The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

David C said:
Wowie, you really are cornered aren't you. You have posted this issue here, now kindly address my questions here. They would laugh you out of the debating hall with that lame response.

1/ Again, why doesn't Jarrah's flag move, when it is much more likely to move being square on to him, rather than 45 degrees AWAY from him like the Apollo 15 flag. He is also running straight at it and swerves at the last minute. It doesn't move until he is practically level with it. Can you explain this? The viewers are waiting.

2/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk).

3/ And a further one being how you keep making this claim of "the atmosphere explanation" yet you consistently fail/refuse to offer any physics that explains how a body in motion pushes air 4 to 6 feet in front of it.

4/ The person who created the China faked it video, says we landed on the Moon, now that turns your "credibility test" into bovine excrement.

5/ They move in numerous directions, selective blindness on your part once again. But even so, the retaining clips holds the cables in one plane, so any tendency they would have to move would be along that same plane. Your blanket refusal to even accept this as a simple explanation is symptomatic of your blinkered beliefs.

6/ Yes the viewers can see this weird shaped object revolving about its axis and nobody except you will "see" a bubble. Do you even believe your own arguments? Do you know what static electricity is? Do you know how stronger it is without an atmosphere and in a vacuum? Obviously not!
Click to expand...

Fatfreddy is totally cornered and resorts to more spamming - the broken record of this serial forum spammer ignores the points above. Of all the millions of engineers, physicists or anybody with education really, FF presumes to think that only he can see this and everybody else is paid by NASA to say otherwise.

Cesspit - there's no hope for somebody so ignorant.
 
Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2928317&postcount=66

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.


Of all the millions of engineers, physicists or anybody with education really, FF presumes to think that only he can see this and everybody else is paid by NASA to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's all addressed in this post which I've already posted.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.
 
You could videotape any scene on Earth or in space and find some tiny details to pick apart. It's not a valid argument. Get some help man, you're obsessed with nonsense.
 
spidergoat said:
You could videotape any scene on Earth or in space and find some tiny details to pick apart. It's not a valid argument. Get some help man, you're obsessed with nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's much more than just an obsession - if he's actually as serious as he wants us to believe, it's a full-blown DELUSION - and he needs more than just help. He's approaching the point where he's going to need confinement. :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy said:
Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.
Click to expand...

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.
Click to expand...

No they won't, and you are as usual playing the spam 'n' dumb game without offering replies to questions people are asking you.

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -
"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -
"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"
Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?
 
FatFreddy said:
Objective viewers can see where I addressed those points from post #81 on this thread at JREF.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2928317&postcount=66

The same people are asking the same questions with the attitude that I didn't address them on the other forum. People who actually look there will see you all are full-of-it.




That's all addressed in this post which I've already posted.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

You can play dumb about it and try to bury it but the people who click on the link and look at the info will see that I addressed this point.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you're turned away everywhere you go? Of all the forums and posts you've linked almost everyone disagrees with you. Are we all in on it too?
 
FatFreddy said:
You pro-Apollo posters are really just wasting your time.... <snipped>
Click to expand...

Enough said. You show no capability at all of answering questions or showing critical thinking skills. You have no scientific background so why should you think that only you can "see" bubbles "not see" moving flag rods and yet the millions of better qualified people in the world see the opposite(cue another list of spammed links telling us that all scientists are wrong/corruptable).

So yes, it is a waste of time engaging you - you are a lost cause.
 
Those pro-Apollo posters over at JREF are playing the same game you people are playing–insisting that I haven't answered questions when I have. I went ahead and answered them again so they wouldn't be able to bury my posts. Here's the link to where I answered them again.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8250191&postcount=8333

Some forums he just runs away from rather than just banned. Like this one for example where he was just massacred -
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-3.html
Click to expand...
When he tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked, he was pretty much discredited and there wasn't much point in continuing. The only thing that matters is what the viewers end up thinking and I think most of them weren't morons.

Here's where he tried again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is so clear that it makes a good objectivity test. You people also failed that test.
 
FatFreddy said:
Those pro-Apollo posters over at JREF are playing the same game you people are playing–insisting that I haven't answered questions when I have. I went ahead and answered them again so they wouldn't be able to bury my posts. Here's the link to where I answered them again.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8250191&postcount=8333


When he tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked, he was pretty much discredited and there wasn't much point in continuing. The only thing that matters is what the viewers end up thinking and I think most of them weren't morons.

Here's where he tried again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is so clear that it makes a good objectivity test. You people also failed that test.
Click to expand...

My guess is that you've fail lots of tests in your life.
 
FatFreddy said:
Those pro-Apollo posters over at JREF are playing the same game you people are playing–insisting that I haven't answered questions when I have. I went ahead and answered them again so they wouldn't be able to bury my posts. Here's the link to where I answered them again.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8250191&postcount=8333
Click to expand...

The one playing games is you. Nowhere in that post is actual answers to those 3 points. You can't answer them can you, because you are a lame obfuscating sophist who is cornered. They would laugh you out of the debating hall with that.

When he tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked, he was pretty much discredited and there wasn't much point in continuing.
Click to expand...

Translation: He destroyed one of my other nutty pet spamming topics, I had no answer to any of the points he raised in that or any of his other posts, so I ran away.

The only thing that matters is what the viewers end up thinking and I think most of them weren't morons.
Click to expand...

The imaginary appeal to support that never materialises. Is this forum a disinfo site aimed at perpetuating a fraud:rolleyes:

Here's where he tried again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is so clear that it makes a good objectivity test. You people also failed that test.
Click to expand...

A credibility test that fails in itself, since the video you cite as "evidence" was made by a pro-Apollo supporter. LMAO!!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Absolutely obliterated, no wonder you ran away.

Again:

Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue
You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Do you have any comments on these because I think you have no clue what you are talking about?



Again:

You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?



Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? A blanket refusal to answer questions and points and a complete lack of coherent argument. Mixed in with carefully cut and pasted duplicate answers on countless fora, we have......Supertroll.
 
Anyone with even a 101 psychological knowledge can see you are schizophrenic.. The belief that all your detractors actually believe in what you say is classic schizophrenic behavior. If your not committed right now...you should be.
 
This was posted...
Sure - the trajectory of the dust from the rover tires is a great examble of a parabolic arc in a vacuum but fat freddy seems to be ok with ignoring that and is instead having problems with the dust only.
Click to expand...

...in post #9 of this other thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113514

I'm going to address it here as that thread is in a section where the Apollo hoax issue is not supposed to be discussed.

Start watching this video at the 1:57:45 time mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748#docid=5638049439673634422

The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.

Here's a link to some more evidence of a hoax for people who are new to this issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
 
FatFreddy said:
Start watching this video at the 1:57:45 time mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748#docid=5638049439673634422

The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.
Click to expand...
@ about the 30 minute mark.

1. The mongolian herdsman is surrounded by divergent shadows.
2. If you look at the reflection in the faceplate you can see the opposition effect or maybe Heiligenschein
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy said:
This was posted...The dust plainly doesn't follow a parabolic trajectory. The person who made that post was using the classic disinfo tactic of misrepresenting the evidence in order to sway those viewers who hadn't seen it yet.
Click to expand...

Incessant spamming snipped.

I like this video here if you want to get picky about the rover dust arcs.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA

There are two alternatives. Either regolith will rise and fall in a parabolic trajectory, or it will aerosolise and cause suspension. Air will slow it just as much on the way up as on the way down.

Since we don't see any suspension WHATSOEVER, this leaves the only other possibility. Now the reason why some of the time it may not be visibly parabolic is simply through the chaotic nature of the particles colliding.

Meanwhile, the supertroll is avoiding the questions here, whilst lying about answering them at JREF.
 
Opposition effect demonstrated using gravel:
A_Opposition_effect_gravel.jpg


Opposition effect demonstrated using clover leaves:
6327548038_645f7fb288_z.jpg
 
FatFreddy said:
That video was made by Betamax. He's a known disinfo agent. Look how he lamely tried to obfuscate the clear evidence that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

He doesn't even believe his own arguments.
Click to expand...

Translation: I am unable to argue with him because he has totally taken my whole argument to pieces, therefore I will make unsubstantiated crap ad hominems and run away from answering him.

Please advise how you know he is a "disinfo agent", and advise also to whom this is known.

I think you are a disinfo agent, because you have spent five years making the same claims on hundreds of fora without ever answering major questions asked of you.

Your reason for discounting somebody's argument because they disbelieve yet another stupid conspiracy theory, whilst they simultaneously destroy that very theory is truly pathetic. I would remind anybody who is watching this, that the man whose video you rely on for your bonkers claim, is in fact a person who knows Apollo landed on the Moon.

Indeed, your claim that this piece of debris rotating on its axis is a bubble is one of the most obvious cases of "somebody not believing their own argument" you could get.

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

Please answer the questions you have been asked and explain the dippy contradictions you made pertaining to them.

Again:
Please explain these laughable contradictions, because you said these statements................

The Collins Jacket Non Issue - You said this....

"Her hair flops up and down"
followed by -

"her hair has no tendency to go downward"

After 50 pages saying there is no zero-g - "If it turns out that there really is some floating"

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"
followed by -

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

Again:
You did not answer those questions. And since you made the points here, you need to answer them here so everybody can laugh at your lame answers. You will not do that, because you are totally cornered.

1/ Jarrah's flag doesn't move until he is level and that buries your whole claim. Kindly offer an explanation for why this is so.

2/ Since you keep repeatedly making the "atmosphere explanation" - kindly give us the physics for this or anything at all! People don't push air waves 4 feet in front of them!

3/ Your credibility test is rubbish, the Chinese faked it video was made by a man who supports Apollo. Teehee.

4/ Your so called bubble is misshapen and tumbling around its own axis. Do you agree with this description of it? Explain your answer.

5/ You cannot offer an explanation for why wave blowers are used, or an example, or any corroborative citations(Chinese spacewalk). Neutral buoyancy uses weights in a diving pool. Got anything?

The viewers are not swayed by your obfuscation and sophistry, you would be laughed out of the debating hall with your squirming and non-replies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top