Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's a video on the "Stars" issue that just came out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRwZixCwLHM
(do a YouTube search on "LUNARCY NEWS FROM SPACE UPDATE (STARS PHOTOGRAPHED IN LOW EARTH ORBIT)")

I don't usually talk about the star issue because I have no background in photography but there seem to be some contradictions in what people say about being able to see stars.
Click to expand...

Just to tie up the loose end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe7JZSBi_js

It explains that the main photo was a nightime shot, and shows the camera film and settings.

Here's a link to the original picture. So obviously taken with a long shutter speed, as there is a ton of blurring and streaking.
 
Good thing we have heros like Jarrah White and cosmored to keep China honest. With intellect like that on our side we should be back to circumnavigating the globe in no time.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The fact is that there are no visible light photographs of the sun, the stars, or any planets (other than the Earth & Moon, and not including specific probes sent to those planets) available in any NASA photo catalog.
Click to expand...

Venus, at magnitude -4 much brighter than any star (except, of course, the Sun), taken by Apollo 14's Alan Shepherd. Venus also turned up in images taken from the lunar surface by the Apollo 16 crew, but the stars are too faint to show up in exposures set for lunar daylight.

Pluto and her four, count 'em four, moons, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter and his Galilean moons as seen from Mars orbit, courtesy of Mars Global Surveyor.

Images of Jupiter, Neptune, and star cluster Messier 7 from Pluto-bound New Horizons.

FatFreddy88 said:
notaworkinglink://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
Click to expand...
I accidentally clicked on that link (intentionally broken above):
EricHufschmid said:
...Armstrong foolishly chose to work with Zionist criminals, and as a result, he wasted his life hiding from the public and feeling guilty. He ruined his life for a group of criminal Jews. When you sleep with dogs, you get bit by fleas. Why doesn't he abandon the criminals and become honest? Is he afraid that the Jews will kill him, and that nobody will care?
...
Do you see any policemen in your city who have the concern or bravery to admit that Jews are responsible for 9/11? Or to complain about the Jewish lies and involvement in the world wars and HoloHoax?
Click to expand...
Scientifically illiterate, crazy and a noisome bigot. Charming.
 
20060918.gif
 
As someone who isn't American I really do not understand why so many Americans believe the moon landings were faked. Is it because they don't understand how it could be done, so therefore it didn't happen?

Landing men on the moon was the greatest technological triumph of the 20th century. Doing it for political reasons was stupid, but it was awe-inspiring, fantastic engineering and they even managed to do some proper science.

I was five when Neil and Buzz stepped out on the lunar surface and vaguely remember being allowed to stay up and watch it on TV.

It must be very sad to live in the world of a hoax believer, where magnificent achievements like this were faked.
 
Multivac said:
It must be very sad to live in the world of a hoax believer, where magnificent achievements like this were faked.
Click to expand...

Actually, to many of them it's exciting to be one of the few "in the know" and not a member of the legions of real scientists and engineers who were fooled by the hoax.

Makes them feel an importance they do not have in real life. It's just a shame they have to denigrate the hard work of the thousands who contributed to what truly was a magnificent achievement to make themselves feel good.
 
Mythbusters tried to make people think that the the movement of the Apollo flag was consistent with its being in a vacuum. They ended up proving it was consistent with its being in air. This video explains it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

Here's the Mythbusters video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

People have tried to say that the flag comes to a stop because the astronaut is turning the pole. The movement he imparts to the pole is made apparent by the support rod because it's attached to the pole. The movement of the support rod isn't consistent with its making the tip of the flag stop moving.

This is a case of willful deceit by Mythbusters. This is one more known anomaly that we can add to the already long list.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
 
I've had enough with people like you, go away, if it wasn't for hate, you would have nothing.

Paul
 
(davidc/rocky/FF88/etc. spamming someone else's stuff)
FatFreddy88 said:
The fact is that there are no visible light photographs of the sun, the stars, or any planets (other than the Earth & Moon, and not including specific probes sent to those planets) available in any NASA photo catalog.
Click to expand...

Here is the Stellar Mapping Camera catalog entry from the National Space Science Data Center. I think this one's for Apollo 17; the entries for A15 and A16 are easily found from the NSSDC search function.

A really gorgeous image of Atlantis reentering as seen from above, taken by the ISS crew. This nighttime image captures the stars nicely.

The Keyhole Nebula in the Milky Way as photographed from the ISS.

Here is the National Space Science Data Center catalog for the Skylab astronomy data, including solar imagery collected via the H-alpha telescopes, and photography of Comet Kohoutek, like this one.

Here's the H-alpha instrument: [qimg]http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/THUMB/0101909.jpg[/qimg]

There's also a bundle of ultraviolet and X-ray data, which is what anyone who actually knew anything about the subject would expect to be a priority for any spaceborne astronomy done with modestly-sized instruments.

And more stars on a night image of the Southern Lights.

And again, this time from Shuttle mission STS-39.

Venus, at magnitude -4 much brighter than any star (except, of course, the Sun), taken by Apollo 14's Alan Shepherd. Venus also turned up in images taken from the lunar surface by the Apollo 16 crew, but the stars are too faint to show up in exposures set for lunar daylight.

Pluto and her four, count 'em four, moons, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter and his Galilean moons as seen from Mars orbit, courtesy of Mars Global Surveyor.

Images of Jupiter, Neptune, and star cluster Messier 7 from Pluto-bound New Horizons.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's also pretty clear that you people don't even believe your own arguments either.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You were wrong when you made this claim about apollohoax regulars in particular, as I pointed out right here in this very thread. You are wrong now.

I am a practicing space engineer, with a degree in space physics and a couple of graduate engineering degrees, and about twenty years' experience in civil, military, and commercial programs, and I do indeed think the Apollo missions went to the Moon.

Provide proof for your claims that I don't, or retract them.
 
Here is the Stellar Mapping Camera catalog entry from the National Space Science Data Center. I think this one's for Apollo 17; the entries for A15 and A16 are easily found from the NSSDC search function.

A really gorgeous image of Atlantis reentering as seen from above, taken by the ISS crew. This nighttime image captures the stars nicely.

The Keyhole Nebula in the Milky Way as photographed from the ISS.

Here is the National Space Science Data Center catalog for the Skylab astronomy data, including solar imagery collected via the H-alpha telescopes, and photography of Comet Kohoutek, like this one.

Here's the H-alpha instrument: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/THUMB/0101909.jpg

There's also a bundle of ultraviolet and X-ray data, which is what anyone who actually knew anything about the subject would expect to be a priority for any spaceborne astronomy done with modestly-sized instruments.

And more stars on a night image of the Southern Lights.

And again, this time from Shuttle mission STS-39.

Venus, at magnitude -4 much brighter than any star (except, of course, the Sun), taken by Apollo 14's Alan Shepherd. Venus also turned up in images taken from the lunar surface by the Apollo 16 crew, but the stars are too faint to show up in exposures set for lunar daylight.

Pluto and her four, count 'em four, moons, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter and his Galilean moons as seen from Mars orbit, courtesy of Mars Global Surveyor.

Images of Jupiter, Neptune, and star cluster Messier 7 from Pluto-bound New Horizons.
Click to expand...
The part of the quote I was pointing out was the part where there were contradictions in what astronauts said about seeing stars.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387833&postcount=3500
Neil Armstrong: “The sky is black, you know,” “It’s a very dark sky.”

Mike Collins on Gemini 10:: “My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” This was written 14 years after, and remember that the Gemini 10 space walk photo shown here has now been proven fake.

Mike Collins on Apollo 11: “I can’t see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena,... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds...” “What I see is disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it is difficult to recognize them when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars...”

Gene Cernan on Apollo 17: “When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it’s black. I didn’t say it’s dark, I said black. So black you can’t even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn’t strike on anything, so all you see is black.”

Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut: “Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows.”

Prof. August Piccard on his high altitude balloon flight circa 1938 (many miles up with special heated suit) said that the sky turned from blue to deep violet to black. It is said that he claimed the sun disappeared as he got to the higher altitudes, though I have been unable to locate this exact reference.
Click to expand...
That's all I was looking for in that article. I hadn't even read the part you showed in your post; I was trying to only show the part with the contradictions and didn't look closely enough and I copied part of the article that didn't deal with that. What do you think about the contradictions?

Also, what do you think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

It's also pretty clear that you people don't even believe your own arguments either.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You were wrong when you made this claim about apollohoax regulars in particular, as I pointed out right here in this very thread. You are wrong now.

I am a practicing space engineer, with a degree in space physics and a couple of graduate engineering degrees, and about twenty years' experience in civil, military, and commercial programs, and I do indeed think the Apollo missions went to the Moon.

Provide proof for your claims that I don't, or retract them.
Click to expand...
Tell us what you think of the video that shows fraud on the part of Mythbusters. If you defend Mythbusters, it'll be clear that you don't even believe your own arguments as this case of manipulation is simply too clear to obfuscate.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
People have tried to say that the flag comes to a stop because the astronaut is turning the pole. The movement he imparts to the pole is made apparent by the support rod because it's attached to the pole. The movement of the support rod isn't consistent with its making the tip of the flag stop moving.

This is a case of willful deceit by Mythbusters. This is one more known anomaly that we can add to the already long list.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
Click to expand...

Speaking of wilful deceit, my mind boggled profoundly when I watched this video, where you point blank refused to concede the object in the China spacewalk was not a bubble.:jaw-dropp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc


And as for your Apollo 17 flag, I expect more mind boggling when you explain the motion at 150%. It looks odd. The astronauts definitely crossover during the flag planting, meaning there cannot even be a suggestion of wires.

Watch this, makes any movement of the flag academic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio
 
Speaking of wilful deceit, my mind boggled profoundly when I watched this video, where you point blank refused to concede the object in the China spacewalk was not a bubble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc


And as for your Apollo 17 flag, I expect more mind boggling when you explain the motion at 150%. It looks odd. The astronauts definitely crossover during the flag planting, meaning there cannot even be a suggestion of wires.

Watch this, makes any movement of the flag academic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio
Click to expand...
Here's the full info on that so people can see the big picture.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095

The guy that made that video destroyed his credibility there.

Let's hear your personal analysis of why the flag stopped moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Tell us what you think of the video that shows fraud on the part of Mythbusters. If you defend Mythbusters, it'll be clear that you don't even believe your own arguments as this case of manipulation is simply too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that you are actually impressing anyone by using a false dichotomy as the basis of a thought canceling device?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The part of the quote I was pointing out was the part where there were contradictions in what astronauts said about seeing stars.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387833&postcount=3500
Click to expand...
Second-hand, context-free quote mining, and typically lazy. At different times and in different situations, I personally have seen "black starless sky", "astonishingly bright cold stars", and have encountered viewing which was "disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible". According to your claim - actually, it's not your claim, it's just another endlessly recycled hoax myth you lapped up and regurgitated - I must have faked being on Earth.

During various parts of a lunar mission, one would expect to see stars unaided, with assistance, and not at all. Oddly enough, that's what was reported by the astronauts.

As for the quality of this second-hand dreck you're parroting, the "faked" Gemini 10 photograph was nothing of the sort, and the vague appeal to the Sun "disappearing" is, well, just pathetic.

FatFreddy88 said:
That's all I was looking for in that article. I hadn't even read the part you showed in your post; I was trying to only show the part with the contradictions and didn't look closely enough and I copied part of the article that didn't deal with that.
Click to expand...
And yet you had no problem posting this lengthy exposition of ignorance. That speaks volumes not only about the abysmal quality of sources you parrot, but also of your willingness to use anything you can Google up without actually thinking about it, or even apparently looking at it.
FatFreddy88 said:
What do you think about the contradictions?
Click to expand...
See above. They're not "contradictions", they're a collection of context-free quotes, some of dubious provenance, cobbled together in a silly attempt to suggest a sinister explanation. I can easily "prove" that, say, the invasion of Normandy in 1944 never happened, using the same approach.

Yet when the utter incompetence of your source is demonstrated, instead of questioning its claims, you cling ever more tightly to them. Why is that? Is it a religious thing with you? Are you angry that Americans landed on the Moon? Or what?

FatFreddy88 said:
Also, what do you think about this?
<link-spam deleted>
Tell us what you think of the video that shows fraud on the part of Mythbusters...
Click to expand...
No. I am interested in your claims that you have made on this forum. One of which is that I don't actually believe that the Apollo missions were real. I most certainly do accept they were real, and - unlike you - I have the education and professional background to evaluate much of the record to support that conclusion. So either provide evidence that I do not believe what I say here, or retract the claim and apologize.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's the full info on that so people can see the big picture.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095
Click to expand...

Willful deceit again.

That is not the full info as you put it. That is what you contended. It was answered here, but made it into abandon all hope. That is because anybody who believes that, is actually madder than a mattress:D

So after your post above, the guy whose credibility you question, totally destroyed your video...

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-6.html#post4161022

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-7.html#post4161059

Now, show me your argument for why those points are wrong. I think the debating hall is waiting to laugh at you quite loudly!

The guy that made that video destroyed his credibility there.
Click to expand...

Credibility resides in making an argument that holds water. How in any way shape or form, can you argue that the video he made shows a bubble? It is a flattish object and it is rotating.

Let's hear your personal analysis of why the flag stopped moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)
Click to expand...

Cernan probably stopped the flag with a counter motion. The video also showed the pole was rotating which dampens any swinging inertia.

It is so obvious even a 12 year old could understand it. And you call yourself credible??

Now, you return the favour, it looks odd at 150%, but there are signs of too slow freefall, so how does that work for you?
 
Last edited:
Meh. I was gonna comment, but I think I'll just put rocky on ignore instead. I've never used it and generally object to using ignore mode, but GEEZ this guy is a waste of bits.
 
Oh, and for those others who may read this -- there's a significant difference between SEEING stars and PHOTOGRAPHING stars at daylight exposure settings. Rocky/cosmored/fatfreddy has been told this about 14,987 times but chooses to proceed as if he hasn't.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Meh. I was gonna comment, but I think I'll just put rocky on ignore instead. I've never used it and generally object to using ignore mode, but GEEZ this guy is a waste of bits.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. It really is the oddest thing I have ever seen, as he doesn't seem to be able to take in anything at all.

That bubble video was truly bizarre. It is 'in your face not a bubble', yet he either refuses to see it, or has some sort of visual cortex issue?
 
So let me get this straight...

The moon hoax involves using physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects* to fool the world into thinking that men have landed on the moon.

The hoax has managed to fool (or co-opt) essentially 100% of the genuine experts in the fields of physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects over the last 40+ years.

The hoax does not however fool people who posses (what they see as) common sense coupled with an almost pathological mistrust of all forms of authority but little or no knowledge - let alone expertise - in the fields of physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects.

Does that about sum it up?

I've known exactly one person in the real world who has actually believed this sort of thing. He maintains that the Apollo missions were faked but the CIA has a secret base on the dark side of the moon. Is this man a scientist, engineer, special effects tech or even a reasonably bright lay person with a healthy interest in space and technology? No, this self styled expert is a pot addled, tattoo covered, pierce-happy high school dropout bass player in a death metal band who never-ever EVER met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.

I'm beginning to perceive a trend...




*and probably a dozen other disciplines that haven't occurred to me off the top of my head.
 
The moon hoax involves using physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects* to fool the world into thinking that men have landed on the moon.

The hoax has managed to fool (or co-opt) essentially 100% of the genuine experts in the fields of physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects over the last 40+ years.
Click to expand...
I've answered this before but here's the info again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989732

Oh, and for those others who may read this -- there's a significant difference between SEEING stars and PHOTOGRAPHING stars at daylight exposure settings. Rocky/cosmored/fatfreddy has been told this about 14,987 times but chooses to proceed as if he hasn't.
Click to expand...
I distinctly said I don't talk much about the stars issue because I have no background in photography. Look in post #3500.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387833&postcount=3500

I posted that video in case there were some viewers who had backgrounds in photography who might be able to do something with it. All I can do is discuss the contradictions we read. This isn't proof of a hoax in and of itself unless we see footage of them actually saying these things but there is lots of other proof.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

Cernan probably stopped the flag with a counter motion. The video also showed the pole was rotating which dampens any swinging inertia.
Click to expand...

You ignored what I said in post #3531. Here's what I said.
People have tried to say that the flag comes to a stop because the astronaut is turning the pole. The movement he imparts to the pole is made apparent by the support rod because it's attached to the pole. The movement of the support rod isn't consistent with its making the tip of the flag stop moving.
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)

The upper part of the flag isn't pulling the tip of the flag in a way that would make it stop moving. The back of the flag isn't moving in a way that would make the tip stop moving. The way it stops moving is entirely consistent with the way air would make it stop moving. This is very clear.

Now, you return the favour, it looks odd at 150%, but there are signs of too slow freefall, so how does that work for you?
Click to expand...
Who knows what speed that really is? If it does turn out to be 150%, we could probably find another speed at which things look natural. We have to consider the fact that support wires were used when judging jump speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY


Credibility resides in making an argument that holds water. How in any way shape or form, can you argue that the video he made shows a bubble? It is a flattish object and it is rotating.
Click to expand...
Here's where people can see all the info.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095

They can judge for themselves as to whether Betamax has any credibility and as to whether you people who defend him have any credibility.
 
sts60 said:
Pluto and her four, count 'em four, moons, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Pluto has an independent orbit around the sun and 4 moons (which is news to me, I only thought it had the 1) and people dispute it's planetary status? Sorry folks, but that's a planet no matter how you slice it.

Oh, and we been to the moon all ye Moon Hoaxers.
 
Mudcat said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Pluto has an independent orbit around the sun and 4 moons (which is news to me, I only thought it had the 1) and people dispute it's planetary status? Sorry folks, but that's a planet no matter how you slice it.

Oh, and we been to the moon all ye Moon Hoaxers.
Click to expand...

So Mercury and Venus are no longer planets?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I've answered this before but here's the info again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989732
Click to expand...

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/


You ignored what I said in post #3531. Here's what I said.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you said. It is your opinion, and since you think a piece of space junk is a bubble, when anybody with a braincell can see it isn't, your opinion seems ever so slightly insanely biased.

The upper part of the flag isn't pulling the tip of the flag in a way that would make it stop moving. The back of the flag isn't moving in a way that would make the tip stop moving. The way it stops moving is entirely consistent with the way air would make it stop moving. This is very clear.
Click to expand...

Can you see Cernan's wrists moving when he is flapping the flag? No. There is nothing to suggest he didn't just give it a counter tweak to stop it.


Who knows what speed that really is? If it does turn out to be 150%, we could probably find another speed at which things look natural.
Click to expand...

I know what speed that is, I verified it myself. It is x1.5 original.

For things to be normal it would need to be faster, since Schmitt is doing a few little hops and not falling fast enough. The astronauts crossover during the clip, so there cannot be wires. You do understand what cross wires are don't you?


We have to consider the fact that support wires were used when judging jump speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY
Click to expand...

We have to dismiss them based on that video, where they are scratches and actually move independently of the astronaut. We also have to dismiss them when we consider the astronauts crossed over.

There is a huge wires video on youtube, and part of it debunks this mythbusters rubbish about scratches being wires....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg&feature=player_detailpage#t=45s

Here's where people can see all the info......linkbarf removed
Click to expand...

3 times spamming the same link in one post. you're good at this aren't you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwKqPn-YU


They can judge for themselves as to whether Betamax has any credibility and as to whether you people who defend him have any credibility.
Click to expand...

Who is they? I judge Betamax101 has credibility, and you have none at all.

There we are, done.
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Pluto has an independent orbit around the sun and 4 moons (which is news to me, I only thought it had the 1) and people dispute it's planetary status? Sorry folks, but that's a planet no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...
Then so are at least a few, and probably many more, asteroids. And an "independent orbit around the sun" is what most objects in our solar system have, from bits of dust to quite a few spacecraft* to comets and most asteroids.

Mudcat said:
Oh, and we been to the moon all ye Moon Hoaxers.
Click to expand...
Indeed, though there will always be a small percentage of vocal True Believers, like poor rocky/davidc/FF88, dwelling in the cultural noise and insisting that their righteous army of invisible, ever-silent True Lurkers will rise up and that the whole big conspriracy will come crashing down Real Soon Now.

Needless to say, such cultural curiosities, just like - let's be realistic - this thread, have no appreciable effect in the real world. Even so, discussions such as these can be instructive; I almost always learn something new.

*Interplanetary spacecraft which are built to endure the space environment using much the same data which, amusingly enough, poor rocky/davidc/FF88 claims isn't the "real" data. Which is news to all the space scientists and spacecraft engineers and operators and insurers and GPS and satellite TV and telecom providers around the world.
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
The moon hoax involves using physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects* to fool the world into thinking that men have landed on the moon.

The hoax has managed to fool (or co-opt) essentially 100% of the genuine experts in the fields of physics, photography, engineering, astronomy, rocketry and special effects over the last 40+ years.
Click to expand...
FatFreddy88 said:
I've answered this before but here's the info again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989732
Click to expand...


I read that post. You maintain that scientists get laughed at, shunned and persecuted if they espouse some unpopular theory and that's why this supposed majority of scientists are keeping shtum about the moon hoax. That's quite a claim, but it's your claim to prove, not my claim to disprove.

To quote/paraphrase Carl Sagan (yes, sorry, another one of those corrupt or at best close minded scientists) "They laughed at Galileo and Newton but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". It's not enough to be laughed at, you also have to be right if you really want to paint yourself as some persecuted candle in the dark. In any case history is replete with scientist who became famous precisely because they have disproved some long accepted scientific theory. No one laughed at Einstein, but then he showed his work and later experiments supported his theories. Where are your equations or experiments that prove that men could not survive the trip through the radiation belt or your equations or experiments that prove how some piece of fabric should move in low or zero gravity? Or how about showing what the horizon line in the Sea of Tranquility should have really looked like vs. what we were shown in the video and photos?

No? Nothing?

How does your theory about these millions of supposed cowardly scientists account for scientists who've never been shy about upsetting the status quo in other areas of science, politics and/or the popular culture and yet still maintain that men have landed on the moon? You can't say they are cowards or conspirators, so I guess you'd say that makes them dupes, huh?

If magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat and some yahoo in the audience screams "argh! he's a warlock! burn him!" and then the magician proves that it was merely an illusion by showing how it was done, I'm willing to bet that won't shut up the yahoo. If however I'm asked to choose between who is right: the expert magician or the frightened and ignorant amateur in the audience, call me a dupe but I'll go with the informed opinion of the expert every time.

Moon hoax CTists suffer from the very failings they unfairly project on their opponents. They lack courage, intelligence and imagination.
 
Aww, farts. I forgot to put davidc/rocky/cosmored/ff88 on ignore.


FatFreddy88 said:
<snip: tl;dr and it's the same links to the same old threads elsewhere anyway >

They can judge for themselves as to whether Betamax has any credibility and as to whether you people who defend him have any credibility.
Click to expand...

2 youtube links and 4 to your own posts. Snort! YOU have no credibility if you think linking to another thread where you've said the same thing proves your case.

LINKBARF. That's all ya got, david. Welcome to "ignore mode."
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
Tell us what you think of the video that shows fraud on the part of Mythbusters. If you defend Mythbusters, it'll be clear that you don't even believe your own arguments as this case of manipulation is simply too clear to obfuscate.
Click to expand...
What is it with conspiracy theorists and their double speak version of "you are a liar"? And why does everyone who disagree with them automatically become a liar or a sheep?
 
Does everybody agree with what this person says?
Let's hear your personal analysis of why the flag stopped moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)
------------------------------------------------------
Inertia. You know. That thing which renders you unable to accept the reality of the Apollo missions and keeps you in the dark hole of ignorance in which you prefer to dwell.
Click to expand...
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Does everybody agree with what this person says?
Click to expand...

It's not clear what your question is supposed to mean.

However - a moving flag has kinetic energy. In still air that will be lost to friction with the air and internal friction (the fibres twisting and rubbing together). The flag's kinetic energy eventually dissipates as heat.

In a vacuum only the internal friction will slow it down. So it will take longer to stop waving in a vacuum than in still air.

Is this what you're asking about? If so I'd bet heavily that people here have already told you this many times.
 
My humble little opinion...moon hoax believers draw their conclusions from a loose observation of physics as they occur on Earth, and because of this are not equipped to understand physics as they apply to an environment like space or the moon in particular.

Like I have written before...any inclination to give the moon hoaxers a chance ended when I took physics in college. Once I read the rather basic book coupled with the math I was able to understand why things are different.

EDIT: I learned about things I didn't really understand before. For example actually knowing the mechanics of why water boils, which while it is something I never found useful or interesting before, is now both fascinating and completely useful in my daily life. I wish I could go back and explain to an old high school girlfriend why salt in boiling water actually is a good thing when cooking noodles. My family did it, hers didn't...now I know why it is a good thing. :)
 
Last edited:
I think the person who said this...
Let's hear your personal analysis of why the flag stopped moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)
------------------------------------------------------
Inertia.
Click to expand...

...should go into some more detail. According to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

...friction and gravity make things stop moving.

(excerpts)
-----------------------------------------------
The term "inertia" is more properly understood as shorthand for "the principle of inertia" as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion; that an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Thus an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change.
-----------------------------------------------
On the surface of the Earth inertia is often masked by the effects of friction and gravity, both of which tend to decrease the speed of moving objects
-----------------------------------------------
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom