• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

FatFreddy88 said:
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask anybody from NASA, or any other gov't agency. You do realize there are scientists that don't depend on public or gov't funding, don't you?

Why did you challenge us to ask scientists about Apollo when you knew you wouldn't accept contrary opinions under any circumstances?
 
Yes...just to underline it, the Magic Sand has to simultaneously have so little fines it never aerosolizes sufficiently to be visible, but is fine enough on average that the mesh tires of the Rover can throw it several meters in the air.

And that's just for the Grand Prix video. Later, the Magic Sand has to be fine enough to let astronauts leave well-defined footprints, yet, again, never hang in the air.

Rocky, if it were that simple to get the stuff, why didn't Tom Hanks have a handful of it for "Apollo 13?" Just one simple shot. No calisthenics, just tipping a glove to let a handful of lunar material fall off it. And the dust that hangs in the air is CLEARLY visible.
 
nomuse said:
Rocky, if it were that simple to get the stuff, why didn't Tom Hanks have a handful of it for "Apollo 13?" Just one simple shot. No calisthenics, just tipping a glove to let a handful of lunar material fall off it. And the dust that hangs in the air is CLEARLY visible.
Click to expand...


Well, duh, it's because Ron Howard had to agree not to show anything in the movie that would give away the the fact that it was all a hoax, in order to secure NASA's cooperation during production. :rolleyes:
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny and the pro-Apollo posters say all of the people with relevant backgrounds that they consult say that my position is laughably funny. I think it's so clear that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over that no viewers have any doubts and need to consult any experts to clear up their doubt.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue.
Click to expand...

Since you don't name any of the people you talk to with relevant backgrounds, I think we can safely assume that they exist only in your imagination.
 
CORed said:
Since you don't name any of the people you talk to with relevant backgrounds, I think we can safely assume that they exist only in your imagination.
Click to expand...

In his what now?

On another note, for the benefit of those who do not frequent Apollohoax.net and in the spirit of shameless self publicity I have been adding exciting new things to my Apollo page, including comparisons of lunar orbiter and LRO images of the landing sites and scans of Apollo related stuff from Life Magazines (my own copies).

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/apollo.html
 
Maybe they should have a conference with the myth busters like they do with other things in science to work it out.
 

I meant the Russians referred to in FatFreddy's note and the Myth Busters should get together.
 
littleelvira said:
Seems like to study the problem appropriately FatFreddy you'd need to do a full scale mock up. These small scale affairs don't work for me one way or the other.
Click to expand...

As soon as I saw your post I started to work out how I would do that. What does that say about me?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This is a pretty simplistic response. You're behaving like a sophist. It's hardly worth the trouble but I'll explain it anyway.

Some physics professor talking to a student in his office probably wouldn't have anything to worry about. A scientist who wants access to the Hubble Telescope would have to be careful about what he said to a stranger.

If one were to go to a physics professor with only the dust-free sand issue and not mention the connection with Apollo, he would laugh at the idea that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand was driven over.

This is such a basic thing that your attempts at damage-control are going to be fruitless. All of you have lost your credibility on this one.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda shocked you think Hubble is real and that NASA isn't just giving out pretty paintings. :rolleyes:
 
X said:
It means you need to re-mortgage your house.
click here for your next lawn ornament
And landscaping to match. Your house would be the talk of the neighborhood. Bonus points if you have a Homeowners Association.
Click to expand...
Ehhh, that's just keeping up with the Joneses. If you want to stand out, you need to get the full scale Saturn V, MLP, and Crawler-Transporter!
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.
Click to expand...

The matter having to do with mainstream scientists not challenging the mainstream dogma is a good one freddy. I liked the Rover film freddy with the still astronaut. The Russian's pointing out the texture difference between the foreground and background sand is a good one as well.
 
littleelvira said:
The matter having to do with mainstream scientists not challenging the mainstream dogma is a good one freddy. I liked the Rover film freddy with the still astronaut. The Russian's pointing out the texture difference between the foreground and background sand is a good one as well.
Click to expand...


No, no its not. The reason that so-called mainstream scientists don't question what you call dogma is because theirs is an evidence based profession. All the evidence shows that we went to the moon.
 
The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.

It's a mystery, it really is.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.

It's a mystery, it really is.
Click to expand...

They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore(not) would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.
 
Last edited:
littleelvira said:
They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. How complicated is a lunar lander to, let's say, a bicycle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom