• 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:
To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing this, FF, I can clearly see in it how fully Jay demolishes a point you made. Having spent time as a process engineer and having two science undergrad degrees, I can appreciate how on point Jay's comment is on this being an engineering and not a science question. Of course, since I disagree with you, I must of course in your eyes be a shill. :boggled:
 
abaddon said:
1. No aperature or speed data.
2. Wrong film stock.
3. Omission or reflection from Armstrong.

and

4. It's from Aulis.

Oh yeah, the DOF in the Aulis shots also raises an eyebrow.
Click to expand...


5. Their scaled terrain model is too bumpy and jagged compared to the Apollo 11 photo.
 
SpitfireIX said:
As Jay was expanding on a question I posed to you, which you ignored, I'll re-pose my question, and I request that you answer. What part of "this is an engineering question, rather than a science question" did you not understand?

And as for the "viewers," I think, as this thread has been split, that it's time we asked the lurkers to weigh in again. So, lurkers, please tell us, do you accept Freddy's claims about Apollo, or do you reject them?
Click to expand...

Rejected utterly. I've lurked in this thread quite a bit, but rarely posted, because my expertise lies in computing, which hasn't really been mentioned in connection with the Apollo hoax claims. Nevertheless, even with my lack of expertise in relevant fields, I can see that Freddy's arguments lack merit due to a lack of concrete evidence.
 
LSSBB said:
Thanks for providing this, FF, I can clearly see in it how fully Jay demolishes a point you made. Having spent time as a process engineer and having two science undergrad degrees, I can appreciate how on point Jay's comment is on this being an engineering and not a science question. Of course, since I disagree with you, I must of course in your eyes be a shill. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Everybody that doesn't agree with EXACTLY what he thinks is a shill. His ego won't allow it any other way. That or his programming. I still think he's a bot.
 
Mudcat said:
I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.



Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.



This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

[qimg]http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters/MythBusters18.jpg[/qimg]


So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle.

It could be something different about the camera as well, wrong lens, wrong film, wrong exposure, or a dozen other things.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me.

The photograph on the left, why aren't I seeing light on the surface in the foreground? It looks very much like their light source was focused on to the terrain BEHIND the model astronaut. That leaves almost nothing falling on the useful reflective area IN FRONT of him.
 
I believe it is at this point in any "fake appollo" discussion we are obliged to reference Mitchell and Webb doing their skit where the cost of fakery is compared to actually reaching the moon and the difference is the catering.

Normal service (or as normal as can be expected) may now be resumed.
 
You mean a science teacher like me who explained to you how it would be impossible to sieve an entire set's worth of sand?
Click to expand...
I and a number of other engineers who have experience handling aggregates said this was a practical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.

Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust.

I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed.

The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous.

Here's a relevant video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
 
Your Magic Sand theory has been exhaustively discussed. Your misrepresentation and misuse of geologists has been exhaustively discussed.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.

Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust.

I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed.

The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous.

Here's a relevant video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
Click to expand...

FF, do you have any proof, any whatsoever, of a conspiracy and cover up? Sworn affidavits, verifiable money trails to get all this faking stuff, verifiable pictures of the fakery in progress, anything that would be acceptable to prove a conspiracy in a court of law or before congress?

If not, I recommend that you read this article:The Myth of Sunk Costs. Take it to heart, maybe even do some more research on it's subject. It's not to late to make a real difference in the world.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds...
Click to expand...

Geologists do not have relevant backgrounds, for the reasons already discussed. Further, the geologists thought you were nuts. All the people you have talked to with relevant backgrounds have unanimously repudiated you. You simply dismiss them because they do not fit your criteria for an honest witness.

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.
Click to expand...

Several people did that. You dismissed them, again on the grounds that you pre-rejected them as liars because they did not agree with you.

We've been through all this many times before.
 
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...

Oddly enough, every scientist I know rejects your moon hoax claims. That includes myself.
 
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...

I'll let you know what she says around 11:00AM central.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Both Dr. Hill & Dr. Kern think you're wrong FF. Now what?
 
Ok. Both Dr. Hill & Dr. Kern think you're wrong FF. Now what?
Click to expand...
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The sand would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

It's not that there isn't as much dust as in that race video. It's that there isn't ANY dust left hanging.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

What proof would you accept that I showed them your position as posted in this thread & they disagreed with you?

Eta: Also, your position is now that dust would have to be beaten with sledgehammers to create... dust?
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny
Click to expand...

Who are "all the people" you've talked to? You cited two people on some random geology forum, one of whom sort of agreed with you. The other one said your hoax idea was "stupid" and said you were "putting words in [his] mouth".

Why are you still hiding from these questions and misrepresenting your "evidence"?

FatFreddy88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This has already happened and you have explicitly been proven wrong. This has been pointed out to you many times and you are lying about your "guarantee".

You are not only willfully ignorant and incompetent, but you are transparently dishonest as documented above. This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

You're not in a position to prove anything. What you are doing there is telling people what their argument is and telling that they're wrong, without having any kind of basis for either side of it.

Your so called issue is a fictitious one entirely of your own making. Run along now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom