Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

That is my point Jay......

No. Here's your post again.

​

Clearly you already had in mind that "crumbling away" necessarily meant some process that precluded combustion. I am now holding you accountable for your assumptions. Kindly do not try to change horses.



What do you think forensic engineers do? What do you think is the product of their work?



Nonsense. Your "interest" began with asserting that it couldn't have happened, and that this therefore proved fraud. When pressed, you admitted that computations would need to be done to determine whether or not combustibility was plausible. Now nearly a month later you have failed to produce any such rigor of computation, although in its stead you have unloaded a veritable truckload of obfuscation and backpedaling on a daily basis.

Now you're desperately fishing for hints and help, in the manner you've used so often before. You are now saying you're "interested" in the process, hoping one of us knowledgeable posters will post a lengthy and correct analysis of the problem that you can then later take credit for.



And I shall continue to ignore them until you can demonstrate competence.

I asked you to demonstrate your competence by identifying and discussing the standard work in empiricism in forensic engineering. You can't do it, therefore I have no interest in your newfound claims to expertise.



Asked and answered.



Asked and answered.

Further, the "crumbling away" from your news article that you have tried to apply also to the aluminum theory is not relevant to it. You are apprently trying to bait people into thinking the article substantiates such a claim so that you can complain further of its absence from the formal report.



No.

As I mentioned, this is the classic conspiracy theorist's gambit: to pretend that no special expertise is necessary to find fraud in the work of professionals that has stood the test of time for decades. Because conspiracy theorists never have appropriate credentials or qualifications, they redefine the problem to make whatever expertise they have seem applicable. That's cheating.

You previously admitted that it would take a great deal of expertise, equipment, and time to properly investigate the Apollo 13 final report. You said this in order to excuse yourself from the burden of having to provide the promised rigor. You attempted to make a case that the problem was so intractably hard that we were irrational for forcing you to do it. Now you're saying it's child's play -- but you still want others to do your homework and provide the rigor.

Further your claims to expertise once again fail the test of consistency. You said you were "eminently qualified" to criticize these professional findings, and that such expertise consisted of "multiple degrees in science." So in one sentence you simultaneously defined what you believed appropriate expertise consisted of, and claimed to have it.

Now you're saying that all you've had is one introductory chemistry class 40 years ago, and that this is all anyone ever needs. No one is interested in watching you flip-flop every day for months. Time to put up or shut up.



You have an offer on the table right now to discuss this in person with professional engineers in your area. You clearly have no intention of taking it, so I write you off as nothing more than anonymous bluster.

I think it's clear who the fraud is in this case.

That is my point Jay......You have not been paying attention. I pointed out in a previous post that Lovell wrote in his book that most of the Teflon had been "cooked away" with the oxygen.

So what I would like to know from the Apollo 13 investigators is given the fact that the melting point of Teflon is 600 degrees F roughly, and given that 10-20 joules was enough to ignite some of the Teflon and start the fire, and given that the tank was heated to ONE THOUSAND DEGREES F, lot more juice in there then as compared with the the 10-20 joule spark, "how was it that they determined all of the original 0.13 pounds of Teflon remained for combustion?" Sure it did not "crumble away", but maybe it melted off the wires, or some was burned off. How can 0.13 pounds of Teflon combust if it is not near the spark? How can all 0.13 pounds be available if the tank has been heated to ONE THOUSAND DEGREES FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME?

Terminology aside, and I hope it would be rather obvious that my posting Mr. Cortright's own words was intended as a bit of satiric irony, "crumbling", really now, call it what you like Mr. Cortright, it is incumbent upon you to show us what happened to the Teflon. If you say such and such happened, you must show us with simple experiments why that is the case. For example, the obvious way to start would be to heat an exact replica tank to 1000 degrees F, just as was alleged to have happened to Apollo 13's O2 tank two and then examine the contents. show us the wires. Show us where is the Teflon, how is the Teflon. Show us where is the aluminum, how is the aluminum. More importantly, if this is a real investigation, show yourselves these things.

If the investigators are claiming that this is what happened, then they must have experimental support. The investigators are not entitled to simply say Teflon cooked of the wires without providing experimental evidence directly related to the alleged experience of the wires(being heated to 1000 degrees F starting in a cryogenic oxygen bath until all the O2 is removed by the heating process). They provide details of experiments to be sure, but they are experiments outside the context of what they claimed was the actual experience of the wires. AND, they provide absolutely no data, absolutely NO experimental details with regard to the quantification of the Teflon available for combustion. They SIMPLY CLAIM WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT that 0.13 pounds were available. This simply cannot be the case. All 0.13 pounds of Teflon was not available for combustion, by necessity of the alleged forensics, some Teflon came off the wires so those naked wires could serve as the sparking source. If the Teflon is off the wires, even if the Teflon were to remain chemically intact, which is rather questionable, this no longer wire insulating Teflon would no longer be anywhere near the 10-20 joule spark. Where is the Teflon, what is the Teflon, how much is the Teflon that indeed combusted? How MUCH was there? WHY that much? My little experiment above would provide the answer.

The same is true with regard to the Cortright investigation's claims about aluminum as a potential fuel source. What aluminum burned? How much? How was the tank changed to prevent aluminum burning again if such and such was the circumstance of aluminum combustion?

In light of these simple considerations, it is easy to see how FRAUDULENT the Cortright report is with regard to the details of their solution, their chemistry.

This is one of the most compelling findings in the history of Apollo, more relevant to "Apollo truth" than the "One small step" line of Armstrong. The fact that the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee presented to the American Congress and We The People a fraudulent forensic report is one of the most significant events in all of 20th century U.S. history. And to think that you read it here first, that this is its first presentation. It is indeed an interesting world in which we live.....

 

[Patrick1000]

A new, quick and important point with regard to the Apollo 13 fraud

It is claimed that the very extended LOS time during Apollo 13 reentry was due to the Odyssey's coming in too "shallow" and so increasing the transit time through the atmosphere.

But this simply cannot be the case as the ship was allegedly being tracked with an insane degree of accuracy as it hit the atmosphere. Its speed and angle in were known and known well. Indeed, the Odyssey landed "right on target", right near the awaiting pick up vessel. Matter-0-fact, the splash was super accurate, right at the planned anticipated coordinates(well within the range anticipated for the point of splash assuming the trajectory tracking accurate).

So what does that mean? Well obviously it means the whole dang thing is way way way FAKE. One cannot have both a direct hit splash wise, direct hit landing wise, and at the same time a too shallow approach with a prolonged journey through the atmosphere as a result. If such was the case, if they were indeed shallow, they would have landed long, well long. They did not land long and so one concludes the splash to be FAKE, WAY FAKE.

The details as to what actually happened are yet to be worked out, revealed. That said, the most likely explanation is the astronauts were dropped by way of a cargo craft in their phony Odyssey. The timing for the on target drop was a bit off, a bit late, hence the prolonged LOS. NASA's explanation simply does not fit the simple facts.

Pretty obvious that one, isn't it?

 

[Erock]

Anyhoo, engineers involved or not, my interest is in the purported mechanism of the tank explosion. Why was there a fire in the tank? What burned? How much? How much energy was released? And was all of this commensurate with the alleged damage to the "ship" pretending to float there in cislunar space".

Sounds like you want other people to provide you with the answers. Everybody knows why, because you have no clue, what with your 1 year's chemistry, your teflon wouldn't burn claim, laughable backpeddling and now a little remark at the end of that statement showing complete ignorance.

Yes, you will say it's flippant, but it wasn't. The craft is not 'floating' anywhere. At the distance of 200,000 miles from Earth during lunar coast it was travelling at close to 3,600mph.

I expect you think satellites at the L2 and L3 points also 'float' in the same way to support your ludicrously untenable theory

Now, for the 4th time....

"The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later."

Now, that is just absurd. Explain how this works. I am not the only person who has pointed out the forehead slapping stupidity of your assertions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense...

I believe you mentioned you were a doctor.

A year's worth of high school chemistry is less than adequate if one wishes to enter medical school.

Do you think this will encourage anyone to believe anything you say?

 

[abaddon]

I am not an engineer Jay, I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense....

So...no chemistry when you were training to be a doctor? Really?

 

[R.A.F.]

I am not an engineer Jay...

Yet you presume to tell engineers that they are wrong....how very ignorantly pompous of you...

 

[Tomblvd]

Uh, doc, if you were a real medical doctor (or dentist, podiatrist, etc.), you would have been required to take AT LEAST one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry. Although most pre-med majors require many more than that.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about taking these courses in college, prior to applying to med school. Most applicants are flush with chem classes. You could not have been accepted into med school without any college chemistry.

 

[Hans]

Pretty obvious that one, isn't it?

Yes Patrick it pretty obvious you're trying to change the subject again to avoid the teflon calculation; your puting or shuting up on the debate and not providing the proof of you being an expert, ie a doctor.

 

[Hans]

Uh, doc, if you were a real medical doctor (or dentist, podiatrist, etc.), you would have been required to take AT LEAST one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry. Although most pre-med majors require many more than that.

So how do you explain this glaring discrepancy?

Easy answer: not a doctor

 

[sts60]

Uh, doc, if you were a real medical doctor (or dentist, podiatrist, etc.), you would have been required to take AT LEAST one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry. Although most pre-med majors require many more than that.

So how do you explain this glaring discrepancy?

By claiming he's not a doctor, which he's already done in addition to claiming he is a doctor - which conclusively demonstrates he's lying.

Since one has to be either a doctor or not a doctor, I'll take Door #2 based on his general ineptitude and medical handwaving. Unlike DoctorTea, I have had primary responsible for patient care, and that's just as a measly volunteer FF/EMT-B. Of course, sometimes that means doing chest compressions on the way to the hospital, and sometimes it just means pointing out to the woozy guy in the hotel lobby at 2 AM that he's not wearing any pants.

 

[JayUtah]

That is my point Jay......You have not been paying attention.

You're right. I usually tune out after the first crippling error in your claims, because until you fix the glaring error there is little else to be considered. There's only so much arrogant lay posturing I can deal with, and I have no desire to read your meandering, largely irrelevant walls of text.

I pointed out in a previous post that Lovell wrote in his book that most of the Teflon had been "cooked away" with the oxygen.

"Cooked away" is not an appropriate technical term, and Jeffrey Kluger did not participate in the investigation. Please stop trying to use popular sources as if they were scientific treatises. I'm not going to wallow in your equivocations.

How can 0.13 pounds of Teflon combust if it is not near the spark?

You suppose it is not near the spark, because you're trying to interpret various casual descriptions written by and for laymen.

Yes, I can give you a 500-word essay on the fracture mechanics of thermally stressed fluoropolymers, and another 500-word essay on the nature of flame propagation in a vacuum, but based on your past behavior you would either ignore it or claim it as your own. So now you don't get it. Instead you get a renewed request for you to provide the rigor you promised. "I took chemistry in high school," is insufficient.

If the investigators are claiming that this is what happened, then they must have experimental support.

Asked and answered.

In light of these simple considerations, it is easy to see how FRAUDULENT the Cortright report is with regard to the details of their solution, their chemistry.

Then it should be easy for you to find a licensed chemical engineer who is willing to go on record endorsing your claims. Can you?

The fact that the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee presented to the American Congress and We The People a fraudulent forensic report is one of the most significant events in all of 20th century U.S. history.

Or conversely, the fact that these reports and their implications, methodologies, and findings have been vigorously studied and debated in thousands of engineering classrooms all over the world for four decades, and are being disputed only here and now by one anonymous bike repairman with a high-school chemistry education, is proof that the conspiracy theory you propose is based on the shakiest possible foundation.

 

[Patrick1000]

Yes and no.......

Sounds like you want other people to provide you with the answers. Everybody knows why, because you have no clue, what with your 1 year's chemistry, your teflon wouldn't burn claim, laughable backpeddling and now a little remark at the end of that statement showing complete ignorance.

Yes, you will say it's flippant, but it wasn't. The craft is not 'floating' anywhere. At the distance of 200,000 miles from Earth during lunar coast it was travelling at close to 3,600mph.

I expect you think satellites at the L2 and L3 points also 'float' in the same way to support your ludicrously untenable theory

Now, for the 4th time....

"The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later."

Now, that is just absurd. Explain how this works. I am not the only person who has pointed out the forehead slapping stupidity of your assertions.

Yes and no.....

I imagine the Americans feared a photo of 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east by the Ruskies in real time(Luna 15 was lurking). That said, the Ruskies were doing the same stuff we were/are, weaponizing space in a general sense, weaponizing the moon, and they were not going to blow the whistle in any overt/public way.

The main reason to hide the "landing site location" was to keep it from the general public, including Apollo Program non-fraud-insiders. If you were to say the LM is at such and such a place, then a garden variety, lunar terrain familiar geologist would say, "Hey, that's not 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east", that place looks like such and such". Bit extra tricky here because the terrain is/was featureless to begin with, both the bogus fraudulent moonscapes of the Apollo 11 staged pics and the genuine lunar landscape at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

That said, my point is easy to prove by simply asking oneself the question, "why Armstrong did not photograph LITTLE WEST CRATER?" The astronauts allegedly did not know where they were "exactly" as Aldrin is fond of saying, so the obvious thing to do would be to photograph the most distinctive landmark(s). In this case, LITTLE WEST CRATER would have been the Golden Gate Bridge. Were the Apollo 11 Mission Real, then Armstrong and Aldrin would in addition to being EXPLICITLY instructed to photograph distinctive landmarks such as LITTLE WEST CRATER, they would know this would be the thing to do simply given the context of the situation.

So if it was announced in real-time where the Eagle landed, THE GARDEN VARIETY, NOT IN ON THE FRAUD GEOLOGIST THERE AT MISSION CONTROL WOULD SHOUT, "TELL 'EM TO WALK OVER TO LITTLE WEST CRATER AND PHOTOGRAPH IT".

Get it? They fear pressure from within the mission, Apollo 11 Mission personal would tell the astronauts to DOCUMENT THE DISTINCTIVE LANDMARKS OF WHICH THOSE NON-FRAUD-INSIDER PERSONAL WERE ACUTELY AWARE. IN THIS WAY, THE ROCKS AND SO FORTH COULD BE "UNDERSTOOD" IN THEIR RIGHTFUL CONTEXT. This point cannot be overemphasized and proves Apollo fraudulence without a hint of the remotest doubt.

Armstrong claimed he walked over to LITTLE WEST CRATER, and he never took a photo of it?

Right there BOOM, Apollo is proven fraudulent......

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 ZERO, SCAM OFF, WE HAVE SCAM OFF, APOLLO 11 SCAM OFF

 

[FatFreddy88]

It really doesn't. For one thing it's simply your opinion, which you haven't presented any good reason to treat as especially valid.

I've shown the footage to a few people and they all immediately said, "That's in gravity".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

This is such clear proof of a hoax it closes the whole case. In space there is no up or down and in that clip there's an obvious up and an obvious down.

Saying that one photo or short snatch of video, often obtained from second or third hand sources, looks strange still leaves a vast mass of evidence that points to the moon landings being real.

There are plausible explanations for all of that "Evidence" that the missions were real and there's a ton of evidence that the missions were faked.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

If just one case of clear proof of a hoax appears, all of your "Evidence" that the missions were real falls by the wayside.

Define "looks right". What are your qualifications to know?

Common sense says that an object moving in zero-G will not stop moving and change directions unless a force makes that happen. In the footage of Collins' jacket corner bouncing up and down there's no identifiable force making it stop going up and go back down except for gravity. Compare it to the footage of the straps in the other video.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7226888&postcount=2734

Anyone who actully watches the footage can see that this isn't the case. The corner gets pulled upward but the fabric is too loose to be pushed back downward.
How do you know this?

When the fabric bounces, it folds. Fabric that's stiff enough to push something down would not fold. The movements are not just horizontal. There are up and down movements that could not happen in zero-G.

Come on Jay. I want your opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you don't. You want me to acknowledge you. You lost the privilege of debating me in 2007. I will not validate your continued fixation.

No I don't. I want you to give your analysis of the anomaly. This is a perfectly legitimate Apollo-related request. You're the webmaster of the Clavius site.
http://www.clavius.org/

There's no reason for you to refuse to address this.

There's a large object hanging down from his chest area connected to a plastic hose. It is banging into his jacket. You have been shown this in the other thread.

That object is not moving in a way that would make the corner stop going upward and go back down. The corners of the jacket in the earth footage are moving the same way and there's no large objectd banging his chest.

The back of his jacket is all puffed out with air - explain this please.

It just looks loose to me. We can't see what's under it. What does this have to do with the way the corner moves? I can't see any relevance.

There is no anomaly only your persistent ill-informed analysis. How exactly can you get 'careless' on a diving plane? Please explain this too, I am looking for good stundie material.

In a diving plane zero-G can be simulated for about twenty five seconds if I remember correctly. The theory is that they were going up and diving down repeatedly to get enough fake footage. If there's some footage that shows gravity, it means they got careless and left that footage in during the editing.

Baiting. You had your butt kicked at the politicalforum, and from what everybody could see, you ignored some 50 posts and left the debate.

You're misrepresenting what happened there.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-5.html

Betamax destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. That it was faked in a water tank is so clear that the issue makes a good objectivity test. Once it's clear that a poster isn't debating in good faith, there's no point in continuing.

Answer this - what qualifications do you have in science or space travel, that you could give any opinion of worth? How many years have you been ignoring replies on this? Whatever is the point in offering a reply to somebody who has no capacity to be educated?

It doesn't take any special qualifiactions to recognize the effects of strong gravity and know that would be impossible halfway between the earth and moon.

 

[Loss Leader]

That said, the Ruskies were doing the same stuff we were/are, weaponizing space in a general sense, weaponizing the moon, and they were not going to blow the whistle in any overt/public way.

Why not?

Did the US blow the whistle on Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba even though the US had nuclear weapons in West Germany?

Did the Soviets blow the whistle on the U-2 program even though they had their own surveillance programs?

The astronauts allegedly did not know where they were "exactly" as Aldrin is fond of saying, so the obvious thing to do would be to photograph the most distinctive landmark(s). In this case, LITTLE WEST CRATER would have been the Golden Gate Bridge. Were the Apollo 11 Mission Real, then Armstrong and Aldrin would in addition to being EXPLICITLY instructed to photograph distinctive landmarks such as LITTLE WEST CRATER, they would know this would be the thing to do simply given the context of the situation.

So if it was announced in real-time where the Eagle landed, THE GARDEN VARIETY, NOT IN ON THE FRAUD GEOLOGIST THERE AT MISSION CONTROL WOULD SHOUT, "TELL 'EM TO WALK OVER TO LITTLE WEST CRATER AND PHOTOGRAPH IT".

Get it? They fear pressure from within the mission, Apollo 11 Mission personal would tell the astronauts to DOCUMENT THE DISTINCTIVE LANDMARKS OF WHICH THOSE NON-FRAUD-INSIDER PERSONAL WERE ACUTELY AWARE.

What expertise enables you to state with certainty what would have happened?

 

[Patrick1000]

Great Example With Respect To My Point Regarding How.....

more often than not, they write this story as though it's pure oxygen that "burns/blows". Look at the end of this article, all the people interviewed with the text approved/reviewed by Kraft and Lovell.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_13_mission/hl_apollo13.html


Read anything there about Teflon burning? Aluminum burning? At what temp does aluminum burn Jim and Chris? Know how hot a spark needs to be to burn some metal? Why didn't you tell this guy to tell us about the Teflon and aluminum?

 

[JayUtah]

There's no reason for you to refuse to address this.

Equivocation. Your abusive and libelous fixation gives me ample reason to ignore you.

 

[Garrison]

I've shown the footage to a few people and they all immediately said, "That's in gravity".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

This is such clear proof of a hoax it closes the whole case. In space there is no up or down and in that clip there's an obvious up and an obvious down.

And if there were only a few short clips of video in zero gee you might be able to make your case. Problem is there's hours upon hours of the stuff, and the 'vomit comet' isn't going to cut it as an explanation for all of that; not to mention the rest of the mass of evidence that supports Apollo. You and Patrick1000 keep making the same mistake. You find one 'anomaly' and think that entitles you to ignore the rest of the evidence; it doesn't. If you can't come up with a coherent Hoax theory, one backed by evidence, that covers the same breadth and depth as the accepted fact of the moon landings you're wasting your time and everyone else's.

 

[Erock]

Yes and no.....

Or just meandering rubbish as follows....

I imagine the Americans feared a photo of 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east by the Ruskies in real time(Luna 15 was lurking).

Luna 15 was 'lurking' was it? Along what trajectory would that be?

That said, the Ruskies were doing the same stuff we were/are, weaponizing space in a general sense, weaponizing the moon, and they were not going to blow the whistle in any overt/public way.

[pantomine]Oh no they weren't[/pantomine]

And for the Life of Brian, who asked you about it, your opinion and what relevance does it have to my point. NONE NONE NONE NONE!!!!!!!!!

The main reason to hide the "landing site location" was to keep it from the general public, including Apollo Program non-fraud-insiders. If you were to say the LM is at such and such a place, then a garden variety, lunar terrain familiar geologist would say, "Hey, that's not 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east", that place looks like such and such". Bit extra tricky here because the terrain is/was featureless to begin with, both the bogus fraudulent moonscapes of the Apollo 11 staged pics and the genuine lunar landscape at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

What utter mindboggling jibberish. They hid the landing site from the general public because they were clued up about the lunar terrain, and if they had have known where it landed they would have.....errr...well.....erm.....nothing really. Your theory is rejected for reasons of abject irrelevance.

That said, my point is easy to prove by simply asking oneself the question, "why Armstrong did not photograph LITTLE WEST CRATER?" The astronauts allegedly did not know where they were "exactly" as Aldrin is fond of saying, so the obvious thing to do would be to photograph the most distinctive landmark(s).

The whole sequence of landmarks appears in the freely available DAC footage. Your point is meaningless nonsense. If that is how you 'prove' a nonsense strawman - congrats.

In this case, LITTLE WEST CRATER would have been the Golden Gate Bridge. Were the Apollo 11 Mission Real, then Armstrong and Aldrin would in addition to being EXPLICITLY instructed to photograph distinctive landmarks such as LITTLE WEST CRATER, they would know this would be the thing to do simply given the context of the situation.

If you ran the zoo, blah blah. The DAC footage. Just nonsense from you.

So if it was announced in real-time where the Eagle landed, THE GARDEN VARIETY, NOT IN ON THE FRAUD GEOLOGIST THERE AT MISSION CONTROL WOULD SHOUT, "TELL 'EM TO WALK OVER TO LITTLE WEST CRATER AND PHOTOGRAPH IT".

Strawman, if I ran the zoo fallacy.

Get it?

Errrr no.

They fear pressure from within the mission, Apollo 11 Mission personal would tell the astronauts to DOCUMENT THE DISTINCTIVE LANDMARKS OF WHICH THOSE NON-FRAUD-INSIDER PERSONAL WERE ACUTELY AWARE. IN THIS WAY, THE ROCKS AND SO FORTH COULD BE "UNDERSTOOD" IN THEIR RIGHTFUL CONTEXT. This point cannot be overemphasized and proves Apollo fraudulence without a hint of the remotest doubt.

There's a stundie there somewhere, circular reasoning and weird language. You don't seem to be able to answer what I questioned.

Armstrong claimed he walked over to LITTLE WEST CRATER, and he never took a photo of it?

So what.

Right there BOOM, Apollo is proven fraudulent......

Bonkers conclusion.

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 ZERO, SCAM OFF, WE HAVE SCAM OFF, APOLLO 11 SCAM OFF

And you represent yourself as a 53 year old doctor with that level of childish language?? Yeah right - you should put up a facebook page or something


So this military operation was hidden from the public you say, but not from the very people it was supposedly used to gain an advantage from - the Russians??!

 

[Loss Leader]

If just one case of clear proof of a hoax appears, all of your "Evidence" that the missions were real falls by the wayside.

This is a tautology. The definition of "proof" is an aggregation of all evidence sufficient to convince the mind of the truth of a proposition. In order to "prove" a hoax, one must consider and be able to explain the evidence that there was no hoax. Thus, your statement is meaningless - or, at least, meaningless for the purposes of any debate.

The mere appearance of inconsistencies in evidence is not, in itself, enough to render a given proposition about human behavior untrue. For any single event, there are billions of facts (an infinite number, actually). There is also error in recording those facts, remembering them and relating them. Thus, there will always be inconsistencies when looking at history.

This is easily shown by ... everything. Find a criminal trial in which there were not inconsistencies. Find a historical account of anything. A witness to Custer's Last Stand said that she saw a man with flowing yellow hair killed early in the battle. But others agree that Custer had shaved his head almost bald before the start of the campaign.

Call up any title company and ask if they've ever found evidence that exactly the same piece of land belonged to two different plots. Not only will some of them say yes, all of them will.

When two pieces of evidence disagree with each other, they do not cancel out and leave a null hypothesis. Instead, they are added to the pool of all evidence until there is a sufficient amount to declare something proven for one purpose or another. And even that requires the inconsistent evidence to be objectively true.

If a couple of details in some grainy videos are all you have, they're probably not going to be enough.

 

[fess]

Posted by FatFreddy88;

In a diving plane zero-G can be simulated for about twenty five seconds if I remember correctly...

No, zero gravity is simulated at the top of the arc during the transition from a climb to a decent. Not during the climb, or the “dive”.