Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
FatFreddy88 said:
The discussion about the swinging jacket corner can be found by following this link.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210357


Pictures and footage of the earth can be taken from satellites and unmanned probes. The only solid thing we have is the footage and photos that show the astronauts and they are full of anomalies.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most pathetic attempts at "proving" the Apollo hoax I've ever seen. Nothing but youtube videos and mountains of cut-and-paste.

Are HBs ever able to carry on a normal discussion?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Pictures and footage of the earth can be taken from satellites and unmanned probes.
Click to expand...

You make a vague statement without knowing what you are talking about.

Firstly, the pictures from Apollo 11 show the Earth from the viepoint of a craft moving away from it. I will prove this if you bother to reply to this post.

Secondly, the weather satellites are either Low Earth Orbit or Geostationary orbit. An LEO satellite tracks across the Earth too quickly to take a series of fixed point photographs at the intervals shown on the video and photography. A geostationary satellite takes fixed point view of the Earth, which once again is not how the pictures and video of Apollo show.

Thirdly, the weather photographs match the Apollo video footage and the photography. The video footage with a few simple stills taken can be shown to be a moving Earth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

Fourthly, it is impossible to take images from a moving LEO satellite to make video footage showing distance. It is impossible to take images from a geostationary satellite with a static Earth and make moving pictures of a rotating Earth.

Fifthly, the weather patterns matching the times of the missions, perfectly match photography and video, that could only have been taken from the position in space they were said to have been taken from.

Lastly, the cabin footage which includes such things as Michael Collins jogging, includes a zoomed in video of the Earth at distances consistent with where the craft should be. Matching perfectly weather patterns for that time, that were only available at that time. This means the video supposedly transmitted from a magic satellite would have to do it in realtime and from distance. Only a receding object can do this, and I have yet to see a satellite mimic a man tumbling around weightless with a camera zooming in and out and moving left and right.:rolleyes:

You are completely owned in this argument. Your use of bizzare statements where you suggest plausible scenarios that are ridiculous, are not cutting it.

I would also point out, that you implicitly suggest that video was somehow magically created, that matches weather patterns and photographs at long distance from the Earth, yet the same people who did this, didn't notice that your non-anomaly about 'gravity' was so glaringly obvious.

You have lost this debate. Time to go to another forum where you may find people who don't understand that your arguments are just sheer ignorance.
 
Last edited:
BaaBaa said:
Based on my limited grasp of the physical sciences, the rooster tail he kicks up at the end of his trip (haha) is going a lot further and faster than it would seem to on Earth, or would that be due to the consistency of the lunar soil, more than any effect gravity would have?
Click to expand...


The consistency of the soil would have at best a negligible effect. It could only be slightly relevant during the instant the dust was in contact with his boot. The main factors causing the behavior of the pattern are the low gravity and the lack of atmosphere.
 
That's what I kind of/sort of figured but didn't know if the consistency would be important or trifling....
 
the cabin footage which includes such things as Michael Collins jogging, includes a zoomed in video of the Earth at distances consistent with where the craft should be. Matching perfectly weather patterns for that time, that were only available at that time.
Click to expand...
If this turns out to be true, footage taken from an unmanned probe could have been shown in the window. This is really a moot point because there is a mountain of clear evidence that the missions were faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

A fakable picture doesn't make all of that evidence go away.
 
Welcome back FF. I see you haven't come back with anything other than your usual links to your own posts on other websites.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Welcome back FF. I see you haven't come back with anything other than your usual links to your own posts on other websites.
Click to expand...

...and It's not like those linked to posts have anything of value to say...for instance this little "gem"...

If you think they really went, post something you consider to be proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.
Click to expand...

Even a beginner in all this can recognize the rather sloppy attempt at reversing the burden of proof...a juvenile "tactic" endorsed by believers.
 
Even a beginner in all this can recognize the rather sloppy attempt at reversing the burden of proof...a juvenile "tactic" endorsed by believers.
Click to expand...
Translation–

I know there is no proof so I'd better tap dance around and act as if that weren't a legitimate request.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I know there is no proof so I'd better tap dance around and act as if that weren't a legitimate request.
Click to expand...

It is not a legitimate request...there is no need for those of us who understand the reality of the Apollo missions to prove that they actually happened...it is historical fact.

What IS a legitimate request is "taking to task" those who would corrupt the historical record with their ignorance. If you think Apollo was faked, then CONVINCE THOSE OF US THAT DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE WRONG...

...and the only way to do that is through the presentation of evidence...got any??
 
FatFreddy88 said:
If this turns out to be true footage taken from an unmanned probe could have been shown in the window
Click to expand...

I just made a completely detailed post refuting this. Now it's your turn to refute what I said. It is true the videos (3 in all) I presented show this to be the case. Now you need to explain away the backeed up points in my videos and posts to fit your bare assertion.

Covered here in non video format:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132

This is really a moot point because there is a mountain of clear evidence that the missions were faked.
Click to expand...

Spam. The whole lot has been debunked. I just debunked the supposed fake Apollo 11 lunar coast footage, and you have no answer except to 'tap-dance' as you put it, or to attermpt to 'obfuscate' my post by not answering it, and writing a few other non posts.

A fakable picture doesn't make all of that evidence go away.
Click to expand...

Translation:
I cannot argue your post, so I will make some random bare assertion without explaining the items listed in my post.

Run away for a few days and hope this is buried. I will requote it for you, when you come back.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying you haven't seen this footage below?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE
Click to expand...
All this proves is that they at least made it into low earth orbit. Why do you consider this to be proof that they went to the moon?

footage taken from an unmanned probe could have been shown in the window.
----------------------------------
I just made a completely detailed post refuting this. Now it's your turn to refute what I said.
Click to expand...
You said that the weather patterns in the window were consistent with what was happening on earth at that exact moment. That remains to be shown. Anyway, if it turns out that it's true, couldn't footage taken from an unmanned probe be shown in the window? I can't see how you can consider this to be proof that they went all the way to the moon.

Spam. The whole lot has been debunked.
Click to expand...
I've never seen it debunked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.

A fakable picture doesn't make all of that evidence go away.
-------------------------
Translation:
I cannot argue your post, so I will make some random bare assertion without explaining the items listed in my post.
Click to expand...
Now you're supposed to say why the picture wasn't fakable. Instead of doing that, you tap danced around.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All this proves is that they at least made it into low earth orbit. Why do you consider this to be proof that they went to the moon?
Click to expand...

And your assertion about the jacket means that they for some unknown reason filmed some of it in gravity and some in space?? Then, only clever old you can see this!

Collins' Jacket - with you completely owned parts 1/2/3:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ogk218Qt24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs_u4iNfaGk

You said that the weather patterns in the window were consistent with what was happening on earth at that exact moment. That remains to be shown.
Click to expand...

It was shown in my post above, and the one you just quoted that I amended.

In written format:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132

In video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3--ptHXWE3Q


Anyway, if it turns out that it's true, couldn't footage taken from an unmanned probe be shown in the window?
Click to expand...

This is where you explain how a probe can simulate a man filming through a window with movement and zooms, then panning back into a cabin with astronauts in weightlessness.

I can't see how you can consider this to be proof that they went all the way to the moon.
Click to expand...

Then you'd best explain away my firm evidence, with more of your it's 'plausible' statements.:rolleyes:

Now you're supposed to say why the picture wasn't fakable. Instead of doing that, you tap danced around.
Click to expand...

No, this is where I refer you back to the large post where I already did that. The post you ignored.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7271589&postcount=3242

Now, without 'tap dancing' or 'obfuscating', kindly explain that post, the videos above(in this post) and the apollohoax forum thread, with your theory of how a probe could have done this.

Try not to be too 'lame' about it.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
A pro-Apollo person made a video to try to obfuscate the anomaly of the way Collins' jacket corner bounces around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
Sorry, but there are some anomalies that are so clear that they are impossible to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
I doubt your efforts to obfuscate this anomaly are having any effect.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then just assume they'd debunked it.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
Mythbusters won't dare touch this issue as it's too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
That video is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
Click to expand...


The whole point of that "Word a Day" desk calendar you got for Christmas is that each morning you're supposed to move on to the next word. You appear to be stuck on January 1st. Go on, give that page a good tear! Mix it up a bit and see how often you can work "doppelgänger", "perambulate" or "ancillary" into your posts!

Anyway, there's no need to "obfuscate" the wooly-headed gibbering of Conspiracy Theorists. Their ideas are already muddled enough.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All this proves is that they at least made it into low earth orbit. Why do you consider this to be proof that they went to the moon?
...
Click to expand...
How does it feel to be unable to grasp we went to the moon? It means you lack knowledge and critical thinking skills to comprehend basic science; maybe you will mature and figure out we went to the moon, maybe not, who cares if you keep your idiotic delusion for life, it is self-critiquing. You can't prove anything more than you have delusions on this issue, and you keep proving it, one post at a time. Is that your goal?
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
All this proves is that they at least made it into low earth orbit. Why do you consider this to be proof that they went to the moon?
Click to expand...

The only difference between LEO and going to the Moon is a change in velocity...that change was provided by the S-IVB.

Please explain what is so impossible about changing velocity???

I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.
Click to expand...

Do others accept this "garbage" as your attempt at communication?...personally, I don't have the time to bother with believers who are ignorant about the subject they are criticizing.

Now you're supposed to say why the picture wasn't fakable. Instead of doing that, you tap danced around.
Click to expand...

Cut out the histronics...why don't you shut us all up by presenting evidence that you are correct??

..but you can't, can you :)
 
Tolls said:
Just looking at their arm and leg movements in the double speed ones clearly shows they're sped up...it's like those old silents where they'ce stuck the film on at the wrong speed.
Click to expand...

[nitpick]
The implication of your bolded statement is that the projectionist made a mistake. The "wrong speed" effect is actually the result of two different things:

a)older movies/projectors were shot for an 18 frame per second (fps) but later silents and modern films are shot/projected at 24 fps.

b)old movie cameras were hand cranked, and it was noticed pretty quickly that undercranking resulted in goofy high-speed motion, so directors began to use it for comical effect.
[/nitpick]

Dang. I just used my college education. Does this mean I should make a loan payment?
 
JohnG said:
FatFreddy88 said:
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
A pro-Apollo person made a video to try to obfuscate the anomaly of the way Collins' jacket corner bounces around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
Sorry, but there are some anomalies that are so clear that they are impossible to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
I doubt your efforts to obfuscate this anomaly are having any effect.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then just assume they'd debunked it.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
Mythbusters won't dare touch this issue as it's too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
That video is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
Click to expand...


The whole point of that "Word a Day" desk calendar you got for Christmas is that each morning you're supposed to move on to the next word. You appear to be stuck on January 1st. Go on, give that page a good tear! Mix it up a bit and see how often you can work "doppelgänger", "perambulate" or "ancillary" into your posts!

Anyway, there's no need to "obfuscate" the wooly-headed gibbering of Conspiracy Theorists. Their ideas are already muddled enough.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should invite yrreg to this thread and he can can learn "tergiversate".
 
Erock said:
This is where you explain how a probe can simulate a man filming through a window with movement and zooms, then panning back into a cabin with astronauts in weightlessness.
Click to expand...

Add with technology available in 1969, in real time. I suppose it would be possible to do it a few decades later if you used a blue screen ...

McHrozni
 
And your assertion about the jacket means that they for some unknown reason filmed some of it in gravity and some in space?? Then, only clever old you can see this!

Collins' Jacket - with you completely owned parts 1/2/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ogk218Qt24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs_u4iNfaGk
Click to expand...
You pro-Apollo people always have the attitude that you're winning the whole time you're losing. I suppose that is beneficial from your point of view. There are probably a few viewers who don't click on any links and see things for themselves and just believe the side whose posters have the strongest rhetoric.

Anyone who actually watches the video and reads the comment section can see the guy who made those videos doesn't even believe his own arguents. Look what this hoax-believer said...

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=5NkijOFUnu0
-----------------
"The loose swinging jacket corner indicates gravity. This pathetic vid is totally non-scientific and riddled with mere assertions and gratuitous insults. Sure, the jacket corner is banging against Collins' body and receiving it's motion energy. But having swung up what is causing it to swing back down!!?? Only gravity!"
-----------------

Look how the guy who made the video answered.
-----------------
"The loose swinging jacket indicates an impacting object. It is swinging left to right, his body is going up and down only slightly. The insults are fully warranted. The jacket corner is receiving its motion energy from the object mainly, and from banging his body. It doesn't swing UP. It swings left to right. Inertia not gravity.

Name one non scientific thing, stupid HBs tend to make comments like yours due to an inability to offer any argument.

watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE"
-----------------

Hoax-believer-
-----------------
"The jacket is fixed around Collins' shoulders, the jacket-sides with corners are not fixed and are free to move not just only horizontally as you wrongly claim, but with a vertical, up-down motion, as well. This is basic physics. In Earth's gravity, a child's swing, or a swinging pendulum fixed at one end shows a similar horizontal and vertical back and forth motion. Collins' jacket corners exhibit the same. He is not in Zero g, but in a special visual effects movie studio-cabin."
-----------------

Apollo-believer-
-----------------
"Please don't quote the phrase "this is basic physics" at me. I especially find it hard to take when it comes from another jibbering idiot who has no concept of physics."
-----------------

He used the invoke authority tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
-----------------------------------------------------

I posted links to an analysis of this anomaly several times and he deleted it because he didn't want the viewers to see it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015

Deleting the posts of the opposition is a pretty lame and desperate tactic.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
You pro-Apollo people always have the attitude that you're winning the whole time you're losing. I suppose that is benificial from your point of view. There are probably a few viewers who don't click on any links and see things for themselves and just believe the side whose posters have the strongest rhetoric.

Anyone who actually watches the video and reads the comment section can see the guy who made those videos doesn't even believe his own arguents. Look what this hoax-believer said...

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=5NkijOFUnu0
-----------------
"The loose swinging jacket corner indicates gravity. This pathetic vid is totally non-scientific and riddled with mere assertions and gratuitous insults. Sure, the jacket corner is banging against Collins' body and receiving it's motion energy. But having swung up what is causing it to swing back down!!?? Only gravity!"
-----------------

Look how the guy who made the video answered.
-----------------
"The loose swinging jacket indicates an impacting object. It is swinging left to right, his body is going up and down only slightly. The insults are fully warranted. The jacket corner is receiving its motion energy from the object mainly, and from banging his body. It doesn't swing UP. It swings left to right. Inertia not gravity.

Name one non scientific thing, stupid HBs tend to make comments like yours due to an inability to offer any argument.

watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE"
-----------------

Hoax-believer-
-----------------
"The jacket is fixed around Collins' shoulders, the jacket-sides with corners are not fixed and are free to move not just only horizontally as you wrongly claim, but with a vertical, up-down motion, as well. This is basic physics. In Earth's gravity, a child's swing, or a swinging pendulum fixed at one end shows a similar horizontal and vertical back and forth motion. Collins' jacket corners exhibit the same. He is not in Zero g, but in a special visual effects movie studio-cabin."
-----------------

Apollo-believer-
-----------------
"Please don't quote the phrase "this is basic physics" at me. I especially find it hard to take when it comes from another jibbering idiot who has no concept of physics."
-----------------

He used the invoke authority tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
-----------------------------------------------------

I posted links to an analysis of this anomaly several times and he deleted it because he didn't want the viewers to see it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015

Deleting the posts of the opposition is a pretty lame and desperate tactic.
Click to expand...

Why do you care so much about it?
 
You said that the weather patterns in the window were consistent with what was happening on earth at that exact moment. That remains to be shown.
It was shown in my post above, and the one you just quoted that I amended.

In written format:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132

In video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3--ptHXWE3Q
Click to expand...

All those photos were under control of the government so it wouldn't be that hard to make everything match. We already know how the government lies and can pay scientists to lie.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526619

Anyway, if it turns out that it's true, couldn't footage taken from an unmanned probe be shown in the window?
This is where you explain how a probe can simulate a man filming through a window with movement and zooms, then panning back into a cabin with astronauts in weightlessness.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it was impossible? Who knows what kind of classified technology they had back then? Anyway, they probably just fudged the records. There is overwhelming evidence in the photos and video that they faked it and explainable matching weather patterns don't make this evidence go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599

There are plausible scenarios that would explain the matching weather patterns. Anything that can be explained with plausible alternative scenarios isn't conclusive proof.
 
Firstly, the pictures from Apollo 11 show the Earth from the viepoint of a craft moving away from it. I will prove this if you bother to reply to this post.
Click to expand...
An unmanned probe moving away from the earth could have taken the photos.

Secondly, the weather satellites are either Low Earth Orbit or Geostationary orbit. An LEO satellite tracks across the Earth too quickly to take a series of fixed point photographs at the intervals shown on the video and photography. A geostationary satellite takes fixed point view of the Earth, which once again is not how the pictures and video of Apollo show.
Click to expand...
It may not have been a satellite. It may have been an unmanned probe taking the exact route Apollo 11 was supposed to take.

Thirdly, the weather photographs match the Apollo video footage and the photography. The video footage with a few simple stills taken can be shown to be a moving Earth...
Click to expand...
They had control over all the records so they could have made everything match, or the pictures could have been taken by an unmanned probe.

Fourthly, it is impossible to take images from a moving LEO satellite to make video footage showing distance. It is impossible to take images from a geostationary satellite with a static Earth and make moving pictures of a rotating Earth.
Click to expand...
If you look through binoculars backwards, everything looks farther away. The stronger the binoculars, the farther away it looks.

Lastly, the cabin footage which includes such things as Michael Collins jogging, includes a zoomed in video of the Earth at distances consistent with where the craft should be. Matching perfectly weather patterns for that time, that were only available at that time. This means the video supposedly transmitted from a magic satellite would have to do it in realtime and from distance. Only a receding object can do this, and I have yet to see a satellite mimic a man tumbling around weightless with a camera zooming in and out and moving left and right.
Click to expand...
As I said before, the governent had control over all the satellite images so they could easily have made everything match.

The anomalies in the video are so clear that this is really a moot discussion. Once people have seen the anomalies, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they went to the moon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You pro-Apollo people always have the attitude that you're winning the whole time you're losing. I suppose that is benificial from your point of view. There are probably a few viewers who don't click on any links and see things for themselves and just believe the side whose posters have the strongest rhetoric.

Anyone who actually watches the video and reads the comment section can see the guy who made those videos doesn't even believe his own arguents. Look what this hoax-believer said....
Click to expand...

So the guy made 3 videos that debunk your claim completely, and you suggest he doesn't even believe his own argument.

Then you use other ignorant incorrect comments from 'another' hoax believer to authenticate your claim?

That is stundie material!

The sleeves aren't resting on his arms unless elbows bent. You have conceded that I see from the comments.

The dog tags are floating and swing not up and down, but with the body's side to side motion.

You didn't answer the back of the jacket ballooned out with air.

You previously said the 'oxygen attachment' was not impacting the jacket, and that is a clear lie, since it does nothing but.

All in all an extremely 'lame' attempt to 'obfuscate' the clear fact that you have been owned.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All those photos were under control of the government so it wouldn't be that hard to make everything match. We already know how the government lies and can pay scientists to lie[/url]

Circular argument to defend your faulty logic.

You haven't even come close to proving or attempting to prove that weather satellite photography, which matches ground based meteorological data is forged. Which opens up a whole new section of people to have performed the hoax!


Are you saying it was impossible? Who knows what kind of classified technology they had back then?
Click to expand...

Invoking the argument from the backside. If they had so much classified technology, there would be nothing to stop them from going. 'Who knows', you say? You don't, therefore your argument has zero substance.

Anyway, they probably just fudged the records.
Click to expand...

Who is 'they'? Probably is a word used to obfuscate the fact that you are clueless and have no idea how it was done.

There is overwhelming evidence in the photos and video that they faked it
Click to expand...

It may overwhelm your seemingly limited intelligence and zero logic, but since you haven't brought any of it to the debate, except repeating spammed links that do not contain it either....everybody is remarkably underwhelmed by it.

and explainable matching weather patterns don't make this evidence go away.
Click to expand...

Spamming yet again. The matching weather patterns prove conclusively that there were astronauts onboard a flight beyond the VAB, at the time Apollo 11 said they were there, and in the position they said they were at.

There are plausible scenarios that would explain the matching weather patterns. Anything that can be explained with plausible alternative scenarios isn't conclusive proof.
Click to expand...

Invoking the 'plausible' scenarios argument aka, from the butt. Demonstrate these plausible scenarios.

Circular logic at it's finest. You say the scenario is plausible and use it dismiss the evidence because you have a plausible (undefined) scenario.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 second time mark)

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015

When the corner is pulled up, it falls back down even though there's nothing pulling or pushing it back down. It swings side to side like a pendulum. That would not happen in zero-G.

This is one of those anomalies that is so clear that, as soon as people have seen it, they know it's an anomaly and that the people who are saying that it's not an anomaly don't even believe their own arguments.

You pro-Apollo people would help your cause better by trying to keep people from seeing this instead of trying to obfuscate it. It's too clear to obfuscate.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
An unmanned probe moving away from the earth could have taken the photos.
Click to expand...

I will concede that. It could not have performed video to match with astronauts in the same footage. Therefore theory busted.


It may not have been a satellite. It may have been an unmanned probe taking the exact route Apollo 11 was supposed to take.
Click to expand...

It may have been. It does not explain the video footage that ties in with the photography, that matches weather patterns IN REAL TIME, from DISTANCE, that same footage showing astronauts, and obviously taken by an astronaut zooming and panning and moving.

Now try explaining that.


They had control over all the records so they could have made everything match, or the pictures could have been taken by an unmanned probe.
Click to expand...

You haven't proved they had control over records, you haven't proved they didn't match, you haven't shown the ground based meteorological data didn't match.

In fact, you just offer lame obfuscating nonsense that has no factually based evidence.


If you look through binoculars backwards, everything looks farther away. The stronger the binoculars, the farther away it looks.
Click to expand...

Stundie. The same binoculars would not show a cabin with personnel NOT zoomed out, but actually to perfect scale.

Try again, very lame.

As I said before, the governent had control over all the satellite images so they could easily have made everything match.
Click to expand...

You said it, that does not constitute proof. So these smart people, arranged for satellite data to match weather patterns for all Apollo missions, just in case? They think of everything don't they, except the 'obvious anomalies' you keep failing to produce. Your spam linkbarf shows no photographic or video anomalies.

Perhaps you could list them one by one instead of respamming a link that contains none?

The anomalies in the video are so clear that this is really a moot discussion.
Click to expand...

It's a moot discussion for somebody unable to change their viewpoint based on evidence.

Once people have seen the anomalies, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they went to the moon.
Click to expand...

Spamming your link again. Most here have seen the so called anomalies, and know that they are anything but. Man landed on the Moon.

Your ignorance of the facts and the lame obfuscation does not make the evidence we landed go away.
 
Last edited:
Once people have seen the anomalies, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they went to the moon.
Click to expand...
Or rather, "once I have decided x is a conspiracy, nothing you say can convince me otherwise". Once you get into the mindset that the conspiracy theory is true just 'coz it is, and that any contrary evidence is forged or should be disregarded for some other reason, you're essentially stuck. Regardless of how little, if any, evidence your side has, nothing can convince you you're wrong.
 
FF88, do you have any evidence to support your claims other than links to your own posts making similar claims on other websites?
 
Food for thought:
As I said before, the governent had control over all the satellite images so they could easily have made everything match.
Click to expand...
Remember when we learned Usama was dead? Remember the forged picture they made that purportedly showed him dead? The very same day is became common knowledge that the picture was a forgery. Let that sink in for a moment. The US forged a photo regarding a subject matter of great national interest. It didn't last a day.

Yet we are to believe the lunar landing, one of the US' greatest propaganda victories, ever, was never investigated critically by anyone. Not by the American press, not by the Soviets, not by Communists or anti-Americans anywhere -- even though the cracks in the story are supposedly so big and easily spotted.

I'm at a loss for words.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:50 second time mark)

When the corner is pulled up, it falls back down even though there's nothing pulling or pushing it back down. It swings side to side like a pendulum. That would not happen in zero-G.
Click to expand...


The motion you liken to a pendulum is not a pendulum in zero g. There is no pendulum motion in zero g, because it would just rotate. Now if we have a force going in one direction, when the fabric is fully extended, it will recoil that force.

The jacket is shaking left and right and up and down, caused by movements in his torso, his arms, his legs and most importantly the 'oxygen attachment'.

Your observation of downward motion belies the fact that there are numerous inertial forces and play.

Perfectly explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0

Now, suppose you explain why an object pulling his jacket in all directions with inertia imparted by Collins' body would not make the jacket go in all directions.

You seem obsessed with downward motion, but since this is in a weightless environment, there is no down. I just watched that video sideways, and it looks just as random motion.

You pro-Apollo people would help your cause better by trying to keep people from seeing this instead of trying to obfuscate it. It's too clear to obfuscate
Click to expand...

Argument ad nauseum. By repeating the same assertion and ignoring all explanations you are the one being lame and obfuscating. You are a lost cause, whenever anything whatsoever is presented to you, it is filed under the category 'can't be true because it contradicts my mountain', when in truth, you have no mountain since it has been systematically debunked. Despite what you say. (I can almost predict your reply to any statement now, and that suggests you may be a spambot).
 
Remember when we learned Usama was dead? Remember the forged picture they made that purportedly showed him dead? The very same day is became common knowledge that the picture was a forgery. Let that sink in for a moment. The US forged a photo regarding a subject matter of great national interest. It didn't last a day.

Yet we are to believe the lunar landing, one of the US' greatest propaganda victories, ever, was never investigated critically by anyone. Not by the American press, not by the Soviets, not by Communists or anti-Americans anywhere -- even though the cracks in the story are supposedly so big and easily spotted.

I'm at a loss for words.
Click to expand...
You people keep playing dumb about the info in this link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526619

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
-------------------------------

It was well withing the means of the government to make everything match and keep the people who knew about it quiet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom