Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 23075 times)

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #300 on: June 22, 2018, 02:35:28 PM »
Hey!  You referenced my footer!
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 41
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #301 on: November 15, 2018, 07:51:30 PM »
Quote from: Jason Thompson
I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.

Quote
If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not

Quote from: Jason Thompson
That is plainly absurd. Do you claim to be able to understand anything and everything you read?

OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Ah yes, because all of geology is just lining up to be told what rocks are. You seriously think geologists the world over can't tell the difference between a rock from Earth and one from the Moon? Explain why it is more ikely that an entire field of science is either incometent or in on a lie than that you might be wrong.

Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
You started out as a person who didnt understand how things like lunar landings were achieved, read some stuff that said they weren't and clung to that like a blanket because it validated your insecurities as being legitimate concerns about reality rather than limitations in your own understanding that you can't be bothered to recitify.

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to “rectify” my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. “When” something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?

It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission” In other words, the astronauts lives were a mere triviality in the scheme of the mission. The fact that Apollo 8, which was by far, the most dangerous of all the alleged missions, happened over the Christmas period, suggests that it was merely a publicity stunt to test the gullibility of the public, and it worked brilliantly, as at the time, those poor deluded Americans desperately needed a fairy-tale with a happy ending. Those astronauts reading passages from the bible, makes my stomach churn, but I’ll bet it brought a tear to the eyes of the over patriotic US public.

Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.” Oh please!!!

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

A while back, I watched the Moon Machines episode, concerning the Command Module, just to see what spin they would put on the radiation issue, as the CM is what allegedly kept the astronauts alive on their journey to and from the moon. Amazingly, not a word was spoken regarding the risks of radiation. They covered the fire, and the steps taken to rectify the problem, and a few words on strengthening its hull to prevent damage on splashdown. So was the threat from radiation so insignificant, that NASA told the producers, it didn’t deserve a mention? I think this was probably the case, as with radiation being such a controversial subject, the only way to dumb it down would be to distort the facts and leave themselves open to criticism. 

I’ve now came across another documentary from 2005 entitled “Race to the Moon: Apollo 8” and again, no mention of radiation. How can a documentary about Apollo 8, fail to mention radiation, as surely this is the biggest talking point between the hoaxers and the NASA faithful? I had to force myself to sit through it, as it was a classic piece of American over dramatization, designed to pull at the heartstrings of the viewers, rather than giving a full and honest account of the alleged events. I find it unsettling that there are seemingly highly educated people among us, who will vigorously defend NASA with nothing but blind faith on their side.



Quote
We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Now prove that the 'sand' you are looking at is starting off on the same trajectory and velocity as the astronaut. Or explain how this can in fact be possible given the way the 'sand' interacts with his boots

He jumps straight up and the sand clearly rises with his boots and then drops back to “earth”, while he magically continues to ascend, and the sand falls a hell of a lot faster than the bloke in the spacesuit. Explain what you mean when you say “the way the sand interacts with his boots”. It seems that the laws of physics only apply when it suites you, and your refusal to accept what is clear to most, whilst failing to present clear evidence which would prove us wrong, suggests that either you are not able to provide such evidence or due to your arrogance, you feel it unnecessary.

Quote
And you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Provide such evidence.

Let me get this straight, you want me to provide proof that physics works? You actually want me to provide evidence for something which you already know, or at least, be able to find for yourself in seconds? Why am I made to jump through hoops to get a simple point across, while you provide very little to support NASA’s claims. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.


Quote from: Jason Thompson
You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Quote
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 alleged micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

By using simple observation and a bit of common sense, it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance. If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked. Wake up!


 


 


Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #302 on: November 16, 2018, 03:30:27 AM »
Bloomin Heck talk about a delay in replying lol. This should be good

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #303 on: November 16, 2018, 03:32:49 AM »
Everybody knows why there are no stars in the Apollo photographs. However nasa has also never said you cannot see or photograph stars in space. In fact nasa themselves have released photographs of stars in space. Common are long exposure shots of Aurora.

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #304 on: November 16, 2018, 03:35:54 AM »
As far as I know the engine had all been shut down prior to actual landing and don't forget Exhaust gases expand very rapidly in a vacuum. Also don't forget the LM didn't hover for any significant time over its final landing spot instead moving laterally over the surface of the moon. Finally consider the jagged and interlocking nature of the rigolith material. when you consider these facts it becomes obvious that the exhaust wasn't powerful enough or centralised enough to blast a hugh crater. as far as I am aware though there was a small crater under the LM just not the huge one most HB think should have been there.

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #305 on: November 16, 2018, 03:37:51 AM »
just for reference the dust wouldn't billow. there was no air for it to do that. and finally I always love when the HB says Wake up at the end lol. I love that they think they have gotten the better of millions of scientists and engineers over the past 5 decades who all believe the landings took place based on science and evidence.

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #306 on: November 16, 2018, 03:38:21 AM »


The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works. The prosecution must prove their case. The defence is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #307 on: November 16, 2018, 05:01:33 AM »
First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Really cba to pick through your conspiracy by the numbers stuff right now, but this needs picking up on. Why? Because it's absolute garbage and you are the one talking out of your backside

Apollo astronauts took many photographs of stars, they referred to stars all the time, they have describe them in detail many times:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

and no, I'm not just talking about the UV images.

As for China, you're right, they are no friends of the US, so why is it that when you download and process their raw images from Chang'e-2 do they show evidence of human activity at the landing sites?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #308 on: November 16, 2018, 05:06:38 AM »
Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.



Could you be any more dishonest?

Comparing Young's live on TV flat footed jump in a full suit with a heavy backpack with that of someone who crouches all the way down after a long run up before jumping? Really? All that proves is how blinkered you are and how you are prepared to distort the truth to suit your own trolling purposes.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #309 on: November 16, 2018, 07:27:53 AM »
Quote from: Jason Thompson
I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.

No amount of slow motion will extend a vomit comet zero-g flight time to several minutes or over an hour, as plenty of film and video of spaceflight shows.

Quote
OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.

And having acknowledged a basic understanding, how have you attempted to use the discussion to expand it? This is where most HBs fall down: assuming their basic understanding is enough, while failing to realise that to become expert in the field requires a hell of a lot more than a basic understanding.

Quote
The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.

Typical HB baseless accusation of 'making stuff up' noted. Where is the proof they were 'made up'?

Quote
I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it

Non sequitur. Being around at the time does not equate to a detailed knowledge of the technical details.

Quote
It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic,

Whose? It's very easy to find something that 'defies logic' if you don't actually understand the premise.

Quote
One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous.

Really not going to re-tread this ground. You joined just after one of the longest threads on this issue  came to a close, so go and read it. In summary, prove the radiation levels were hazardous or stop droning on about it.
 
Quote
Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.

(Video not embedded)

Funny, but in the very first minute I can see clear evidence that some of the regolith does indeed travel as far as his boots at the height of the jump. Once again, looking at a cloud of particles which all behave in slightly different ways, you can't simply ignore the complexity of that and point to the most visible cloud and consider it to be representative of all the dust.

Quote
Quote from: Jason Thompson
You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Evasion noted. Switching to another (incorrect) argument noted. You contended that differences between Apollo and Chinese samples were significant. I repeat my question: why should differences not be observed when, for example, one small island here on Earth would produce even more marked differences if geologists dug around in Dover and Aberdeen?

Quote

Quote
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 alleged micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

That is not answering the question. It basically boils down to 'it looks like it should to me'. Where are you calculations of the thrust and pressure? Where is your information on how deep the lunar regolith is at this point, and where is your fluid analysis of how the exhaust would interact with the surface?
 
Quote
By using simple observation and a bit of common sense

The classic mantra of the HB who can't be bothered or doesn't understand how to do the actual analysis required to support their arguments.

Quote
it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance.

Now prove that 'large amount of disturbance' equates to 'whacking great crater' as opposed to 'evidence of surface scouring' as was in fact observed.

Quote
If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked.

Or you are wrong. Explain why you reduce the situation to a false dilemma that takes no account of the impact your understanding has on the conclusions.
"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: 234
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #310 on: November 16, 2018, 07:58:27 AM »
Jason

surely this guy is a troll lol the distance between posts is very big

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #311 on: November 16, 2018, 08:00:21 AM »
Yay, fringe reset.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #312 on: November 16, 2018, 08:07:13 AM »

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.
The hours that were taken on the Lunar surface are by far more than the 20 seconds of zero gravity produced by the Vomit Comet.  You should make your comparisons more realistic.
Quote


Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.
No all those geologists did not go to the Moon and collect rocks(with the exception of Harrison Schmitt), however the general lack of water found in the Lunar samples is a major property that distinguishes Lunar rocks from Earth samples.
Quote

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to rectify my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. When something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.
That video you watched was produced with outakes from two videos.  The question asked Alan was concerning his Skylab mission(which was in LEO), not the Apollo mission.
Quote

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?

It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission In other words, the astronauts lives were a mere triviality in the scheme of the mission. The fact that Apollo 8, which was by far, the most dangerous of all the alleged missions, happened over the Christmas period, suggests that it was merely a publicity stunt to test the gullibility of the public, and it worked brilliantly, as at the time, those poor deluded Americans desperately needed a fairy-tale with a happy ending. Those astronauts reading passages from the bible, makes my stomach churn, but I’ll bet it brought a tear to the eyes of the over patriotic US public.

Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base. Oh please!!!

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

A while back, I watched the Moon Machines episode, concerning the Command Module, just to see what spin they would put on the radiation issue, as the CM is what allegedly kept the astronauts alive on their journey to and from the moon. Amazingly, not a word was spoken regarding the risks of radiation. They covered the fire, and the steps taken to rectify the problem, and a few words on strengthening its hull to prevent damage on splashdown. So was the threat from radiation so insignificant, that NASA told the producers, it didn’t deserve a mention? I think this was probably the case, as with radiation being such a controversial subject, the only way to dumb it down would be to distort the facts and leave themselves open to criticism. 

I’ve now came across another documentary from 2005 entitled Race to the Moon: Apollo 8 and again, no mention of radiation. How can a documentary about Apollo 8, fail to mention radiation, as surely this is the biggest talking point between the hoaxers and the NASA faithful? I had to force myself to sit through it, as it was a classic piece of American over dramatization, designed to pull at the heartstrings of the viewers, rather than giving a full and honest account of the alleged events. I find it unsettling that there are seemingly highly educated people among us, who will vigorously defend NASA with nothing but blind faith on their side.


Firstly you use generalizations when describing the radiation in the VARB.  The trajectory of Apollo skirted the outside of the torus shaped VARB.  As NASA reported the time through the parts that were traversed was fairly quick, less than two hours and some of that two hours was spent in between the two regions of the VARB where there is no trapped radiation.  When you post that NASA didn't fully understand the effects would pose to astronauts, this is partially correct as information of the effects are still being studied, however for the two week missions of Apollo they understood well the effects and amounts that the astronauts would receive.  Several times you have mentioned that NASA hasn't mentioned what radiation measures were included in construction of the CSM.  That may be correct however the materials used in construction are all radiation barriers to some extent.  The .25" aluminum is an effect barrier to ALL but the most energetic of the radiation particles  also there was some phenolic materials used which are low density and that makes even a better radiation barrier.  All you have to do is to read up on the properties on each of all the materials instead of making a broad brush statement that NASA did not consider radiation when constructing the CSM.
Quote


He jumps straight up and the sand clearly rises with his boots and then drops back to earth, while he magically continues to ascend, and the sand falls a hell of a lot faster than the bloke in the spacesuit. Explain what you mean when you say the way the sand interacts with his boots. It seems that the laws of physics only apply when it suites you, and your refusal to accept what is clear to most, whilst failing to present clear evidence which would prove us wrong, suggests that either you are not able to provide such evidence or due to your arrogance, you feel it unnecessary.

Let me get this straight, you want me to provide proof that physics works? You actually want me to provide evidence for something which you already know, or at least, be able to find for yourself in seconds? Why am I made to jump through hoops to get a simple point across, while you provide very little to support NASA’s claims. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.
Physics works in al situations, but observations vary especially when you are attempting to prove a false point.  The regolith does not fall faster than the astronaut.  Some of the regolith starts dropping prior to the exact top of the jump.
Quote


First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.
What proof do you present that the Chinese missions are fake, just saying that they ar isn't sufficient proof that they are.
Quote

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

By using simple observation and a bit of common sense, it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance. If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked. Wake up!

You didn't answer Jason's question as to the psi at the rocket nozzle.  Does that mean that you have no clue what the psi. was?  Yes Lunar regolith was displaced when the LM landed, however that does not mean that there would be a crater.  And there was disturbances below all the LM's, all you have to do is look.  Regolith varied in depth from a few cm's to more than 10 cm's.  This is all the material that would be displaced as the Lunar surface is solid rock below the regolith and would not be blown away(have you ever watched a Harrier jump jet landing on grass?)  The "craters" would be very shallow and unobservable in the images.  If there was instruments available to measure the displaced regolith.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #313 on: November 16, 2018, 08:25:40 AM »
By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.
Please account for the continuous uncut footage inside the LM with zero g which cannot have been "faked" on the comet.

You can't, can you?

OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.
Why, then, have you plainly not done so?

Those geologists are not incompetent,
If they are competent, their conclusions are reliable.

although extremely gullible,
Projection.

and nor are they in on the fraud.
There isn't one to be in on.

How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks?
They are geologists. It's their job.

Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves,
Actually, yes. Are you really so ignorant that you didn't know that an actual geologist went to the moon and collected samples? Really?

or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?
What a dumb claim.

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity?
How about a fellow geologist who had been to the moon and collected samples?

The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.
Then how do YOU account for them? You can't. Beccause you are ignorant of the science.

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to “rectify” my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.
Everything you just typed is wrong.

You have demonstrated that you are not even vaguely aware of the technical details.
You have demonstrated that you only read HB sites which enable your confirmation bias.
You have not a single example of Apollo "defying logic".
You do not understand science, evidence or Apollo.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. “When” something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.
QED. You don't understand the radiation environment.

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?
That is why NASA planed for those contingencies. That you are ignorant of such contingency planning does not mean it never happened.

From this point on, your post devolves into outright fantasy.

Offline ineluki

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #314 on: November 16, 2018, 08:31:22 AM »
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works. The prosecution must prove their case. The defence is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

Even if it wasn't... Apollo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that's why it is in the history books around the world.

And quite frankly if the defence would come up with gems like
"Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible"
 
or

"First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars"

they simply can no longer claim to be remotely reasonable...