...DID we go to the moon?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by GeoffP, May 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Yes, with a long drop, THE WRONG DROP!

    Try it with about 40 centimetres, it is considerably faster than the Apollo 15 flag. Since the whole thing is a flexing, evenly distributed complex pendulum, establishing a pivot point is very hard to do.

    Total spam. You've made that post HUNDREDS of time around the internet, so much so that you have your very own debunk blog created. Owned.


    Can we dispense with your regulation spam reply, about how he believes that China didn't fake their spacewalk, which only a brain dead fool would claim was faked anyway? Then the follow up about your credibility test, as in anybody who thinks it was real must be a shill. Then jump to the bit where the guy who made the video says Apollo was real. Then we skip to where you claim he was "got at", and we all laugh at you yet again. Can we dispense with all that, and you just address the response, without the ad hominem? Can we?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Hey!!! Leave him alone!! We do need a bit of a laugh sometimes you know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    The Apollo 15 flag footage was shown in slow-motion so it's going to be a bit slower than it should be.
    (2:36 time mark)

    It's still faster than what it would be on the moon though.
    (18:50 timemark)

    BetaMax tried to obfuscate this anomaly but it's simply too clear to obfuscate.
    Let's hear your analysis of it.

    I posted the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in post #55 of this thread.

    Those anomalies are also too clear to obfuscate and BetaMax destroyed his credibility when he tried to obfuscate them.

    You just destroyed your credibility.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

    Oh stop it! You're given me a tummy ache!
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  9. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Ha ha. What a joke. It's slower because it's on the Moon and you're busted!! This comedy routine is just classic.

    Oh no it isn't. The mechanics of pendulums applied to fabric aren't something some dork on youtube can do properly. You've been told the problems with his analysis, now run along and get a clue.

    No, he kicked your sorry butt all over the PF. That was one of the most savage beatings I've ever seen administered to a hoax loon.

    I agree with Betamax and I think your claim relies on total ignorance of motion in a vacuum under micro gravity.

    No, you spammed your debunked crap -


    Owned, just completely owned.

    Thanks, I'll wear that as a badge of honour. When someone with your credentials is the judge of it, it means the opposite. Care to comment on the man who made the China faked it video? He says Apollo was real. How is his credibility. Oh don't tell us, he was "got at". Ha ha, comedy night with the king of spam.
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    some time back i asked you about the capabilities of the apollo launch vehicle, the saturn V.
    did you ever get that information?
  11. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    That's a little above my head so all I can do is find research done by others.

    (24:30 time mark)

    You're trying to mislead those viewers who don't have time to actually look at what's being discussed. I'd better post it here.


    In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.

    Watch it at these time marks.

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

    Watch the first video on the list at the 3:45 time mark to see the astronaut holding the buoyant safety cable down so that its buoyancy won't be so obvious.

    At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.

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

    The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
    (1:55 time mark)

    All I can do is ask the viewers who don't have time to look at the anomalies to withhold judgement until you look at them and not be swayed by rhetoric. Anyone who actually looks at the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk will see that it was faked. Any pro-Apollo poster who says it was real can only be a paid disinfo agent.

    Please go into some detail. Tell us what makes the jacket corner come back down if they're in zero-G (micro-gravity is negligible).

    Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
    (00:52 time mark)

    The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

    Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.

    That is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

    The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
    (3:17 time mark)

    It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.

    Here are some more analyses by experts.

    You people can pretend all you want. The proof that Apollo was a hoax is crushing.
  12. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Experts can be got at. Watch this video and pay attention at the 4:00 and 6:45 time marks.
    "The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7"

    This person seems to be a rational scientist in this video.
    "Global Nuclear Coverup an interview with Leuren Moret"

    Here she is years later looking like a wacko saying that the earthquake in Japan was caused by the US government.
    "Scientist Leuren Moret - Japan earthquake and nuclear "accident" are tectonic nuclear warfare.m4v"

    She had a daughter and probably grandchildren. Some goons from the government probably paid her a visit and made her "An offer she couldn't refuse".

    Noam Chomsky's no moron but here he is saying moronic things that he obviously doesn't believe himself.
    "The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers: Zwicker (#3"

    Dylan Avery (one of the makers of "Loose Change") has changed his opinion.

    Here's a guy that got blown away.
    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...tnG=Google Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

    His writings were hurting the government and they probably wanted to get rid of him before he got too famous.

    Here's some stuff about Howard Zinn the anti-establishment historian.

    Like Chomsky, he's no moron.

    Naomi Klein ain't no moron either.

    We shouldn't be too surprised when anti-establishment pundits start to say lame things as they can be threatened.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    there are 2 PDFs available for dowload and i will present some of those findings in the physics section of the forum.
    there is, however, this little snippet taken from the left pane of the site, aulis speaking about itself:
    Questioning accepted orthodoxy. Publishing works and articles that 'fly in the face' of established thought.
    in all honesty fatfreddy you should forget about "waving flags" and other "picture anomalies" and concentrate on the capability of the rocket.
    frankly i find it next to impossible to believe NASA could have hidden an incapable system given the vast numbers of people that was directly involved in its development.
    we aren't talking about a 100 or so at NASA, we are talking about 1000s scattered all across the country.
    i am not pretending about anything, i am just as curious as you are but i choose to look in the direction that will prove conclusively we went.
    well see, that's the thing, you haven't provided any proof.
    the aulis article is the only thing you have provided in that regard and it hasn't been verified.
  14. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    I posted a ton of proof in post #40.

    Everything I've seen presented as proof that they really went can be explained.
    Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[209]
    Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[210] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[211][212] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[210] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:

    Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.

    Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.

    Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.

    Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.

    Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.

    Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[14] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[213][214] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[215]

    They prove the hoax by themselves.

    (2:26 time mark)

    You people keep insisting that he brushed the flag with his arm but this video shows that it started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

    This video shows the movement of the flag is consistent with its being in air.
    (00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

    This video shows that the movement of the flag was too fast for it to have been in lunar gravity.

    Then there's the swinging jacket corner anomaly in post #108.

    All of you pro-Apollo posters say the Chinese spacewalk was real (post #108). The anomalies that show the Chinese spacewalk was faked are so clear that they make a good shill-detector. You can pretend all you want but all of you have been detected.
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    provide a link to his analysis.

    i just read the 2 PDFs i dowloaded from the aulis site.
    this analysis was done using video footage of the rocket in flight at the time of staging.
    due to atmospheric effects i do not believe that an accurate analysis can be made this way and i'm quite sure there are many others that would agree.

    have you read anything about the strength of materials used or the thrust produced by the f1?
    this is the area that will prove your claims fatfreddy because they can be verified by many, many, people.
    also, there are a few F1s in museums and these can be looked at by any number of engineers.
  16. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    http://www.aulis.com/pdf folder/Pokrovsky1.pdf

    This stuff is way above my head. You asked me to provide some info on the strength of the rocket so I found some of the works of others.

    There is some other very clear proof of a hoax in my last post (#111) so the issue of the strength of the Saturn 5 is not about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it.
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i've already downloaded this PDF and like i said above, atmospheric effects will prevent an accurate analysis.
    if this stuff is way over your head then why are you so sure of a conspiracy?
    yes, an analysis of the rocket in flight from footage that was shot from many miles* below and the attending atmospheric effects.

    * edit:
    the altitude of the rocket was 42 miles.
    the distance to the camera will be somewhat greater than this due to downrange distance.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014
  18. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    The issue of the strength of the Saturn 5 rocket is way over my head. Look at these calculations.
    http://www.aulis.com/pdf folder/Pokrovsky1.pdf

    I'm not ashamed to say that's way over my head. However there is some really clear hoax proof that makes the issue of the strength of the Saturn 5 rocket moot. I posted it in post #111.

    The issue of the strength of the Saturn 5 is not about whether they faked the moon missions. It's about how they faked them.
  19. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Everything is above your head.

    Like pendulums, vacuums, air motion, micro gravity.

    It's only clear to the ignorant. Those, where it doesn't fly above their head see it for the crap it is -

  20. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    The guy who did that also said the Chinese spacewalk was real (see post #108). This shows that he's a professional sophist. The government employs a lot of them. The internet is full of them.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

    The stock in trade answer from all looney conspiracy theorists.
    getting out of bed in the morning must be a great worry for you......Everyone, including government departments conspiring against you.
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you don't even know if the saturn 5 was capable enough to get us there.
    as soon as you prove the saturn 5 capable then the issue is settled.
    to narrow it down even further you can almost rely on the thrust of the F1.
    if the thrust of these engines was enough then we went.

    BTW, i'm not interested in your pictures or videos
  23. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Sorry but that argument doesn't make the ton of hoax proof go away.

    (post #40)

    The reason they faked it was probably space radiation. Here's the info on that which I posted in post #40.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page