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

[Jason Thompson]

Again I ask, Tinda: how do you distinguish between what is genuine and what is fake? I will continue to ask until I either get an answer or you get banned for trolling.

And turning it back on me is pointless. You are the one making claims. As yet I have made none and therefore have no defence required.

[raven]

And I ask again,Tindarormkimcha, why 'documents' are evidence for you (ignoring that you simply quote mine them without understanding) but not for us? Are you really so blind as to not see the double standard in that?

[Tindarormkimcha]

And still NO evidence.


G'night!

[onebigmonkey]

In all the nonsense about the c-rock, it often gets forgotten that the photograph in question is also to be found in the Preliminary Science Report published in 1972 - probably because online copies tend to be poor quality scans, rather than the full colour versions in the print edition.

Like the one I own:



My copy belonged to El Camino College and was ordered by James Lund of their Physics Department. I am fairly confident that a number on the address label on the back '730413' is the date - April 13 1973.

So this photograph, published in 1972 in this book, was available for public inspection by students in the Physics Department at this college from 1973 onwards.

Somehow this image has less veracity than a scan on the internet.

Some more on the crock that is the c-rock:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAOApqFQoTCIP3jOOOosgCFYU7Pgod6JcJqg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F7980806%2F1022074389%2Fname%2FMoon&usg=AFQjCNEy3KBOe9MBR_XuiB8YZ50dWPEbgg&sig2=C6XFud7GH6dE40EmuHqQhg

Tinderbutt needs to prove all that wrong.

[raven]

Besides, why would NASA or Kubrick use a prop labelling system for a set that would require hundreds, if not thousands of unique rocks that only handles 26 separate props. Moreover, why would he put it on the side, instead of on the bottom, even if he were to do such a thing?

[Bob B.]

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 ?

Engineering documents are evidence of the moon landings just as a suicide note is evidence of an apparent suicide.  It supports the physical evidence and oral testimony.

Suppose that a person is found dead in bed of an overdose with a half empty bottle of sleeping piles on the nightstand.  Also on the nightstand is a suicide note written by the victim.  Friends and family testify that the victim had been very depressed lately and was acting suicidal.  All of that together is strong evidence that the person committed suicide.  The note by itself may not be proof, but it is corroborating evidence.

Now let’s consider NASA, who says they went to the moon.  Not only is there the testimony of thousands of people who were involved in the missions, but there is physical evidence in the form of lunar samples and spacecraft hardware.  To go along with the hardware are the related engineering documents.  NASA doesn’t just say they went to the moon, they show us how they did it, and the how is in the documents.  The documents are a major component in the body of evidence.  They alone aren't proof that we went, but they do answer any questions about Apollo's feasibility from an engineering standpoint.

Not having the documents is like you claiming that everything is fake without providing any of the details of how it was faked.  For example, your claim that the rocket was too small is completely baseless unless you can provide an engineering analysis to show why it was too small.  That analysis would be a document that supports your argument.  Neither I nor anyone else here will take you seriously unless you can produce the necessary supporting documentation.
 
 

[sts60]

Supporting documentation?  Tindarormkimcha hasn't even put together a coherent argument.

Tindarormkimcha, up til now I have done you the favor of treating you like an adult.  But you have yet to act like one, so until you do, all you get is this reminder:

1. You don't know what you're talking about. 
2. You're not even dimly aware of the scale of the evidence you reflexively deny.
3. Your claims, such as they are, are regurgitated drivel you've eagerly lapped up from various conspiracy crackpots who don't know what they're talking about, either.  Meanwhile, you tell people who have studied the subject that they just believe what they're told.  Fortunately, the grown-ups have no difficulty seeing through this flimsy hypocrisy.
4. Never mind being right; your claims aren't even internally consistent.
5. There are people here who do understand the subject, and would gladly help you learn, but for whatever reason you prefer to remain ignorant.
6. You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you can't fool anyone here.

[frenat]

And still NO evidence.


G'night!

None from you.  Plenty from the other side.

[Peter B]

And still NO evidence.


G'night!

No evidence?

How about:

1. The Soviets accepted the reality of Apollo at the time during the Cold War when revealling a hoax would have had a huge propaganda effect.

2. Thousands of scientists have examined the Apollo rocks in the 40+ years since they were retrieved. They universally accept that the rocks show evidence of having come from the Moon - formation in a low-gravity vacuum, alteration by the solar wind, impacts by dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second.

3. People from countries other than the USA tracked and listened to the spacecraft in real time.

There's three pieces of evidence, and not one of them relies on NASA.

How about responding to that, cobber?

[bknight]

And still NO evidence.


G'night!

No evidence?

How about:

1. The Soviets accepted the reality of Apollo at the time during the Cold War when revealling a hoax would have had a huge propaganda effect.

2. Thousands of scientists have examined the Apollo rocks in the 40+ years since they were retrieved. They universally accept that the rocks show evidence of having come from the Moon - formation in a low-gravity vacuum, alteration by the solar wind, impacts by dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second.

3. People from countries other than the USA tracked and listened to the spacecraft in real time.

There's three pieces of evidence, and not one of them relies on NASA.

How about responding to that, cobber?

Not likely to happen as his/her past behavior has exhibited.

[Trebor]

...
How about responding to that, cobber?

Somehow I get the feeling that his answer is that everything is fake and everyone is lying. Even him.

[Chief]

Just read the whole thread.

Give it up everyone, this Tindersminkywinky guy is either a total moron or is just pulling your chains. You will never get any information out of him and you will just get frustrated.

Ignore him, he is likely a 12 year old kid who has just discovered the boy blunder's YouTube videos. After 22 pages he hasn't given anything that is close to an argument or explanation on his views. He thinks all the planets are hollow, NASA are nothing but liars, everyone is a freemason blah, blah, blah. It's the usual case of not having enough intelligence to tie his own show laces let alone understand the science of space exploration.

If he could provide a coherent argument you may get somewhere but I seriously doubt it.

[LunarOrbit]

And still NO evidence.


G'night!

Tindarormkimcha

I have placed you under moderation for trolling. Being under moderation means that your posts will require my approval before they can appear in the forum.

From the forum rules:

8. Trolling

Trolling is not tolerated for very long on this forum, so if you make a claim or accusation you better be prepared to defend it.

The definition of trolling on this forum is:

a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.

You have repeatedly made claims without providing any kind of supporting evidence. You have repeatedly ignored comments from others that dispute your claims. This leads me to believe that you are only posting here in order to provoke us for your own amusement.

In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:

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?

Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.

If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.

Honestly, I am tired of your "it's all fake!" accusations without any proof. I'm at the point now where I feel like if you can't prove your case then you aren't worthy of our time.

NASA has made their claims and provided supporting evidence. If you expect us to believe that NASA's evidence is fake then by all means, prove it. But simply saying it is fake without providing any proof is tantamount to admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

[nomuse]

Well, I also wrote let start somewhere  with some 'evidence'

A lot of people look very 'hyper' from here,and seem to be 'all over the place"

And don't seem to be able to focus properly.
 

So. start discussing some evidence?


Like hmmm the 'c' on the rock? Just a prop?!

I know someone else will have already covered this, but if I read through all the posts that were made while I was away at work, I'd be left with nothing to contribute.

Can you show in any way that a "C" is typical and/or expected on items of set dressing within the motion picture or television world? Can you show other examples? I'm sure that with all the sites out there (like IMDB) that love to list on-screen goofs, you should have no trouble coming up with examples.

[gillianren]

Thank you, LO.  I, for one, don't find this fun.  I find it depressing.