The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

FatFreddy said:
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Click to expand...

I have ignored your explanation as you would be executed by the debating hall evil overlord for actually being being dumb. You don't need to play at this, you seem to have it au natural.:D Hair either has a tendency to go down without gravity, or it doesn't - I laugh with derision at your useless explanation. You seem to be cornered here.

Now answer the points properly. I particularly like the "if it turns out there really is some floating, and all this time I am in fact totally and completely wrong saying there is none, here is my fallback position which is even more moronic." quote. LMAO!

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?


Answer the questions:

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?

I see the same pattern here as everywhere he goes. Questions get asked, he avoids the ones that make his dumb argument fall to pieces. I saw the same on the political forum where betamax101 tore him a new backside. He just cannot answer them.
 
David C said:
I have ignored your explanation as you would be executed by the debating hall evil overlord for actually being being dumb. You don't need to play at this, you seem to have it au natural.:D Hair either has a tendency to go down without gravity, or it doesn't - I laugh with derision at your useless explanation. You seem to be cornered here.

Now answer the points properly. I particularly like the "if it turns out there really is some floating, and all this time I am in fact totally and completely wrong saying there is none, here is my fallback position which is even more moronic." quote. LMAO!

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?


Answer the questions:

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?

I see the same pattern here as everywhere he goes. Questions get asked, he avoids the ones that make his dumb argument fall to pieces. I saw the same on the political forum where betamax101 tore him a new backside. He just cannot answer them.
Click to expand...

Keep this in mind, David: Ignorance (simply not knowing) can be fixed; stupidity is forever. ;)

And a "forever" person simply continues to ignore solid facts and simply repeats the same nonsense. Trying to fix him is a wasted effort. :shrug:
 
FatFreddy said:
You two are playing dumb about post #120.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2948184&postcount=120

Playing dumb about it doesn't make it go away.
Click to expand...

You are dumb. You are also avoiding the majority of those statements and questions. What answers you have given to a couple of them are derisable.


Go on spammer, just answer this one......

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!
 
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!
Click to expand...
You're misrepresenting the hoax-believer position to mislead the viewers so I'll have to set the record straight.

Here's the anomaly in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it but he was a lot closer than four feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk
(4:30 time mark)
 
FatFreddy said:
You're misrepresenting the hoax-believer position to mislead the viewers so I'll have to set the record straight.
Click to expand...

You liar. This is not anybody's "position". It is a straight question you are completely unable to answer, so you resort to spam.

The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it but he was a lot closer than four feet.
Click to expand...

What a crock. I think you are just one of those people who denies 'in your face' obvious proof.

Like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

Clearly at least four feet away. The other video in this series....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc&feature=bf_next&list=PL5B072595E7EC7210

Shows movement even further away.

a4ca9aa4b152fddb2f2f2facfed8a64e.gif



Why did Jarrah's flag, square on and more likely to move from magically pushed air, NOT MOVE until he was practically level with it, whilst the Apollo flag shows movement at 4-6 feet away.

Explain using physics and references how air is pushed in front of a moving body.

Here is some assistance as you seem to be good at being dumb...

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/windtunnel.html
"The basic idea of a wind tunnel is simple: if you can't move the plane through the air, why not move the air past the plane instead? From a scientific point of view, it's exactly the same. If a plane drags (causes air resistance) when it soars through the sky, air will drag in exactly the same way when you fire it past a stationary model of the plane on the ground."

252498main_WindTunnels_2-xltn.jpg
 
When I look at Jarrah's video, it starts to move a little later than it does in Betamax's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

Let's not forget that Betamax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-12.html#post4767755

...so he's a known obfuscator; I wouldn't put doctoring videos past him.

In his video he proposes the "Blooming effect" explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

This video shows that to be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

Why did Jarrah's flag, square on and more likely to move from magically pushed air, NOT MOVE until he was practically level with it, whilst the Apollo flag shows movement at 4-6 feet away.
Click to expand...

According to Jarrah's scenario, he was much closer to the flag when it started moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk


You also know the hoax-believer answer to why Jarrah's flag didn't move until he was practially level with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)

If it's at a forty five degree angle, the way it moves is going to be different than it would be at a ninety degree angle.

You people are trying to mislead those viewers who haven't seen the footage to which you're referring. Once they actually see it, they'll know you don't even believe your own arguments.

You people and Betamax all maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so none of you are to be taken seriously. The proof that the Chinese spacewalked was faked is simply too clear to obfuscate. It's so clear that it makes a good objectivity test.
 
I see the flag oscillating slightly. Is this supposed to be the proof that the moon landing was fake? I don't know how they could have faked that video unless it was on the moon!
 
There is no atmosphere on the Moon, but there was on the ship. I'm sure that some venting could have occurred in the airlock and such. Also, kicking up moon dust could cause the same effect as an air current. Or, forces are being transmitted through the ground when they are walking around. Or the flag is oscillating due to the original movement of putting it in the ground. Or the movement is apparent due to the camera moving. There are so many explanations that are much more reasonable than "we didn't go to the Moon".
 
evading the issue?
Click to expand...
No. I addressed the issue.
You said they had the capability to go to the moon. You seem to be basing that opinion on a scenario in which they could have just gone into space without worring about radiation. If the alternative info to which I linked turns out to be correct, we know why they had to fake it. They could have simply gone if space radiation hadn't been a factor. If they had to design heavy shielding into the craft that they were going to send to the moon, it would have been much too heavy and the astronauts couldn't have walked on the moon in those suits as they wouldn't protect them against space radiation.

This is my answer to your assertion that they had the capability to go to the moon.

If you're a sincere truth-seeker, please take a look at the info on space radiation in the lower part of this post and comment on it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
 
FatFreddy said:
When I look at Jarrah's video, it starts to move a little later than it does in Betamax's video.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The simple act of downloading the video and doing frame extrapolation easily shows this. Your denial of 'in your face obvious' is pathetic. I just posted a gif of two frames taken from that video. The flag moves 4-6 feet away easily. Easily. Even had there only been movement two feet away or 1 foot away, irrelevant. Air does not get pushed more than a few inches in front of something like an astronaut. You are completely cornered, but may be too dumb to realise why.

Let's not forget that Betamax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...
Click to expand...

Oh shutup with your stupid conspiracy theory to prop up another one. The Chinese didn't fake their spacewalk, that is almost as moronic as saying Apollo was faked.

...so he's a known obfuscator; I wouldn't put doctoring videos past him.
Click to expand...

Known to whom, please cite your references. Your pathetic ad-hominem noted. Once again you use this as a means to avoid answering the points raised by him, that totally destroyed your arguments.

The maker of the Chinese fake video is a pro-Apollo supporter. LMAO at you "playing" dumb and succeeding.

In his video he proposes the "Blooming effect" explanation.
Click to expand...

Maybe, I favour ground vibration. The one thing it provably cannot be is movement of air by the astronaut. The laws of physics don't get to be broken by idiotic conspiracy theorists.

This video shows that to be wrong.
Click to expand...

How so? That video shows only the bottom right hand corner. The flagpole itself moves as well, by a similar amount.

According to Jarrah's scenario, he was much closer to the flag when it started moving.
Click to expand...

Say what? White assessed that the flag moved before he was even level with the flag pole! At 45 degrees, a 4' wide flag sideways on is just under 3' - White shows the movement at least a foot before the astronauts body crosses the flagpole. As I said 4 feet. Now do try again and try not to obfuscate with your nonsense.

You also know the hoax-believer answer to why Jarrah's flag didn't move until he was practially level with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)
Click to expand...

Oh good grief. Let me get this straight, you are saying the reason a flag doesn't move is because he is holding a bloody balloon? Ha ha ha. Man, you are really dumb if you believe that. The flag doesn't move before he gets there, because that is exactly how air behaves, it moves to the side, not rams 4-6 feet in front of something.

An airplane wing and how it doesn't push air in front of it...

C0024888-Aeroplane_wing_model,_wind_tunnel_image-SPL.jpg


If it's at a forty five degree angle, the way it moves is going to be different than it would be at a ninety degree angle.
Click to expand...

Well gee, good of you to admit it. The reality is that something square in in front of something, is more likely to be moved by your "wall of air" stupid "atmosphere explanation", than something angled 45 degrees AWAY from it!!

You people are trying to mislead those viewers who haven't seen the footage to which you're referring. Once they actually see it, they'll know you don't even believe your own arguments.
Click to expand...

I believe my own argument, I don't mislead. Your objective is to obfuscate, spam and avoid answering the difficult questions. Your behaviour never varies, you are really very sad.

You people and Betamax all maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so none of you are to be taken seriously. The proof that the Chinese spacewalked was faked is simply too clear to obfuscate. It's so clear that it makes a good objectivity test.
Click to expand...

The maker of the "proof" video believes Apollo landed on the Moon, your objectivity test is an exercise in stupidity. Your "explanation" for this, was that he may have been got at, would get you laughed out of the debating hall. Quite how you can say the "bubble" - obviously a piece of space debris tumbling around - is plain delusion. Seriously, state your case, how you can deny this.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy said:
No. I addressed the issue.
Click to expand...
in which post?
You said they had the capability to go to the moon.
Click to expand...
i didn't say any such thing.
i assume we had the capability since no evidence to the contrary was presented.
the flag waving, dust clouds and other "errata" is pointless.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2929477&postcount=73
i've read a lot about this supposed hoax and nowhere have i found any reference to the capability issue.
there can be only one reason for that.
You seem to be basing that opinion on a scenario in which they could have just gone into space without worring about radiation.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2929614&postcount=76
If the alternative info to which I linked turns out to be correct, we know why they had to fake it.
Click to expand...
what do you mean if?
don't you even know whether your sources are right or not?
They could have simply gone if space radiation hadn't been a factor. If they had to design heavy shielding into the craft that they were going to send to the moon, it would have been much too heavy and the astronauts couldn't have walked on the moon in those suits as they wouldn't protect them against space radiation.
Click to expand...
you do realize this only applies to gamma radiation, right?
This is my answer to your assertion that they had the capability to go to the moon.
Click to expand...
the rocket fatfreddy, i was talking about the saturn 5.
If you're a sincere truth-seeker, . . .
Click to expand...
i am a sincere truth seeker.
that's exactly why i want you to address the capability of the rocket.
 
Last edited:
The maker of the "proof" video believes Apollo landed on the Moon
Click to expand...
Sometimes anti-establishment pundits say things they obviously don't even believe because they've either been threatened, or bribed. Look at what James Van Allen says in this article.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

After he started working for NASA, he changed his stand.

Some people even think that some of them may be sleeper agents; look at Noam Chomsky's position on 9/11's having been an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

He's no moron and he's surely seen the proof.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

He knows it was an inside job and he's saying it wasn't.

The government seems to have a way of getting to these people.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3761668/1/


No matter what else that guy says, the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk that he pointed out are simply too clear for you people to obfuscate and your success rate in swaying the viewers who actually look at them is probably close to zero.

Oh shutup with your stupid conspiracy theory to prop up another one. The Chinese didn't fake their spacewalk, that is almost as moronic as saying Apollo was faked.
Click to expand...
Well, your credibility is shot. The only people you're going to sway with your tactic of using rhetoric is the people who don't take the time to look at the proof. There's really no more point in talking to you as you obviously don't even believe your own arguments. I think that if you people look at this site,...
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

you'll be able to infer what I'm thinking here.


Here's a partial summary of the Apollo-hoax proof.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

The people who say Apollo happened also say that the Chinese spacewalk was real so there's really no point in wasting time talking to them. If any serious posters come along, I'll come back and debate with them.
 
Here's the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank in case the other link goes off-line.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

Watch it at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
(1:55 time mark)
 
So what about the current mission? With the Shenzhou 9 and Tiangong 1 docked in orbit and the female astronaut? Is that real or fake?
 
FatFreddy said:
Here's the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank in case the other link goes off-line.
Click to expand...

You pathetic spammer.

Owned with big bells on....

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

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.
Click to expand...

I think the title of that website dedicated to you is very descriptive. Only a moron thinks a flag flutters in a viscous medium such as water. You poor deluded person, do you not think for yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top