Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Library. Books. Read.

You can also check out the huge series of space books offered by Apogee Books. The following list should be of interest to you:

* Apollo 11 NASA Mission Reports Vol 1
* Apollo 11 NASA Mission Reports Vol 2
* Apollo 11 NASA Mission Reports Vol 3
* Apollo 12 NASA Mission Reports Vol 1
* Apollo 12 NASA Mission Reports Vol 2
* Apollo 14 NASA Mission Reports
* Apollo 15 NASA Mission Reports
* Apollo 16 NASA Mission Reports
* Apollo 17 NASA Mission Reports Vol 1
* Apollo 17 NASA Mission Reports Vol 2

All of these books feature a wealth of information. All come with either CD-ROM or DVD packed with extra material.
Click to expand...
You people seem to be missing the point. The issue is whether that wealth of information is bogus. Tell me how reading the data that NASA makes public will convince me that it's the true data.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Doesn't this make you a little suspicious?
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
Click to expand...

That sounds like a very insightful site from the domain name:D

It is entirely consistent with woowoo and makes me suspicious that maybe you have asked this a few times previously.

To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.]
Click to expand...
That is an oxymoron. Ralph Rene and the word clever should never be used in the same sentence.:)

You've posted that line of argument a few times already, didn't you like the numerous answers given?

I think it's plausible that......
Click to expand...

....you don't know what the word plausible means.

There are numerous posts you have seen above that demonstrate that Apollo travelled through the outer edges of the VAB. Do you have figures from one of your many 'sources' that shows what exposure that would be?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You people seem to be missing the point. The issue is whether that wealth of information is bogus. Tell me how reading the data that NASA makes public will convince me that it's the true data.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point, you have to provide evidence NASA is wrong, and do it with science. You can't, you are debunked. You cut and paste moronic lies, you can't do the work to prove NASA is wrong, you never will. You are missing the point, you have no point.
 
There are numerous posts you have seen above that demonstrate that Apollo travelled through the outer edges of the VAB. Do you have figures from one of your many 'sources' that shows what exposure that would be?
Click to expand...
It's plausible that there's a section of the space station that's heavily shielded and that they take refuge there whenever they go though the outer edges of the Van Allen Belts.
 
You are missing the point, you have to provide evidence NASA is wrong, and do it with science. You can't, you are debunked. You cut and paste moronic lies, you can't do the work to prove NASA is wrong, you never will. You are missing the point, you have no point.
Click to expand...
The only way I could prove NASA wrong would be to send up my own space probe. If you ask the impossible, you know what people are going to think.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
------------------------------------------------
 
The failed deniers never provide data. They need to provide data to prove the claims, which are bogus claptrap. How many rem would they be exposed to, what it the source of radiation, what type, what are the particles? Why do they post lies instead of science to go with their failed nonsense?

Why do they fail to do the math, to prove their point?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The only way I could prove NASA wrong would be to send up my own space probe. If you ask the impossible, you know what people are going to think. ...
Click to expand...
You make up why you can't! You can't prove NASA is wrong because you made up your claims, you found them with google, and you were fooled by morons. Either you can do science and figure out NASA is right, or you will remain in extreme ignorance and failure.

You missed the point, you have no point, you have no knowledge on the moon landing, save the paranoid woo you post from idiots who made it up.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Also, I want to hear some analyses of this anomaly from Apollo-believers.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5237480&postcount=2245
Click to expand...

But you've had the analysis numerous times. For those who have no idea about your claim, you have freely admitted that you have no scientific background, yet you continually deny the responses given:confused:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=147813&t=51606

So, the motion of Michael Collins' jacket:

Firstly, he is moving in zero-g, microgravity, since the craft is in freefall in an eccentric Earth orbit designed to intersect with the Moon's gravity. There is no up or down, therefore, direction will invariably be a consequence of force.

When he moves in one direction his jacket moves with him, when he moves opposite because he is pushing himself against the hull above him, the jacket will follow him. This is a result of inertia. The changes in direction are also related to (I have never researched what that is) the object that is attached to his midriff. It obviously has significant mass, as it is pulling at his jacket.

The shaking motion of his body, and the loose jacket would cause the rippling effect. Your comment about the cuffs is not relevant, since fabric will pull from the elbow and do this regardless. However in that footage and other cabin footage on the Lunar coast, there are times when clear weightlessness is obvious. I advise you to get the DVD boxset for proof of that.

Gravity is not the force in play for any of this, since if you were to do the same motion change in a horizontal vector, you would get a similar effect.

eta: The video of Sinita jogging ignores the effect of hairspray that she deliberately used to keep her hair taut. Notice the left and right movement that demonstrates a change of direction - inertia.
 
Last edited:
If NASA is providing fake data about Sunspots, Solar Flares and the Van Allen Belts etc, why hasn't this been pointed out by any of the other organisations or countries that have their own independant data?
WHy aren't all the satellite manufacturers and othe space engineering companies around the world that rely on the NASA data complaining that equipment built using the data is not working as expected?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Sorry to be away for so long. I got pretty busy with work this week.


Could you please link to where I said that? That doesn't sound like something I'd say as I'm not in a position to verify something like that.


Please link to the actual discussion and we can discuss whether the arguments had any credibility.


I can read all about the types of radiation that exist. That's not the issue. The issue is whether NASA is giving us the true info on the nature and levels of space radiation. Studying radiation will do nothing to help us know whether NASA is telling us the truth.
Doesn't this make you a little suspicious?
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it's plausible that, when he started working for NASA, he was pressured into changing his findings so they'd be consistent with NASA's plan to fake the moon missions.

This article makes a pretty good case for that.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

This video supports the article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
Click to expand...

Right, studying radiation couldn't possibly tell us anything about radiation.:jaw-dropp
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Doesn't this make you a little suspicious?
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Nope. It sounds more liek Rene was not happy with the consistent data they kept giving him which didn't agree with his predetemined conclusions so he made up an idea that there must be two sets of data with no evidence whatsoever. It is also hilarious that you have fallen for it which shows you have zero critical thinking skills.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You people seem to be missing the point. The issue is whether that wealth of information is bogus. Tell me how reading the data that NASA makes public will convince me that it's the true data.
Click to expand...


You seem to be missing the point: YouTube videos are proof of NOTHING. Now trying examining the absolutely ENORMOUS amount of documentary material available. Which includes video and still photographs, amongst many, many other things.

The fact that you won't even crack open a book tells me all I need to know. You'd rather wallow in self-imposed ignorance than take the opportunity to expand your horizons and do some real learning on a subject.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste...
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Please go into some detail. How can we prove NASA is giving us the correct data?
Click to expand...
NASA is not the only agency with space assets.
Other countries have them.
Private corporations have them.
Amateur clubs have send probes into space.

They are just as open about their data as NASA.
Those data sets all corroborate each other.

And all you have is "I don't wanna believe..."

FatFreddy88 said:
Also, I want to hear some analyses of this anomaly from Apollo-believers.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5237480&postcount=2245
Click to expand...
An anomaly is something one doesn't expect.
If you're looking at something you don't understand everything is an anomaly.
 
You have been told several times now, but just in case it hasn't sunk in: the NASA data is NOT sole source; it has been independently verified by other nations / organisations. That is how we can have confidence in it.
 
I just did another reply to the post. This time I'm going to save it just in case.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The way the flag moves in this clip closes the whole case anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
No it doesn't. It demonstrates that the flag is moving in a vacuum. It oscillates backwards and forwards for 30 seconds. Even if you speed it up double(with astronaut motion then looking way too fast), it still takes 15 seconds to come to a halt. To keep astronaut motion to the criteria you yourself suggest, it would move for 20 seconds (speeded up 1.5 times).
Click to expand...

According to Jarrah White the slow-motion used to simulate lunar gravity is about 67%. It would have to be sped up 1.5 times to see the original speed.

The fabric is clearly heavier on his flag so much less likely to stop quicker as a light fabric would
Click to expand...
This is the flaw in your argument. It looks lighter to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0RsDqmPa_s

If it's lighter, it will come to a stop faster. People can look at both flags and decide for themselves whether it's heaver or lighter.

Now, the so called initial motion that you claim is caused by 'the atmosphere explanation'. Here is a short video demonstrating a wide book falling from height that doesn't move an extremely light object until it is within a few inches of it. The Apollo astronaut is a couple of feet from the flag when this so called initial motion occurs - nobody pushes air of any significance in front of them. Air seeks the path of least resistance and creates a wake to the side of a moving object:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyv4TYpTKo
Click to expand...
In order to show that an alleged anomaly is not an anomaly, the exact situation must be duplicated. The conditions of a falling book will be different from those of a trotting person. I hanged a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light in my living room and trotted by it at aobut a 40 degree angle. It moved away from me just before I got close to it and then back toward me the way the Apollo flag did.

Here is Jarrah White in yet another debunking himself video. He runs past a flag to demonstrate that an air wake will move a flag(which everybody knows anyway). The problem he didn't notice or anticipate was that the flag only started to move as he was level with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc
Click to expand...
In the Apollo footage the flag was at about a 40 degree angle to the astronaut. Jarrah runs by it at a 90 degree angle in that clip.
(do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Flagging the Dead Horses")

If anyone hangs a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trots by it at about a 40 degree angle, he or she will see the the cloth will move the way it did in the Apollo clip.

Now the initial motion itself. It is caused by "an anomaly with the colour wheels on the Apollo camera, compensating for an addition to the screen, and a rapid increase in contrast." In this video that shows the anomaly, the whole flag shifts to the right, including the flagpole itself and the blue part of the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kalT4NGdDsk


Here is a similar effect where a bright suited astronaut entering the shot causes the flag to jump out and expand, "This whole thing was shot on the moon using an RCA TV camera - a field-sequential camera. It has so many anomalies within it as it is transferred to video and ultimately mpeg that these blooming effects can occur."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bld6PWsyIU0
Click to expand...
This video shows that argument to be false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
(do a YouTube search on "The flag that moved")

It's obviously a movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom