Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[thedopefishlives]

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?

None, because anyone who disagrees with him is obviously a paid disinformation agent. That's the point of his litmus test; anyone who fails it is not credible and can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[sts60]

You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

Your criteria were explicitly met and you refuse to acknowledge it. Your "guarantee" is a lie.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.

 

[FatFreddy88]

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

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.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

What a load of handwaving. ALL scientists would fall into line and ALL scientists are 100% patriotic to the US?

George Koval

There are plenty more, including those in the "Rosenberg ring"

The science community is not the Borg - all one hive mind.

 

[X]

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.

Begging the question much?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

No, this is your speculative excuse for why all the relevant experts uanimously disagree with you. The whole world isn't paid by NASA or beholden to it.

I find this highly disingenuous. Not just a few hours ago, you urged people to go talk to their scientists and professors and determine whether they backed you or backed Apollo. You suggested that they would support you. But now you're telling us they can't support you, otherwise their funding would get cut off. So when all these people report back unanimously that science uniformly rejects you, you have a predetermined excuse not to believe it.

How is this any sort of meaningful check or test of your claims, as you propose? Are you intentionally sending people off to obtain answers you know you have pre-rejected? How does that qualify as honest?

 

[FatFreddy88]

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.

Just transporting and placing dust-free sand wouldn't cause enough erosion to create any dust. To create enough dust to be noticable, it would be necessary to pound the sand with sledge hammers for a few hours. This is so basic that I can't see how you people can even argue your position. This is destroying your credibility.

 

[JayUtah]

Just transporting and placing dust-free sand wouldn't cause enough erosion to create any dust.

Asked and answered.

This is destroying your credibility.

Also asked and answered.

 

[FatFreddy88]

No, this is your speculative excuse for why all the relevant experts uanimously disagree with you. The whole world isn't paid by NASA or beholden to it.

I didn't say it was. I provided a list of people who were able to speak their minds without fear. Here it is again.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

Some scientists have to be careful of what they say and some don't. We rarely hear the words of the ones that have to because of the control of information.

 

[FatFreddy88]

I find this highly disingenuous. Not just a few hours ago, you urged people to go talk to their scientists and professors and determine whether they backed you or backed Apollo. You suggested that they would support you. But now you're telling us they can't support you, otherwise their funding would get cut off. So when all these people report back unanimously that science uniformly rejects you, you have a predetermined excuse not to believe it.

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.

 

[JayUtah]

This is a pretty simplistic response. You're behaving like a sophist. It's hardly worth the trouble but I'll explain it anyway.

You've devoted five years of your life to an almost single-minded endeavor to destroy my reputation by just about any means possible, to anyone who will listen. Now is a pretty convenient time to decide I'm not worth your attention.

Answer my questions to my satsifaction, if you please.

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.

Can you prove any of that applies in Redtail's case? Can you prove any actual coercion or bribery? Or is this just what you infer must be the case from your beliefs?

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...

Supposition, rejected.

Evidence was provided that contradicted your claim here, and you accused its reporter of lying.

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.

Tautology, rejected.

Tests of your credibility have been taken, and you do not pass.

 

[Mudcat]

I didn't say it was. I provided a list of people who were able to speak their minds without fear. Here it is again.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

Some scientists have to be careful of what they say and some don't. We rarely hear the words of the ones that have to because of the control of information.

So let me see if I get this right, now. The only scientists who are really telling it like it really is and being truthful are the ones that say whatever you agree with?

All others are lying to save their reputations and funding... Is that about the size of it?

 

[332nd]

That's his standard litmus test. He got banned at another forum in 2007 for basically stalling the discussion until everyone took one of his litmus tests to prove they were conspiratorially-minded enough to appreciate the "basic truth" of all his conspiracy theories. Essentially if you don't agree that his arguments are so obviously self-evidently correct that anyone who disputes them must ipso facto be irrational, then you aren't worth his attention.

His treatment of every subject is tautological. If the report comes back that the qualified scientists dispute him, then either they're being government-controlled zombies who don't deserve attention, or you're lying. That is, the only response he considers to someone who disagrees with him is that someone is "obviously" lying. The criterion he uses to determine whether someone is worth his honest attention is whether that person already believes him.

Yeah, I gathered. I just find it funny that the more he tries to hand wave, the clearer it is that he didn't count on laymen having access to physics profs.

 

[LSSBB]

So let me see if I get this right, now. The only scientists who are really telling it like it really is and being truthful are the ones that say whatever you agree with?

All others are lying to save their reputations and funding... Is that about the size of it?

That's exactly how I gathered it. And of course, none of the ones that agree with him are in a position where they have proof of a hoax, I would surmise. ALL scientists in government employ will ALWAYS not reveal what they really know because they are ALWAYS worried about losing their funding. ANY scientist who disagrees with his opinion will ALWAYS be in the group that is afraid of funding and is therefore and unbelievable source. No proof necessary for this assertion, it comes from the ultimate arbiter, who is FF88 and therefore cannot be wrong.

 

[Garrison]

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.

As I said earlier even if you could prove such a thing were possible on the scale needed to create an Apollo set that in no way demonstrates such a thing was done and adding in the totality of the Apollo evidence the reasonable conclusion is that the Apollo footage was shot on the moon.

Oh and of course there's the slight problem with your theory that we do see dust kicked up during various lunar activities which demonstrates properties that point to it being in a vacuum and under 1/6th gravity, all the sifting in the world won't help you there.

 

[abaddon]

You do realize that once you start linking metapedia you've already lost the argument?

Especially when you read the names on the list. LOL

 

[sts60]

FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.

Why did you lie about your guarantee FF?

rocky/DavidC/FF88 has to lie, because admitting that experts - or even laymen - might honestly disagree with him threatens his fragile, cramped worldview. That's why he monomanically repeats the same oft-debunked claptrap year after year. That's why he refuses to learn anything about Apollo, or space flight in general, or engineering or physics. He simply can't deal with the possibility that his fixation is just that - his fixed delusion and not that of anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

You've devoted five years of your life to an almost single-minded endeavor to destroy my reputation by just about any means possible, to anyone who will listen. Now is a pretty convenient time to decide I'm not worth your attention.

Well, anything to allow him to pretend he's relevant.

Let me repeat for emphasis:

FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.

 

[abaddon]

Out of curiosity I started going through the list.
1. Hugo Chavez. Nuff said
2. Dr Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski. Professor of economics geopolitics and international relations. Right. 1 link to a bulgarian tabloid.
3. Dr. Li Zifeng. 2 links provided, one to a paper on special relativity, the second to a blog rehashing Kaysing.
4. Prof. Dr Takahiko Soejima. Political scientist. Can't read his site or his book.
5. Prof. Federico Martín Maglio. Argentinian higher educator. Social sciences.
6. McCanney. Hahahaha.
7. Prof. Luke Sargent, American historian, professional violinist. Well he should know. Remind me how many violins were on the moon.
8. Dr David Groves. Nuff said
9. Dr Marco Stefanelli, Italian PhD in Indovedic psychology, analyst-programmer, Web engineer, painter, Reiki Usui alternative medicine practitioner, researcher, audio engineer, sound designer, composer, multi-instrumentalist. Yup, a crackpot.
10. Dr Neville Thomas Jones. Yeah see clavius.org for that one.

That's it, I have snorted enough coffee for one sitting.

 

[tsig]

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

You know, he wasn't laughing with you.

 

[Mudcat]

That's exactly how I gathered it. And of course, none of the ones that agree with him are in a position where they have proof of a hoax, I would surmise. ALL scientists in government employ will ALWAYS not reveal what they really know because they are ALWAYS worried about losing their funding. ANY scientist who disagrees with his opinion will ALWAYS be in the group that is afraid of funding and is therefore and unbelievable source. No proof necessary for this assertion, it comes from the ultimate arbiter, who is FF88 and therefore cannot be wrong.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a very boring way to argue.