Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
oh no they have to watch themsleves to see what happens when someone who used to have a decent job goes crazy, that block living in a trailer and claiming Apollo was a hoax.....
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
[derail]

The newly released "Men in Black 3" screwed up big time.

The films opening sequence features the bad guy of the film escaping from an MIB prison facility built on the Moon. While bounding across the Moons surface he passes one of the Apollo landing sites. The gold foiled portion of the lander is clearly recognizable as is the still firmly attached crisp white ascent stage. Another classic case of "Did Not Do The Research" by Hollywood.
[/derail]
Click to expand...

In an early episode of Futurama the main characters took refuge in the lander. I'd worked myself up into a frothing geek-rage until they showed a plaque stating "Lander returned to this site by the Historical Sticklers Society." :o
 
Bumping an old thread to save the planet: Randall Munroe is, as usual, awesome. Today's XKCD:

moon_landing.png




Dave
 
Tomblvd said:
OK, this is weird. I looked at a couple of old threads on other sites that cosmored/fatfreddy/david c and maybe some other old socks (scott?, scott88?) are fighting with each other? It is really weird.

Anybody know what's going on?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113292&page=2

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=122
Click to expand...
There's nothing to stop someone who finds one of Dave Cosnette's user names on a forum to register an account with another name that he has used in order to troll him.
Slightly immature IMHO.
 
I'm quite confident FF88/rocky/DavidC/etc. is not "Cosmic Dave" (who has simultaneously claimed we didn't go to the Moon, and that we did go but covered up what we found). At least one other person is using variations of FF88's common handles to troll him, as mercatormac points out. I agree it's immature.
 
Manger Douse said:
In an early episode of Futurama the main characters took refuge in the lander. I'd worked myself up into a frothing geek-rage until they showed a plaque stating "Lander returned to this site by the Historical Sticklers Society." :o
Click to expand...
Returned? I'd say replicated.
 
OK, this is weird. I looked at a couple of old threads on other sites that cosmored/fatfreddy/david c and maybe some other old socks (scott?, scott88?) are fighting with each other? It is really weird.

Anybody know what's going on?
Click to expand...
The pro-Apollo people are using some of the same names I've used elsewhere in order to cause confusion. I mentioned that at the bottom of these two posts.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2948184&postcount=120
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5969330&postcount=3352
 
mercatormac said:
I doubt it causes that much confusion. The way your posts always contain links to other posts on different boards identifies them as unique to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I tend not to listen to complaints about identity-related confusion from someone who uses at least half a dozen pseudonyms and links to posts by all of them to suggest that they were authored by a different person. One reaps what one sows.
 
Hello again, rocky... How about post 8374? Please read the entire post carefully, and think about it before answering. Take your time; I would rather have a delayed thoughtful answer than a quick canned one. In particular, as I am aware of all the references you have posted so many times here - and that I have gone to the trouble of repeating for you on other boards - I would greatly appreciate an original answer consisting of your thoughts without any links to your canned earlier responses. Are you able to do that?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The pro-Apollo people are using some of the same names I've used elsewhere in order to cause confusion. I mentioned that at the bottom of these two posts.
[spam removed]
Click to expand...

Aah fatty, glad you're back, maybe you can hellp answer something, because all the other anti-apollo conspiraloons don't seem to want to answer.

How is it that the long zoom in this live Apollo broadcast on the way back from the moon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_5As7g79E&feature=relmfu

that ends with this shot:

videoscreenshot.jpg


Exactly matches satellite images?

apollo11july23videostil.jpg


Especially when the satellite images are in black & white and in the case of the one on the left weren't actually completed until after the TV broadscast?

How is that? Please help. :confused:
 
How is it that the long zoom in this live Apollo broadcast on the way back from the moon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_5As7g79E&feature=relmfu
that ends with this shot:

Exactly matches satellite images?
Click to expand...
It's plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.

There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked. At the bottom of this post there's a link to some of it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was a hoax.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It'sIt is not plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.

There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked real.

The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was not a hoax.
Click to expand...

ftfy

Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your mistakes.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.
Click to expand...
Is it? Provide evidence. Who, exactly, built the rocket to launch such an unmanned mission? Who, exactly, built the engines? Where was it launched from? Where was the MC for this mission, and who manned it?

And on the unanswerable questions go.

FatFreddy88 said:
There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked. At the bottom of this post there's a link to some of it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Click to expand...
And on you go with your circular link spam.

FatFreddy88 said:
The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was a hoax.
Click to expand...
The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was real.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.

There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked. At the bottom of this post there's a link to some of it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was a hoax.
Click to expand...

You sure like to make declarations, don't you? I can play too:

There's a mountain of proof that the missions were real. At the bottom of this post there's a link to utter crap that has been debunked time and time again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was real.

Wasn't that fun?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.
Click to expand...

It's entirely plausible that you're a 7 year old girl. That doesn't prove that you are one.

What you did there was deliberately not answer the question: I asked you how it could be done, not what you think was used to do it.

So, try again: colour images from a loooooong way out on a live TV broadcast that match satellite images that weren't available to anyone and a crew able to describe the weather in detail over Houston and Baja California, oh, and just after a demonstration of drinking water in zero gravity. How? Details please.

I have more examples if it helps. You only need to ask.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's plausible that an unmanned probe took the Apollo footage.

There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked. At the bottom of this post there's a link to some of it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

The case was closed a long time ago. Apollo was a hoax.
Click to expand...

Out of idle curiosity, I checked your link. In it you actually claim:

The corner goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in gravity. There's no identifiable force making it go back down except for gravity.
Click to expand...

You do understand simple inertia and fabric tension would make a jacket hem (or similar object) flex and straighten, regardless of gravity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom