IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Reply
Old 16th August 2013, 12:40 PM   #481
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?


Hans
Why can you not present your evidence?

Instead you present a claim that Apollo12 is somehow encoded into The Shining. Cut to the chase and show where Apollo 12 is encoded into Wendy's pages.

As to the Room 237 malarkey, that idea is just nonsense. On what basis do you remove the extraneous R? Because you WANT to. No other reason.

It is no different than if I took your user name, removed an N and added a P to get "has pepper", thereby concluding that you use a lot of pepper on your food.

Similarly, you could take my user name and by fooling around with letters, come up with "Abandon", and thereby conclude that I had a deep seated need to abandon something, which, of course, you could then endlessly speculate about.

Such games amount to nothing.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2013, 09:12 AM   #482
Peter May
Graduate Poster
 
Peter May's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1,212
More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm

No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere) is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals? There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".

Who is David Orbell anyway?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17tecdbrf.html

Last edited by Peter May; 30th August 2013 at 09:15 AM.
Peter May is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2013, 09:58 AM   #483
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,121
Originally Posted by Peter May View Post

Who is David Orbell anyway?
I don't know, but his prose style seems somehow familiar.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2013, 09:59 AM   #484
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
Originally Posted by Peter May View Post
More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm

No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere) is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals? There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".

Who is David Orbell anyway?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17tecdbrf.html
Well what they're doing is assuming that SiO2 (or as we scientists call it: sand) fused together from impacts and then degraded over time is the equivalent of this:

http://artandcritique.com/wp-content...02/broken2.jpg

Edited by LashL:  Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.


when in fact it has pretty much turned back into sand again. Silica is indeed very abrasive - it's the primary ingredient in pumice stone and of course it's why sandpaper works, but it does not automatically slice flesh to the bone through layers of protective garments. It's hyperbole run riot.

While some lunar samples were in sealed boxes, anyone who has ever tried to seal anything in a box knows that nothing is perfect, and dust on a seal will do a fine job of not allowing the seal to work perfectly. Of course once you have a NASA badge on this automatically means some foul and sinister purpose to your failings at sample sealing.

The rest of it is the usual blah blah we don't believe it opinion. There's even an outright lie in there about there being a lack of interest in the Apollo samples. The samples are still being analysed and reported on even now. The fact that they don't know about them is not at all surprising.

Orbell's hit piece is nothing more than pointing fingers and knowing nods and winks. There is nothing in there that resembles anything but hot air.

I've no idea who Orbell is, but he publishes on Aulis, which says all you need to know about him.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked

Last edited by LashL; 31st August 2013 at 01:31 PM.
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2013, 10:02 AM   #485
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,282
Originally Posted by Peter May View Post
More fanciful claims from Aulis concerning Apollo 17, albeit, 40 years after the fact!
Quote;
Harrison Schmitt would have unquestionably understood the potentially fatal consequences of frolicking on rock and glass shards putting himself a mere razor’s edge from oblivion. Yet despite this obvious danger, the logical Schmitt actually keelhauled his relatively vulnerable spacesuit over identical shards to those that destroyed the container seals
http://aulis.com/sickman.htm
This simply a load of ignorant handwaving that begs the question of the hazard. "Razor's edge from oblivion" and "obvious danger" and "relatively vulnerable" are scare words that do not even remotely approach an accurate description.

Quote:
No mention is made in the Apollo 17 debrief of any sample containers being compromised, (to the LM atmosphere)
The SESC seal damage wasn't known at the time the crew debrief had been conducted, nor would that have been a topic for the crew debriefing. The first mention in the literature of possible contamination due to in-flight seal failure is in 1973. It has been discussed several times in the engineering literature as we contemplate a return to the Moon and more viable seal types.

The author here wants to make it sound as if NASA has kept this secret for decades. But in fact it's just the author's ignorance of the literature. Given that his article is single-sourced and relies exclusively on secondary and tertiary sources, he cannot be expected to speak from a well-informed position.

Quote:
is there any truth that “Shards of glass” could have compromising Smitt’s spacesuit, or the sample containers seals?
None whatsoever, where the suit is concerned. The author here just frantically begs the question that the astronauts were in mortal danger of having their suits punctured by spherule shards. Apollo 11 was asked to be careful because the hazards of the lunar environment were not well known at that time. But by Apollo 17 there had been enough operational experience with the lunar surface environment. It was reasonably known that the abrasion or puncture hazard for the A7L space suit was almost negligible.

Lunar spherules are typically 0.1 mm in diameter. Their shards can obviously be no longer than this diameter. They pose absolutely no danger for the suit. They can, in some cases, work their way into the Beta cloth weave, but go no farther than the first polyamide layers. A dozen thicknesses of that alternated with cloth have to be breached before the pressure garment is reached. The outer Beta cloth layer is similar to the stuff gym bags are made of, only tougher.

For the SESC and SRC seals, yes small particles such as spherule fragments do pose a danger. See below.

Quote:
There is mention however that “sample bags” “blew up".
The container in question is the SESC, which is a small self-contained tube. It used the same seal mechanism as the SRCs, which are briefcased-sized and held Teflon bags of individual samples: a knife edge that is driven by a highly-leveraged clamp mechanism into a strip of soft metal alloy. Spherule and regolith particles driven into the alloy by the blade edge leave grooves behind them, and air can enter through the pressure side of the groove and pass between the knife edge and the contaminant particle into the corresponding groove on the vacuum side.

Quote:
Who is David Orbell anyway?
Well, apparently someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. There's an email address in the Aulis article, so you can email him and ask him. The name doesn't stand out as notable among Apollo historians, professional or amateur.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2013, 11:46 AM   #486
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
I was wondering if there was any official response they had for leaks. At a certain point in SF literature you couldn't turn around without an astronaut-hero slapping a patch on his trusty space suit.

My guess was, given the relatively low pressure differential, response to a significant tear in the pressure bladder would be, "So much for the EVA, I'm going back inside now."

Or possibly slap some duck tape on it.

But was there a more official contingency that anyone has heard about?
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2013, 12:43 PM   #487
AtomicDog
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 20
Orbell sounds like he wants to take the "argument from medical incredulity" mantle from Dr. Socks.
AtomicDog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2013, 08:47 PM   #488
Tanalia
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
I was wondering if there was any official response they had for leaks. At a certain point in SF literature you couldn't turn around without an astronaut-hero slapping a patch on his trusty space suit.

My guess was, given the relatively low pressure differential, response to a significant tear in the pressure bladder would be, "So much for the EVA, I'm going back inside now."

Or possibly slap some duck tape on it.

But was there a more official contingency that anyone has heard about?

Apollo 11 Patch Kit at Smithsonian NASM
Tanalia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 04:05 PM   #489
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,389
Question.

How exactly does Apollo 13 fit into the conspiracy that we never landed on the Moon? Why would NASA fake a failed mission?
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 04:31 PM   #490
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Question.

How exactly does Apollo 13 fit into the conspiracy that we never landed on the Moon? Why would NASA fake a failed mission?
Because if everything went right, no one would believe it. Seriously, that's their excuse for it.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 05:17 PM   #491
LaurelHS
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Because if everything went right, no one would believe it. Seriously, that's their excuse for it.
Some CTs also say that people were losing interest in the Apollo program, so NASA staged a dramatic crisis to get their attention.
LaurelHS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 06:56 PM   #492
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
My standard response to CTs is that A13 is the only one that actually landed, and the "accident" was cover in case the astronauts were so fried by the "searing radiation hell" on the surface of the moon that they would need to scuttle the crew. All the other missions, I tell them, were faked in underground caverns in Siberia made by underground nuclear test explosions.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 12:02 AM   #493
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
My standard response to CTs is that A13 is the only one that actually landed, and the "accident" was cover in case the astronauts were so fried by the "searing radiation hell" on the surface of the moon that they would need to scuttle the crew. All the other missions, I tell them, were faked in underground caverns in Siberia made by underground nuclear test explosions.
Do you have a brochure or pamphlet to which I may subscribe?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 07:51 AM   #494
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Do you have a brochure or pamphlet to which I may subscribe?
IF you meet the criteria to become a paid NASA shill you will get the internal newsletter "ReBunk'r" about two days after each paycheck where you will learn about such things as "Searing Radiation Hell," "How to fill a cave with vacuum" and one of our favorite articles "Flying A Quarter Million Miles On a Thimble Full of Fuel."
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 10:40 AM   #495
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
IF you meet the criteria to become a paid NASA shill you will get the internal newsletter "ReBunk'r" about two days after each paycheck where you will learn about such things as "Searing Radiation Hell," "How to fill a cave with vacuum" and one of our favorite articles "Flying A Quarter Million Miles On a Thimble Full of Fuel."
Great! Those titles were all classified! I refer you to policy number [redacted] issued on [redacted]. Now we have to send you to [redacted] to [redacted]!
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 10:50 AM   #496
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Not again!
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2013, 07:04 AM   #497
Muc
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 388
This should keep the moon hoaxers in general and the cluesforum in particular busy for a bit:

"China’s Chang’e-3 and the lunar rover Yutu (Jade Rabbit) have landed on the lunar surface at 1:11 pm UTC on Saturday. The duo were launched by a Long March 3B on December 1, which was followed by a nominal flight into lunar orbit and subsequently China’s first soft landing on the Moon."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...lunar-arrival/

Apparently the moon rover is already transmitting pictures for the conspiracy theorists to "analyze". Let's see if they show stars in the background.
Muc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2013, 08:27 AM   #498
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
What's that...stars you say?

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/starskyhtml.html

I'm also working my way through these:

http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/

__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 05:05 AM   #499
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
ok CT believers tell just how the Chinese faked this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25388131
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 05:56 AM   #500
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
Because....well...just because, duh!!

That crater looks big enough (just) to visible on the LRO photos - any co-ordinates yet?
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 06:23 AM   #501
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.co.uk/...e-imbrium.html

__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 08:05 AM   #502
Muc
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 388
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Because....well...just because, duh!!

That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Muc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 08:34 AM   #503
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
I took the first frame of the landing gif and did some re-orientation around the location given in the site I linked to above:



I used the LRO quickmap page as it has better contrast.

I think the crater the little rabbit is heading for is the largest one with the rocks.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked

Last edited by threadworm; 15th December 2013 at 08:35 AM.
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 01:49 PM   #504
mrbusdriver
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Muc View Post
That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Utter, absolute denial. It's disturbing...this person likely votes, drives a car....a bit troubling.
mrbusdriver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2013, 05:40 PM   #505
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,755
Originally Posted by mrbusdriver View Post
Utter, absolute denial. It's disturbing...this person likely votes, drives a car....a bit troubling.
Also reproduces, though I concede that's a long shot.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 02:40 PM   #506
Huttosaurus
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hutt Vegas, NZ
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
I made this point myself the other day. I was the 'official' photographer at my stepson's wedding a couple of months ago, during which lovely weekend I took more photographs than in the Apollo 11 and 12 EVA's combined.

While I appreciate I was using a digital camera, I think this was slightly compensated for by the fact that there was only one photographer and that photographer was quite drunk by the end of the day.

You take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff, you take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff. It's not difficult.
The "too many photos" argument is one I've only come across recently, and it immediately makes me think the people putting it forward don't take very many photos of anything. I photograph airshows as a hobby and 500+ photos over the course of a few hours of a flying display is easily achievable, even when I was still using film. Professionals shoot even more.

Last edited by Huttosaurus; 17th December 2013 at 02:52 PM.
Huttosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 02:44 PM   #507
Huttosaurus
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hutt Vegas, NZ
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The SESC seal damage wasn't known at the time the crew debrief had been conducted, nor would that have been a topic for the crew debriefing. The first mention in the literature of possible contamination due to in-flight seal failure is in 1973. It has been discussed several times in the engineering literature as we contemplate a return to the Moon and more viable seal types.
I'm not sure if this has come up at all, but I've just been re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon" and he mentions handling a moon rock with his bare hands in the LM post EVA. That struck me as odd given the measures taken to avoid sample contamination.

Last edited by Huttosaurus; 17th December 2013 at 02:52 PM.
Huttosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 03:27 PM   #508
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Huttosaurus View Post
The "too many photos" argument is one I've only come across recently, and it immediately makes me think the people putting it forward don't take very many photos of anything. I photograph airshows as a hobby and 500+ photos over the course of a few hours of a flying display is easily achievable, even when I was still using film. Professionals shoot even more.
I suspect it is a hangover from the days of snapshotting, where you had 24 frames in your camera, and eked them out, carefully composing your holiday snaps as the development cost per frame was always in the back of your mind. I know I did, even though I did some of my own development.

IMHO, the prevalence of digital these days has given a false sense to the CT crowd about development of film. I will go further. The astronauts were unconcerned about that cost, and treated their cameras in much the same way as we treat modern digital cameras. Even my kids know to multi shot and discard the bogies. They can do panoramas easily. They can even capture without looking through any viewfinder or screen, shooting from the hip, as it were.

I did not do more than explain the basics, yet they glommed onto it no problem, to the extent that it is a preferred mode of shooting for candid photography, and they get it right with ease.

If a child can do it, I am pretty sure a trained astronaut can do it.

Hoax believers must hate the digital age, it easily proves them wrong.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 07:36 PM   #509
Vermonter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by Muc View Post
That's basically the reasoning on below video, uploaded by an armchair expert only hours after the landing. His real time commentary of the news is most eloquent:

"This isn't real! They're not above the moon! Because, guess why ... Why is that? ... No one went to the moon! Neil Armstrong, the whole ******* crew, none of them! Period! At all, ever! If you say that you're a liar!"

This goes on for around 8 mins.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
That guy is incredibly disturbed. Notice the whole obsession with numerology and symbolism in the video. You couldn't even hold a reasonable conversation with him. He doesn't even explain -why- he thinks it's fake, he just knows it is and everyone else is a liar. How sad.
Vermonter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 10:32 PM   #510
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
Originally Posted by Huttosaurus View Post
I'm not sure if this has come up at all, but I've just been re-reading Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon" and he mentions handling a moon rock with his bare hands in the LM post EVA. That struck me as odd given the measures taken to avoid sample contamination.
I could be wrong, but I think by Apollo 17 they had stopped worrying too much about that. They certainly weren't concerned about the samples contaminating the astronauts by then given what they'd found in the preceding missions.

Besides. You just would, wouldn't you?

Meanwhile back in lala-land, the deniers are still desperately clinging on to their fantasy world. The Chinese are in on it and use the same fakery techniques as the Americans. Same tinfoil, same lack of stars, same damp topsoil, same dust behaving exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment, oh...wait...no they don't mention that last one...
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2013, 10:43 PM   #511
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,819
As if to prove my point, here's this prime bit of ignorance:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=126

Quote:
If this was light from the Sun...surely the sky would not be jet black? Its never black on Earth when the sun is shining or giving light
This is in response to Mandelbrot's post who has long used sophistry and walls of text to try and prove that Apollo was a hoax. Mandelbrot himself displays a similar level of ignorance in his own post, failing to do even basic research into the mission's proposed length and objectives and trots out the same BS about the Apollo 11 press conference.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The entire China moon thread at DIF is here in all it's head banging teeth grinding moron-o-matic CT by numbers splendour:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263572
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2013, 05:24 AM   #512
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Ugh - I looked at the first few posts and my brain hurts already.
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2013, 01:04 PM   #513
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 756
I see Jarrah White has had his youtube account terminated. I doubt it is for very long but it serves him right, he's filed 100 or so fraudulent DMCA claims against pro-Apollo members. I recall Astrobrant2 has had this done to him twice and was down for a few months.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkATHUUod4hjv4v-A48mTCw
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 05:00 AM   #514
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,740
Originally Posted by Erock View Post
I see Jarrah White has had his youtube account terminated. I doubt it is for very long but it serves him right, he's filed 100 or so fraudulent DMCA claims against pro-Apollo members. I recall Astrobrant2 has had this done to him twice and was down for a few months.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkATHUUod4hjv4v-A48mTCw

Here's a statement from the guy who got JW's account terminated (per Youtube). Not sure this is the best approach. I, and I think most of the people here, believe that the answer to the problems with free speech is generally more free speech.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 05:31 AM   #515
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Here's a statement from the guy who got JW's account terminated (per Youtube). Not sure this is the best approach. I, and I think most of the people here, believe that the answer to the problems with free speech is generally more free speech.



YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

You are absolutely correct.
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 08:26 AM   #516
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by SUSpilot View Post
You are absolutely correct.
Yep. Sadly, two wrongs don't make a right, but in all fairness, Jarrah White has taken extreme liberties and actually got that guy's account permanently closed. He had some videos up showing JW's deliberate deception and actually saying he was deliberately deceptive, when he was. His account was closed for "harassment" of JW!!

His response was to file the exact same bad DCMA claims as JW had previously done. Youtube is pretty crap when it comes to looking at these claims in even cursory detail.
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 08:38 AM   #517
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
As if to prove my point, here's this prime bit of ignorance:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=126



This is in response to Mandelbrot's post who has long used sophistry and walls of text to try and prove that Apollo was a hoax. Mandelbrot himself displays a similar level of ignorance in his own post, failing to do even basic research into the mission's proposed length and objectives and trots out the same BS about the Apollo 11 press conference.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The entire China moon thread at DIF is here in all it's head banging teeth grinding moron-o-matic CT by numbers splendour:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263572
From the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
Amazing that anyone would think that someone landing on the moon in 2013 is a hoax....given that you can track the craft all the way in real time in HD on a PC and watch the entire journey.
I will believe only if I hear at least 10 000 of people went to the Earth's orbit and came back healthy and not injured.
If you say that I would earn 10 milions of something, show me at least a half milion to have any credence.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
And this Moon ship was built where exactly? Where did they build the moon?
It was built or hollowed-out to be alien base in DRACO system. This planetoid was one of DRACO planets, allegedly.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenosferatu View Post
And how did they place it in orbit? or is it just hovering? How do they fuel it?
By antigravitational technology.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by salutations View Post
It's real.

Accept it and move on.
It's hoax.

Accept it and move on.



The moon landing is a hoax but the moon being artificial is totally plausible.

Last edited by tsig; 19th December 2013 at 08:39 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 08:56 AM   #518
Fishstick
Graduate Poster
 
Fishstick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,603
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
From the thread:



If you say that I would earn 10 milions of something, show me at least a half milion to have any credence.


It was built or hollowed-out to be alien base in DRACO system. This planetoid was one of DRACO planets, allegedly.

Quote:


By antigravitational technology.

It's hoax.

Accept it and move on.



The moon landing is a hoax but the moon being artificial is totally plausible.
And also antigrav technology, apparently.
Fishstick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 08:29 PM   #519
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833


Sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/nasa-...bit-2D11765763

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...5-88-11866.jpg
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2013, 08:38 PM   #520
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,282
Because colors in photographs are always true and unchanged regardless of technology or circumstances.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.