Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: choos

Thanks pal, appreciate the input a lot!!!

Although polycarbonate and such a thin layer of Gold wouldn't amount to much of a radiation protection, probably the bare minimum, however you answered my question sufficiently!!!

Definitely worth a star!!!


Peace choos!!!

Its funny, but this guy, lecturing I believe at NASA, makes a comment that he doesnt believe China's claims that their
EVA suits are radiation proof 28:30. I wonder why and how he could know? Shouldn't we just take their word for it? Why would they lie about it? He also pointed other mysteries.

a reply to: FoosM

I just finished watching that one. I was disappointed that they did not show all of his slides.. only some of them.

"Presented by Lewis Croog/Jacobs ESCG" NASA logo at the very beginning with a date of 2/18/2010.

This is an eye opening video because this NASA contractor has prepared his briefing by 1: searching google and 2: using google Chinese translator and 3: streaming video from youtube.

Croog took the time to point out that the Chinese orbiters look Russian and designed after Russians, while also he pointed out that the Chinese launch assembly building looks like NASA's VAB.

Croog said "The outer part of the suit has fire resistance.. I don't know about their claim about radiation resistance.. you know they might have just been boasting... maybe it has minimal."

originally posted by: FoosM

Its funny, but this guy, lecturing I believe at NASA, makes a comment that he doesnt believe China's claims that their
EVA suits are radiation proof 28:30. I wonder why and how he could know? Shouldn't we just take their word for it? Why would they lie about it? He also pointed other mysteries.

radiation proof..

why dont you tell us what you think that means?

originally posted by: FoosM

Wait, what makes you think I haven't?
Part of testing somebody's evidence is to bring it to forums such as these and have people of different
backgrounds come up with counter-arguments.

so then why did you bring up rene's faulty calculations on the space suits not once but twice?? it was noted that it was wrong back in 2010 by Phage and again just last week by Rob48..

it doesnt look like you are looking for counter arguments at all.. looks more like you are waiting and hoping people would have forgotten so you can push the lie again..

surely you are not trying to push a lie.. its just that it looks like you are..

a reply to: ppk55

Does anyone yet have a powerful enough telescope to see any actual equpment on the moon? I know the average joe may not have a powerful enough laser in his basement to use the reflector that one of the Apollo missions was supposed to have left there.

But I know SOMEONE had to launch at least a small rocket with a device capable of plopping that thing up there.

What's the 'conspiracy' view on THAT???

a reply to: abcdefz

Does anyone yet have a powerful enough telescope to see any actual equpment on the moon?

No.

But I know SOMEONE had to launch at least a small rocket with a device capable of plopping that thing up there.

How do you know?

What's the 'conspiracy' view on THAT???

That it is evidence of a hoax. Even though it is only evidence that hoax proponents lack skills in critical thinking.

See, Apollo hoax proponents think that there is (or should be) some sort of priority to prove that the Apollo landings actually happened. The thing is, there is no reason to prove it because hoax believers lack critical thinking skills. They just, for some reason, choose to believe that it did not happen.

See, Apollo hoax proponents have no actual evidence that the Apollo landings did not occur. They just, for some reason, choose to believe that it did not happen.

See, Apollo hoax proponents have an inflated view of the importance of their misinformed opinions and lack of critical thinking skills.

a reply to: abcdefz

No - such a telescope would need to be 200 feet across.

I'm afraid until then you'll have to be satisfied with the LRO images that show the laser reflectors, the trails of the astronauts leading to the laser reflectors, and the lunar modules that took them there.

e2a: There are a few misconceptions about the LRRR. While they are designed to return light in exactly the same direction from which it was received, they still need setting up so that they are pointing at the right place in order for this to happen.

They could not just be dumped there and hope for the best, they needed setting up and they included equipment to get them level and pointing at back at Earth at the correct angle. As the missions that carried them had different latitudes the set up angle was different for each one.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: FoosM

I just finished watching that one. I was disappointed that they did not show all of his slides.. only some of them.

Well then why didn't you look up the whole presentation? It took me literally 10 seconds on Google.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Nothing sinister at all, just pointing out that the Chinese suits appear to be basically identical to the Russian Orlan ones. The Russian ones work, so why shouldn't the Chinese ones?

a reply to: Rob48

Well then why didn't you look up the whole presentation? It took me literally 10 seconds on Google.

But that's Ironic, isn't it? You used google.

That's exactly what the same method the NASA contractor was using to prepare his NASA briefing on Chinese space suits!
----

There were 12 NASA employees (maybe CIA) who listened to his 60 minute briefing. All they needed to do was go on google for 10 seconds!

....

Do you see the irony in that? I'm lmao. There were 12 people getting briefed for 1 HOUR while you did it in just 10 seconds! Great job Rob! You would make a great press secretary for NASA, Richard Nixon or Howard Hughes.

Thread Summary

The Apollo Defenders have been unable to convince anyone of the reality of Apollo in 235 pages of discourse.

The Apollo Defenders have submitted fake evidence and argued in favor of that evidence.

The Apollo Defenders have offered personal testimonies and hearsay evidence; they have argued in favor of astronaut smuggling; they have argued in favor of not knowing how many cameras were brought back from the "moon";

The Apollo Defenders have relentlessly used card stacking and glittering generalities to bully anyone who questions Nixon's Apollo. In the 235 pages of this thread the Defenders have really shown themselves to be poor poker players and incompetent defense attorneys, but the fatal weakness of Apollo Defenders is the reliance on NASA confirming NASA... especially with the LRO confirming Apollo. It's a red flag... everybody knows it's a red flag....

a reply to: Phage

Even though it is only evidence that hoax proponents lack skills in critical thinking.

Oh reaaaalllllly??????

I'll be waiting for your thread titled "Phage proves Apollo was Real!"

And I know that ain't never gonna happen!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Thread Summary

The Apollo Defenders have been unable to convince anyone of the reality of Apollo in 235 pages of discourse.

Apollo deniers have failed to prove it was faked in 235 pages of discourse.

The Apollo Defenders have submitted fake evidence and argued in favor of that evidence.

Apollo defenders have submitted legitimate evidence and argued in favour of that evidence. Deniers have routinely failed to acknowledge that evidence.

The Apollo Defenders have offered personal testimonies and hearsay evidence;

Specifically of astronauts who said "I went to the moon" in their hearing. As opposed to absolutely no eye witness testimony of an astronaut saying "I didn't go" and bucketloads of hearsay evidence of liars and fraudsters who were nowhere near NASA, Apollo, or the moon.

they have argued in favor of astronaut smuggling;

This is a lie. I (for one) have argued that I do not blame them. This is not the same thing.

they have argued in favor of not knowing how many cameras were brought back from the "moon";

This is a stupid argument. I (for one) have argued that more cameras were brought back than previously acknowledged. Indeed I discovered one of them. The somehow not knowing how many cameras were brought bacl is arguing in favour of not knowing it is ridiculous.

The Apollo Defenders have relentlessly used card stacking and glittering generalities to bully anyone who questions Nixon's Apollo.

This in itself is a card stacking glittering generality. It was not Nixon's Apollo, it was Kennedy's.

In the 235 pages of this thread the Defenders have really shown themselves to be poor poker players and incompetent defense attorneys,

We are not in court, this is not a poker game.

but the fatal weakness of Apollo Defenders is the reliance on NASA confirming NASA... especially with the LRO confirming Apollo.

If you can provide any other reliable and scientiifically based sources of evidence, ideally from a .gov website, that disproves Apollo feel free to do so.

It's a red flag... everybody knows it's a red flag....

It's the Emperor's new clothes everyone.

Thread Summary:

Apollo deniers have repeatedly ignored all evidence that they don't like when it proves them wrong, have repeatedly demanded answers to questions that they could get answers to themselves with a slight amount of internet searching, have been proven wrong repeatedly and then pretended they haven't, have failed to provide any evidence other than unsupported opinion and conjecture, and used card stacking, glittering generalities, testimonial and all manner of diversionary tactics to try and bolster their weak, flimsy arguments copied and pasted from elsewhere on the internet that are without exception based on lack of knowledge (at best) or downright dishonesty (at worst).

Apollo landed on the mopn and the stupidity of an internet generation who can't think independently for more than 20 seconds will never triumph over people who understood how to use a slide rule.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Phage

Even though it is only evidence that hoax proponents lack skills in critical thinking.

Oh reaaaalllllly??????

I'll be waiting for your thread titled "Phage proves Apollo was Real!"

And I know that ain't never gonna happen!

What about the debate you challenged me to? Getting cold feet?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo Defenders have been unable to convince anyone of the reality of Apollo in 235 pages of discourse.

Who needs convincing? Funny how most of the posts on the side of common sense and the reality of the landings attract far more stars than those disputing the landings. I think most people are convinced already. If even a website devoted to fringe theories can't attract a bit of support for the hoax theory then I think that theory is in serious trouble.

The Apollo Defenders have submitted fake evidence and argued in favor of that evidence.

The Hoax Believers/Apollo Reviewers/Tufty Club/whatever you want to call yourselves have submitted "evidence" that contains breathtakingly elementary errors in basic mathematics and physics, and/or is based on simple misunderstandings of how the Apollo programme worked. When such errors are pointed out, said evidence is quietly brushed under the carpet and some new allegation is fired out instead. Apollo Reviewers have fatally short attention spans, it seems.

originally posted by: DJW001
What about the debate you challenged me to? Getting cold feet?

Taunting now?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Sayanara, I have accepted your challenge to a debate. I am awaiting your choice of a specific topic. Why are you ignoring that all of a sudden?

DJW this is my offer, it remains the same, it has not changed since p.215 of this thread. Why ask me to pick a specific topic when I have generously given you the advantage of choosing one? Are these terms somehow unacceptable to you?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

How about: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings?"

OK. I'll take it. Who do you want for the 2 mods? And then we can settle the general structure of the debate. Settling the terms of the debate can be public or private conversations I will let you decide on that. No hurry, I realize it takes time to get responses from mods.. tothetenthpower (supermod) has added me to fighter status so I'm ready to go.

a reply to: Rob48

Funny how most of the posts on the side of common sense and the reality of the landings attract far more stars than those disputing the landings.

That's right. The Apollo Defenders "win" a lot of "stars" for their posts. But Is that an accurate way to determine what's real and what's not real, by how many "stars" you get? Don't let those stars go to your head!

December 19, 1972: The day that will live in infamy.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

Funny how most of the posts on the side of common sense and the reality of the landings attract far more stars than those disputing the landings.

That's right. The Apollo Defenders "win" a lot of "stars" for their posts. But Is that an accurate way to determine what's real and what's not real, by how many "stars" you get? Don't let those stars go to your head!

December 19, 1972: The day that will live in infamy.

December 19, 1972 :

1) The supertanker Sea Star collided with another ship and spilled 144,000,000 litres of petroleum into the Persian Gulf.[43]
2) Apollo 17 returned to Earth, concluding the program of lunar exploration.

December 1972

a reply to: FoosM

I watched this one again... youtube showed a long advertisement for the Zeiss Crossbeam system ..

It opens with a crane shot and then a ground level shot, that means 2 cameras. Notice there are some severe reflections going on with the presenters eye glasses, means they had lighting on the set. It's a pretty nice setup! The camera can do so many tricks but it can't eliminate the fact of the high-powered lights on the set... his eye glasses don't lie.

Then I was also interested how the camera man was able to get that focus perfectly on the presenter and the module at the same time... man, that focus puller had mad skillz

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The camera can do so many tricks but it can't eliminate the fact of the high-powered lights on the set... his eye glasses don't lie.

oh didnt expect you to suggest reflections dont lie..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The camera can do so many tricks but it can't eliminate the fact of the high-powered lights on the set... his eye glasses don't lie.

oh didnt expect you to suggest reflections dont lie..

Can't you read? I said "his eye glasses don't lie". It was a simple test, you failed it.

Would you like to know how Kodak helped Richard Nixon convict Alger Hiss for perjury? What kind of film did they use on Apollo missions?