• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moon Hoax conspiracy

The moon hoax conspiracy is true! The hoaxers say there was no moon landing, and there are idiots who believe them. Lack of education, knowledge, ability to think for themselves, and lack of competent research capabilities are the only problem with the believers of the hoaxers.

The conspiracy is the hoaxers telling lies and the believers spreading it without know they are begin lied to. Without the ability to see the lies, they spread lies. That is a conspiracy of fraud ER.
 
Last edited:
ERichardson said:
But its ok for Conspirader to berate me for a prerogative I haven't exercised. Yes that makes complete sense.

I would rather put people on ignore than report them.
Click to expand...
I did not realize you were replying to Conspiradar's post as you didn't quote it.

If you want to reply to his statements regarding your motivations, feel free; but to suggest that I can not comment on your comments because I have not made a comment con Conspiradar's post or that your comments are somehow fine because of Cosnpiradar's post is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I did not realize you were replying to Conspiradar's post as you didn't quote it.

If you want to reply to his statements regarding your motivations, feel free; but to suggest that I can not comment on your comments because I have not made a comment con Conspiradar's post or that your comments are somehow fine because of Cosnpiradar's post is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I think I will exercise my prerogative to put you on ignore.
 
ERichardson said:
But its ok for Conspirader to berate me for a prerogative I haven't exercised. Yes that makes complete sense.

I would rather put people on ignore than report them.
Click to expand...
You already ignore facts and evidence, why not people who support them! go for it



As for your rehash of the "Moon Hoax" it will be back again and again as long as people fall for lies. It is good to know only 1 out of 20 people are dumb enough to believe the "moon hoax" junk.
 
Last edited:
ERichardson said:
But its ok for Conspirader to berate me for a prerogative I haven't exercised. Yes that makes complete sense.

I would rather put people on ignore than report them.
Click to expand...
Just after I called you a fool (which is exactly what you are, to deny the Moon landings. Only fools do that. Nobody else.), you proceeded to indicate Board rules to me.

Then I find admonitions from the Mods concerning this thread. All for calling you a fool - which is dead-on accurate.

Fool definition: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

That is an accurate description of you, demonstrated by your refusal to accept the reality of space flight and Moon landings. Did Jimmy Fetzer send you to us for harrassment?

Board rules should be changed so that newbie troublemaking fools such as yourself CANNOT create havoc on a message forum. You should be denied reporting privileges until you are out of your teens.
 
ERichardson said:
Running to the mods? I have already recieved three warnings here and had posts deleted, clearly from people reporting me. I have not reported anyone.
Click to expand...

You've had posts deleted? I find that hard to believe. Once in a while a moderator will edit out invective of a particularly offensive nature. Other times posts will be redirected to a more appropriate part of the forum. But for posts to actually be deleted is quite unusual. I'd like to see evidence of this claim. You can take it to PM if you're concerned about further moderator influence.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You asked me two questions, specifically, and I answered them both. I also answered your original question. I'm still waiting for you to confirm that you understand the explanations.

If your interest here is as you claimed in your original post, surely this matter takes precedence? Please proceed.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Just after I called you a fool (which is exactly what you are, to deny the Moon landings. Only fools do that. Nobody else.), you proceeded to indicate Board rules to me.

Then I find admonitions from the Mods concerning this thread. All for calling you a fool - which is dead-on accurate.

Fool definition: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

That is an accurate description of you, demonstrated by your refusal to accept the reality of space flight and Moon landings. Did Jimmy Fetzer send you to us for harrassment?

Board rules should be changed so that newbie troublemaking fools such as yourself CANNOT create havoc on a message forum. You should be denied reporting privileges until you are out of your teens.
Click to expand...

I did NOT report you for calling me a fool. I recieved a pm saying my quote of yours had been edited. If someone reported it it was not me. Please retract that. Somebody else reported it.
 
R.Mackey said:
You've had posts deleted? I find that hard to believe. Once in a while a moderator will edit out invective of a particularly offensive nature. Other times posts will be redirected to a more appropriate part of the forum. But for posts to actually be deleted is quite unusual. I'd like to see evidence of this claim. You can take it to PM if you're concerned about further moderator influence.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You asked me two questions, specifically, and I answered them both. I also answered your original question. I'm still waiting for you to confirm that you understand the explanations.

If your interest here is as you claimed in your original post, surely this matter takes precedence? Please proceed.
Click to expand...

I have pmmed you with the evidence of the post deletion.

I accept your explanation for illumination of the astronaut. I am skeptical regarding the shadows though.

I do not believe the Van Allen radiation would be fatal in the time the astronauts were exposed.
 
ERichardson said:
I have pmmed you with the evidence of the post deletion.

I accept your explanation for illumination of the astronaut. I am skeptical regarding the shadows though.

I do not believe the Van Allen radiation would be fatal in the time the astronauts were exposed.
Click to expand...

It's good to read that you are reading some of the evidence that is being posted to you.

What about the shadows are you still skeptical about?
 
Summary of thread to this point:
* Van Allen Belt would not have killed Apollo astronauts
* Integrated circuits were available for use by NASA
* Necessary heating and cooling system were available
* Camera film was protected
* Illumination in pictures is not abnormal

Remaining open points:
* Foreshortening/convergence of shadows
* Mirror array set up by people vs machine
 
ERichardson said:
I have pmmed you with the evidence of the post deletion.

I accept your explanation for illumination of the astronaut. I am skeptical regarding the shadows though.

I do not believe the Van Allen radiation would be fatal in the time the astronauts were exposed.
Click to expand...
I confirm the PM. ERichardson did have a post deleted, although the impact on the discussion is negligible and I see no reason to challenge the moderators.

Thank you for confirming your understanding of the illumination and radiation issues. This is progress!

As for the shadows, have you read the explanations presented here? Do you see any problem with the examples presented on that page?
 
R.Mackey said:
I confirm the PM. ERichardson did have a post deleted, although the impact on the discussion is negligible and I see no reason to challenge the moderators.

Thank you for confirming your understanding of the illumination and radiation issues. This is progress!

As for the shadows, have you read the explanations presented here? Do you see any problem with the examples presented on that page?
Click to expand...

I disagree that the post deletion was fair.

I cannot see how it is fine for kookbreaker to have the username he has but my post saying "Shame I put the kook on ignore before I broke him" gets deleted.

As for the shadows. Your link is pretty convincing. I did not lie when I said this video was my first foray into moon hoax conspiracies and maybe I posted here in haste without checking the facts.
 
I didn't say it was "fair," I said that I wouldn't challenge the mods. It's their call. In their place I might have reacted differently, but it's not my call to make.

The shadow argument, as I said before, is one that you can test for yourself. If there's an image that you find particularly difficult to believe, we can study it in detail, even construct a model... I happen to have a LEGO LEM sitting on my desk, and I'm 100% confident that we can reconstruct any of the Apollo pictures without resorting to the hoaxer's conclusions.
 
As for the reflective "mirrors" (LRRR - Laser Ranging Retroreflector), the power of the reflected beams would depend on the reflector orientation respective to the incoming rays. To work as intended, they needed to be oriented within 5 degrees of the Earth. Add to this that for the 3 missions that carried them, 11 and 15 would have this sighting line over 20 degrees offset from zenith, and 14 around 15 degrees off. So any automated probe would have to include a mechanism to locate and then align the arrays towards the distant Earth, in addition to all the other tasks. Apollo's reflectors are indeed much more well-aligned than that of the Soviet unmanned probe which also carried one.

Further indications against an unmanned probe are the ALSEP instrumentation packages, which were designed and intended to be deployed manually - included were RTG power supplies which had to be installed by hand, as well as an antenna also requiring hand-alignment, several components which needed to be placed some distance away from the center and so forth. We do not *today* have anything capable of doing this, and developing it would be a substantial and costly task. The ALSEP packages were operational until 1977, and the data provided by them has been highly useful in studying the moon and the lunar environment.
 
ponderingturtle said:
No it is perspective. Look at a railroad track some time. The rails will apear convergent but are not actualy convergent.
Click to expand...
Here's something cool: you know those streams of light and dark that you sometimes see coming away from the Sun at sunset, when there are some clouds towards it? Those are called crepuscular rays, the word crepuscular means having to do with twilight. Sometimes the rays are so well-defined that they extend all the way to the sky opposite the Sun, so you can turn around away from the Sun and see them extending away from you. And if you do that, guess what you'd see?


ERichardson said:
Some of the shedows I saw in the film in the opening post are converging at right angles. That cannot be explained by terrain.
Click to expand...
Can you post links to some of the pictures that you thought couldn't be explained?

By the way, your first few posts here got off to a bad start - we've been visited by many True Believers who just come here because they think they can argue their side, but their minds are closed. It sounded to several people here like you were one of them. But I think those people have misjudged you, so I'll remind you that you're welcome here as long as you present good evidence for whatever you're arguing, and you're willing to change your mind given sufficient evidence.
 
I'm afraid I dont know how to screen cap from a vid. If someone can watch the film and cap the shadow pics please do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom