Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
You started this thread to spam post about radiation. Why are you going off-topic by your second post in it?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's off-topic. Space radiation is probably why they faked the moon missions. I said that in post #1. If I make a statement like that, shouldn't I back it up?
 
So if we prove (again, like on every other forum) that the "space radiation" wouldn't be a reason to fake it, then your house of cards falls in your beandip?
 
I've opined before and I'll do it again, to me they look hung over in that press conference. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
This isn't proof of a hoax in and of itself. It's mere circumstantial evidence. The real evidence is the anomalies in the footage.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I don't think it's off-topic. Space radiation is probably why they faked the moon missions. I said that in post #1. If I make a statement like that, shouldn't I back it up?
Click to expand...

You should maybe back up your first comment with real evidence rather than vomiting a gish-gallop flood of useless and irrelevant links.
 
So if we prove (again, like on every other forum) that the "space radiation" wouldn't be a reason to fake it, then your house of cards falls in your beandip?
Click to expand...
I've never seen it proven. I've seen people give less-than-convincing explanations and then just assume it had been proven. Prove it right now.

My stand on space radiation is "I don't know". In order to know, I'd have to send up my own probe to measure it. All I have is second-hand info so there's now way to know what's bogus and what isn't.

In this post from another thread I posted some info on why we can't trust what we read.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7177215&postcount=2387
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This isn't proof of a hoax in and of itself. It's mere circumstantial evidence. The real evidence is the anomalies in the footage.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll file your circumcised evidence under "unsupported nonsense" and move on then, shall I?

Now, how do your "anomalies in the footage" explain 840lbs of rock and soil samples returned from the moon, including multi-meter-long core samples?
 
just so you understand, I won't be clicking on any one of your links to a forum thread. "I posted some info" is not admissible evidence.
 
Instead of all that information, which is mostly off topic based on the thread title, why don't you pick one or two single pieces of evidence you think support best the hoax idea, ones which, if shown to be false, would change your mind and confirm the landing was real, and start a new thread focused on those?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
In this post from another thread I posted some info on why we can't trust what we read.
Click to expand...
On what criteria do you decide what to believe and what not to believe?
 
maybe shmaybe woulda coulda shoulda. plauible shmausible.

Bovine excrement of a most uncomposted nature.

Can you PROVE any of these contentions? Or are they just a air-filled as my "hangover" theory for the press conference?

Robot craft
a) have to be created
b) have to be tested
c) have to be launched
d) require ground operators

Can you find any evidence AT ALL for the above?
 
Last edited:
Geez... this wide-ranging posting frenzy is the sort of thing a kid does when he's discovered old, old "information".

FatFreddy88: Have you just recently discovered these conspiracy theories?
 
Instead of all that information, which is mostly off topic based on the thread title, why don't you pick one or two single pieces of evidence you think support best the hoax idea, ones which, if shown to be false, would change your mind and confirm the landing was real, and start a new thread focused on those?
Click to expand...
This looks like pretty clear evidence that they faked being halfway to the moon. There's still lots of other evidence though so this being proved wrong wouldn't make the other evidence go away.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)


Again, snipped for compliance with Rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FatFreddy88 said:
There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain this. They may just be lying to us about the rocks. Some of them may have been collected by robot craft.

I posted some info on that in this post from another thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7177215&postcount=2387
Click to expand...

Hmmm, no you didn't, you just flooding another vomit pile of links that say nothing.

Your "explanation" is childish. Robots of the era could barely get back a few milligrams of dust. If 'they' are lying about the rocks they sure got a lot of prominent people to go along with them.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Geez... this wide-ranging posting frenzy is the sort of thing a kid does when he's discovered old, old "information".

FatFreddy88: Have you just recently discovered these conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...

Half of his links are to his own posts on other fora under other names. He seems to think those threads somehow prove something. And they do -- in most of them he gets chewed out by mods for violating ToS, and every thing he "thinks" gets proven wrong. I guess he thinks because we won't follow those links he gets to invoke their pwoer without remembering the buckets of FAIL slopped on him.
 
tl;dr

If you want to highlight a raft of 'data', summarise it and post links to what you have clearly C&Ped from. Even scientific papers do it, it's called an abstract... If you leap straight to the main body of the paper no one will read it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom