Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 19741 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3032
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #270 on: June 19, 2018, 12:27:04 PM »
...the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

At the time Sibrel made that film he was a member of a controversial church.  I believe they may be defunct now.  But at the time they were notorious for aggressive on-campus preaching and were banned from several college campuses for alleged brainwashy cult tactics.  Apparently there was some really scary, really Fundamentalist stuff going on there.  That's the background for Sibrel's religious tone in that film.

Quote
I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.

That has been exactly my experience with him too.  He wants nothing but money and fame and he's not the least bothered by lying through his teeth to get it.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #271 on: June 19, 2018, 12:47:31 PM »
2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.

That's just conspiracy theorists in general for you. NASA/the CIA/US Government/RAND Corporation/whoever have to be both clever enough to pull off a hoax that fools the world, and yet inept enough to leave it full of inconsistencies that give the game away (like bright, gleaming wires that flash under studio lights that even major film studios haven't ever used for far more elaborate flying effects, precisely because the gleam makes them show up), and unable to silence anyone who publishes stuff about it.

Years ago a chap called Bill Kaysing spent a lot of time making the claim Apollo was fake. He claimed the mass media was controlled and so stuff like his was being silenced. He made that claim using the very mass media he said was controlled. He published his address. He lived alone. And yet, somehow, NASA or whoever could neither silence his media presence (as he claimed they were doing), prevent his book being published, or even arrange his 'accidental' death in a bizarre cat-and-gasoline-related incident in his trailer. He died of natural causes in his seventies a few years ago.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1780
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #272 on: June 19, 2018, 12:52:28 PM »
I'm not going to respond directly to Cambo until he makes it clear to whom he's talking.  But I will say that I'm pretty sure people mocked on The Daily Show aren't more believable to the average person.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #273 on: June 19, 2018, 02:16:03 PM »
Picking just one point from the "wall o' text", since I think it might be in response to one of my posts :
Quote
“If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.”

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.
Science, if you had bothered to spend any time actually finding out, is not about "brainwashing", or about having to "believe" what you're told.  Science is all about reproducibility, about testability, and about documenting observations and measurements.

If you want, for example, to figure out how objects accelerate due to gravity, you can do experiments.  Nowadays, with easily available cheap video cameras and phones, accurate digital timing etc., it's a lot easier to get all the data you need than when I did it at school about 50 years ago!  Anyone can do it, check the results, do the calculations, and confirm that gravity does exist, and it does work exactly as we've been told for hundreds of years.  Just because you "don't believe" that planets, moons and spacecraft move the way they do, doesn't invalidate the physics of gravity.

And the same applies to a lot of other parts of physics, and to other fields of science as well, if you're prepared to do the work.  You can do experiments, make measurements, and check on most things.  Science isn't some opaque, obscure, ritualistic belief system, it's something that anyone can, and should, do, if they have any doubts about it.  Even if you dropped out of school, you can still learn - if you're willing to make the effort...

Quote
Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.
There's a lot more than just the visual record (by which I assume you mean the photos, film and video), although you seem determined to dismiss all of it without any real analysis.  The fact that such an extensive and detailed record exists can't easily be ignored, especially when it's not just "NASA" providing us with evidence.  A huge array of information, from people all over the world, in many different disciplines, both from the time of the missions, and in subsequent analysis, supports the case that Apollo happened.

Bottom line, science works, whether you believe in it or not, whether you like it or not.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #274 on: June 19, 2018, 02:51:11 PM »
Science, if you had bothered to spend any time actually finding out, is not about "brainwashing", or about having to "believe" what you're told.  Science is all about reproducibility, about testability, and about documenting observations and measurements.

This, a million times over. I wasn't 'brainwashed' in school to see experiments and activities I did perform inc ertain ways for deducible reasons, any more than I was 'brainwashed' into believing 2+2=4. Science is not some arcane crap done by boffins in white coats, it's the foundation of everything you do in life, and it gets into everything in ways you arent even aware of. I've seen people claim quantum physics is bunk on the internet, whch depends on quantum physics to function in the first place....

Quote
especially when it's not just "NASA" providing us with evidence.

Boeing, IBM, Douglas, North American Aviation, Grumman... just five major private industry players in Apollo who either are in on the fraud or else built stuff that actually worked for NASA because no-one told them it was a fraud, and were good enough to document their processes extensively.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #275 on: June 19, 2018, 03:44:40 PM »
2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.

That's just conspiracy theorists in general for you. NASA/the CIA/US Government/RAND Corporation/whoever have to be both clever enough to pull off a hoax that fools the world, and yet inept enough to leave it full of inconsistencies that give the game away (like bright, gleaming wires that flash under studio lights that even major film studios haven't ever used for far more elaborate flying effects, precisely because the gleam makes them show up), and unable to silence anyone who publishes stuff about it.

Years ago a chap called Bill Kaysing spent a lot of time making the claim Apollo was fake. He claimed the mass media was controlled and so stuff like his was being silenced. He made that claim using the very mass media he said was controlled. He published his address. He lived alone. And yet, somehow, NASA or whoever could neither silence his media presence (as he claimed they were doing), prevent his book being published, or even arrange his 'accidental' death in a bizarre cat-and-gasoline-related incident in his trailer. He died of natural causes in his seventies a few years ago.

rene was the same. the only people they had to convince was enough to buy their stuff. luckily for them there are enough people that want to believe it.

Offline bobdude11

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #276 on: June 19, 2018, 06:31:22 PM »
Quote from: cambo
... you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

 Attempt to deflect from self noted.

Quote from: cambo
Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? ...

Lack of understanding on your part does not constitute 'over complication' on anyone else's part.
Perhaps if you had stayed in school and actually learned basics, it wouldn't be so confusing.

I am not anywhere near anyone's level on this site, but, I understand most of the science; of course, math being a weakness for me I entered the InfoSec industry (to include getting my MBA in this discipline and my CISSP (99487)) instead of Space/Aerospace/Rocket sciences, Engineering or disciplines even remotely close to those.
 
InfoSec requires math, but we generally have tools that help do the calculations ... I just have to understand the formulas - that can be a struggle for me.

Here's the catch: My lack of understanding of the math, the formulas and everything related is on ME; it does not imply, insinuate, impeach, or otherwise discredit ALL of the learned people here.
 Instead, it is due to my lack of effort or due diligence to learn the higher order mathematics (Trig, Calculus, Geometry, etc.). 

Everyone on here that explains things and references and/or includes the math does so because they have taken the time and effort to learn it. They have degreed in the related disciplines and have practical experience using them.

They are helping me to try and understand some of this (thank you all, BTW).

I don't, for even a millisecond, believe that because they do this, it means they are 'over complicating' things.

Rather, they are attempting to educate those of us who may not understand the math, but still understand the science (or not)

 I did do well in physical sciences in High School and some college level, just not well in the math portions; I was part of a team so I was able to utilize a team member to help write that part of our reports.

I was part of the testing (observation, note taking, data gathering, and other aspects) portion and knew from the observation and the results that sometimes, my hypothesis/theory(ies) were wrong.

I explained that in our reports and based it on my personal experiences and referenced the math where required.

Further, these experiences have helped tremendously in my chosen Information Security discipline as I learned how to observe, formulate a theory, evaluate and test to prove/disprove my theory(ies).

I did NOT learn to generate a theory and then only find evidence to prove me right. That is not science, it is hoax theory. Instead, I do not dismiss anything or anyone that may prove me wrong.

 I may be hard headed and resistant at first, but I listen, re-evaluate my stance and correct myself if proven wrong, or if able to prove my position, provide the evidence to show why I was correct.

I am disappointed when I see someone that attempts to hand-wave away any education I have because: 'science'.


Quote
It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Nope. You have attempted to back pedal from your previous statements. You claimed you had to see the blueprints (which, based on your postings to date, I don't actually believe you would understand if you had them) to prove to you that the Rover did what is has already proven it could do. See quotes below:

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

Quote from: cambo
A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

You made a statement. I read it. I love humor (or humour for my friends in the UK). Love it. Your statement was not humor (not even subtle) - you made the statement, own it, admit you misspoke and let's move on.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

Quote from: cambo
So when did you last unfold a LRV?

When did you? You missed the point of the statement, entirely.

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Quote from: cambo
Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Double wrong on you. You made the statements. Instead of trying to play it off, own it, admit you erred and let's move on.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

Quote from: cambo
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?
Yes and no. The principal of CG, pitch, yaw, roll, energy, thrust, etc. still apply. Even someone like myself can understand that. Why can't you? Why do you insist on ad hominem attacks when proven incapable of following a simple, proven principle of science?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

Quote from: cambo
The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Yes it did. Back when Apollo deployed and used it on the Moon; in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. You are the only one that insists that blueprints are the ONLY way to prove it existed/worked as designed.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Quote from: cambo
Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

Why do you insist that only a limited number would know? You fail to understand a simple concept, one person, just one, that knows will inevitably tell another. It is human nature to want to impress someone. That aside, the project was a HUGE undertaking; almost half a million folks involved at one point. I guarantee this: if even ONE (1) of them knew this was fake, the WORLD would know for sure. The Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury records (not to mention SkyLab, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc.) ALL speak for themselves. Because you cannot fathom that fact, does not invalidate them, only you.


Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

Quote from: cambo
The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

To quote my lawyer friend: 'Asked and answered' - in this case at '... Pad A, Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, Fla., on Nov. 9, 1967. Credit: NASA.' (quote from: https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html)

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

Quote from: cambo
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Citing a source that states we went to the Moon to prove we didn't go to the Moon circular logic noted.

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

Quote from: cambo
I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Referencing a source that discusses the samples taken from the Moon to prove we did not go to the Moon. Circular logic #2 noted.

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

Quote from: cambo
A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Prove it. Show your math. I guarantee I won't understand it, but I know others here will. Show your evidence (the 'It didn't happen because: 'disbelief' is old, tired, and used up)

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Quote from: cambo
Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Looks can be deceiving. You also forgot to quote your source on the paragraph with the math (the one in italics).

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

Quote from: cambo
On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Even I know this a bogus statement, and I am not even an expert in this area!

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

Quote from: cambo
It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

Where is the video showing this was faked? Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing you there when it was made. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

My questions to you are simple:

What do you hope to gain from this?

What is your payoff?

-and-

How is that working for you?
Robert Clark -
CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications.
I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory
"Everybody remember where we parked." James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #277 on: June 19, 2018, 07:45:19 PM »

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

What the heck kind of job allows having a separate reality? I spent a lifetime in the trades, and here's the trick; the science works. That's why we keep using it. It isn't something learned in school and never used again. It isn't something that only happens on the Moon to someone you've never met. Physics is physics, optics is optics, geometry is geometry, materials are materials.


Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.

No. There are multiple lines of evidence. The visual record gets referenced by hoax believers because, frankly, they aren't smart enough to deal with anything other than pretty pictures.


Quote
“Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.”

Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

Very poor paraphrase. The question of competence isn't an independent value judgement, it is a specific requirement of the evidence in question. None of us know everything. I know so little of football I can't even name the local teams. Does that make me an idiot? Well, perhaps to some! The important thing is, would it matter if I was applying for a job as sportscaster!



As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.

Italics mine. They don't. That's the basic problem the hoax believers are facing; the actual visual record is long contiguous footage. What works to fake a single moment doesn't work within the context of the actual full shot.


Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #278 on: June 19, 2018, 07:54:58 PM »
Two random thoughts:

"Pro-Apollo sites" -- this is why there's no antonym to the term "alternative medicine." There's medicine which is untested, unproven, uncertain. And then there's......medicine. Apollo is exactly and entirely consistent, in width and in depth, with everything that is scientific and/or technical. Aerospace methods, observational astronomy, software standards, trigonometry...whatever. There's not a need for a "pro Apollo" site. There's just....the rest of the world that isn't a conspiracy believer site (or bad sci-fi).

The other is -- counting frames? On a YouTube sourced clip of unknown provenance that originated long ago in an analog transfer from an non-NTSC standard source?

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #279 on: June 19, 2018, 08:12:00 PM »
Last random thought: Theatrical flight is a lot of misdirection, basically. First show I remember working that had flight in it was Peter Pan. Peter flies through window, up to top of a dresser, back to the floor, the Darlings all lift off, gather together, fly out through the window.

Or, rather, that's the impression you get from the audience. Actually, it was done with four single-point wires and an upstage tracking rig and all of that freedom and flexibility is an illusion brought on by careful choreography and manipulation of basic physics.

Peter alights the first time just inside the window frame, and while focus is on Wendy a tech unclips him from the US rig and attaches him to a rig with a pick point far DS of him. The window box is elevated; thus, when he "lifts off" from the window he pendulums across the stage and the tech only has to lower him at the apex of his downstage arc. Similar trick getting him back to ground. The Darlings are all rigged far upstage of their beds and when they do the first tentative "hops" they are holding on to the beds for dear life so they don't immediately get dragged upstage! They join hands not because it looks cool but because that's the only way to force their motion to arc through the window. Which, in our production, split in the middle and was dragged out of the way as their flight over London began.

You look at the lunar surface video and, yeah, there's setups you could do to achieve certain moments but every single one is violated by what the astronauts are seen doing next. Even the simplest jump violates theatrical flight as the astronaut changes their pivot point in the middle of their flight -- an absolute impossibility when you are talking about something physically attached to an actor.

(The closest thing to a gimbal you can get is with two clips at basically either side of the waist, at the center of gravity, and they go to a plate which can freely rotate. So the actor can tumble and can spin. But they can NOT lean. There's two axes, two fixed axes. That's it.)

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #280 on: June 20, 2018, 03:30:26 AM »
I really cba to pick through the bones of cambo's latest collection of canards, but in reference to the stuff I've posted for him, his position shifts so often I'm not sure he knows what it is anymore.

First there was no matching meteorology. Then it matched but only because they guessed. Now it seems they match but only because they faked the satellite images. That's right, the satellite images that were broadcast from orbit so that anyone with a receiver could get them and which were then distributed to meteorological agencies world wide were somehow edited retrospectively when they brought out Apollo images showing Earth, or broadcast them live on TV. He seems to have settled for a position where they faked the images of Earth, then faked the satellite imagery to match the fake Apollo images, which is beyond dumb.

Most of cambo's other responses to my points are him pretending he hasn't had a response, and mistaking short answers as non-answers instead of "stop being a lazy dumbass and do your own legwork".

When I asked him to provide an answer that made sense I wasn't expecting to get one, so I shouldn't be surprised that I did't. He should have stuck to the standard HB response of pretending he hadn't seen the question. Probably best if you continue to let other people do your thinking for you cambo, it clearly isn't working for you when you try and do it for yourself. You have made no effort to account for meteorological fingerprints in Apollo images other than jerk your knee, and have made no effort at all to prove that the satellite record does not match the Apollo imagery.

"Because I said so" is not an acceptable response - if it was, my website would have taken a lot less time to put together.



Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #281 on: June 20, 2018, 05:33:41 AM »
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid


"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #282 on: June 20, 2018, 08:41:57 AM »
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

All of them, Katie.

I mean, you know that’s going to be the response, much like a squid squirting a cloud of ink while running away.  I don’t think cambo’s capable of following a single argument. 

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #283 on: June 20, 2018, 08:53:36 AM »


Another video for cambo, this one from Apollo 7.  Interested to hear what kind of wire rigs were used to fake this one. 

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2746
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #284 on: June 20, 2018, 10:54:44 AM »
I'm not going to respond directly to Cambo until he makes it clear to whom he's talking.  But I will say that I'm pretty sure people mocked on The Daily Show aren't more believable to the average person.


I feel the same way as I indicated in my previous post.  No one but cambo knows who the comments are directed.

His wall-o-text is still boring.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan