMO, LO should put you on moderation until you answer the questions put to you, and show us that you are capable of honest debate.
     

[Abaddon]

Now I have a question for you, Tindarormkimcha.  In your opinion, what is it about a manned moon landing that prevented NASA from doing it.

So much. Too dangerous,too complex, the rocket was way too small.and so on and so forth.

Please explain in detail what about it was too dangerous.

Please explain in detail what about it was too complex.

Please provide your analysis that proves the rocket was too small.

Please provide a detailed explanation of the additional items that you lump together as "so forth".

Dunno, are you so hard of thinking that you cannot quote correctly? Are you really that moronic? It seems so...

Cant; you read, mate=

Time to call it a day.

[/quote]

[frenat]

for those who aren't following the banned posters thread, Tindarormkimcha was put on moderation today.

[Abaddon]

Think the intention was clear, he/she is on a fishing expedition and getting the bites.

He/she will never present evidence, cannot and will not.

Starve the fire.

Agreed. Ignoring this troll seems to be the best course of action.

Really? based on what? That I see the whole thing as one big Hoax?

Does that scare you, or what?

Nope. It makes me wonder why you are flat out bonkers.

[Luke Pemberton]

for those who aren't following the banned posters thread, Tindarormkimcha was put on moderation today.

That's the point where I joined the thread, once I found he was moderated, as I couldn't give a rat's chuff before that. There was simply no substance.