The latest moon hoax documentary
- Thread starter FatFreddy
- Start date
- Status
That's simply not true. I've been to the beach enough times to see how large-grained dust-free sand behaves. If there's no wind, it simply falls just like a rock would. These's no billowing.
MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.
Of course it doesn't but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the issue of whether it's possible to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand on a moon set without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. There are no dust clouds behind the rover in the Apollo footage. The pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum maintain that this is evidence that the missions were filmed in a vacuum. I pointed out that large-grained dust-free sand wouldn't form clouds when kicked up by a vehicle. Jay Windley* replied that it would be impossible to transport and place the sand without creating enough dust to cause a dust cloud. All of the pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum agreed with him.
(see posts #25 and #26)
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
I maintain that this is so clearly wrong that those posters can't even believe it themselves which shows that they are not objective truth-seekers. They seem to be sophists and the Clavius site seems to be a disinfo site. I think all of them know the moon missions were faked.
I want all of you pro-Apollo posters to state whether you agree with Jay Windley on this issue. If you just tap dance around it instead of addressing it directly, you won't look like objective truth-seekers. The viewers are watching and judging.
*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
I don't give a flying F what Jay Windley thinks.
The motion of the regolith thrown up on the Moon by the wheels of the rover is consistent with motion of fines in a vacuum. Period. I don't care if you think Jay Windley is wrong about something, or if you think it's really talcum powder, or you think that rocks in a truck will make a grating noise when driven over a steel bridge. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the video is consistent with driving on an airless body with much less gravity.
Do you think it's also consistent with large-grained dust-free sand being thown up in Earth atmosphere shown in slow-motion?
Whether Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers, or paid sophists who know Apollo was faked is a serious Apollo-related issue. I put forth what I consider to be proof that they are not sincere truth-seekers. If you tap dance around and avoid the issue, it looks like you aren't an objective truth-seeker.
What about the rest of you pro-Apollo posters who have posted on this thread? I want to hear from all of you.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't matter how many imaginative explanations it might match.
Look:
The Earth's motion around the sun is consistent with known physics.
The fact that it's also consistent with the magic powers of a genie in a lamp does not cause a silly explanation to rise to the level of serious consideration.
It's not a tap dance around. It is completely ignoring him because what he says isn't relevant - any more than what Mad Mike said about the shape of the Earth before he died.
The viewers have concluded long ago that you are a troll.Sure! You are crazy...you are a troll. Is that factual enough?
I think it's pretty clear to the viewers that I was asking you all to address this.
(from post #62)
You people seem to be checkmated by this issue. Sincere objective truth-seekers don't get checkmated. They address everything directly and when they see that they're wrong about something, they modify their positions. They don't ignore the arguments made by the other side. Whether Jay Windley* and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum** are sincere truth-seekers, or a bunch of paid sophists*** who know Apollo was faked is a serious Apollo-related issue. Your brushing it off as irrelevant is not the behaviour of sincere truth-seekers.
I might as well just declare victory here and your not recognizing it won't have any effect on what the viewers end up thinking. Even staunch Apollo-believers can see that you're avoiding serious issues because you have to either agree with Jay Windley and look silly, or say he's wrong which will pretty much expose him as a liar. His taking that position on the issue has already exposed him as a liar.
There's really no sense in continuing to talk about this with you people as you've pretty much destroyed your credibility by refusing to address this issue. You're obviously not serious truth-seekers. No one with an ounce of sense who's read this thread is going to take any of you seriously.
*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
**
http://www.clavius.org/
***
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
Ask away - ask denied
So no need to return? - great
Turns to Moon landings believers
"Ladies and gentlemen we all have a win here
FF will no longer be compelled to sprout his nonsense and we no longer need to worry about his mental health"
Currently watching Apollo 13 return to Earth
Re the no stars in the background nonsense
This is showing astronauts used visual sightings of the stars to orientate the damaged craft (the computer and guidance systems had been turned off to save power)
Part of the problem with stars - there were to many in view along with - debris from the explosion still traveling with the craft
Course correction was needed via firing Landers motor and visual sightings
Re the no stars in the background nonsense
This is showing astronauts used visual sightings of the stars to orientate the damaged craft (the computer and guidance systems had been turned off to save power)
Part of the problem with stars - there were to many in view along with - debris from the explosion still traveling with the craft
Course correction was needed via firing Landers motor and visual sightings
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Finally!
Old video unearthed showing damning conclusive evidence of the studio set where the Moon Hoax was assembled!
https://imgur.com/gallery/ep77jJ0
Old video unearthed showing damning conclusive evidence of the studio set where the Moon Hoax was assembled!
https://imgur.com/gallery/ep77jJ0
Why are you still here, then? Don't let that door hit you on your way out!
Why don't you discuss it with Jay Windley? Wait... haven't you already done that? He's debunked you comprehensively, over and over again, hasn't he?
On this particular issue he showed himself to be a sophist who doesn't even believe his own arguments. Look at post #26 on this page.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
Tell us whether you agree with him.
If you think he's a stupid sophist - I like him more already.
You'd need a light source placed extremely far away in order to fake the moon landings, it wouldn't work in a closed studio without modern computer effects.
I can't blame people for being skeptical about the moon landings though. People keep telling me about these things called bears and how they supposedly hibernate all winter, but I have yet to see a single shred of evidence. How come I've never seen one going through my trash?
I can't blame people for being skeptical about the moon landings though. People keep telling me about these things called bears and how they supposedly hibernate all winter, but I have yet to see a single shred of evidence. How come I've never seen one going through my trash?
Start watching the video at the 59:40 time mark.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
They make a good point. Before Apollo the official stand on the Van Allen belts was that they were dangerous. During Apollo they said they weren't that dangerous. Now they say they are dangerous again.
Any objective person with common sense would be suspicious on seeing this. What do you pro-Apollo people say?
They make a good point. Before Apollo the official stand on the Van Allen belts was that they were dangerous. During Apollo they said they weren't that dangerous. Now they say they are dangerous again.
Any objective person with common sense would be suspicious on seeing this. What do you pro-Apollo people say?
You would really need to pay me a good sum of money Freddy, to even begin to watch any of your videos or any video from your tin foil hat brigade. In realty, you all really need to be locked up and certified, so damn silly is the nonsense you attempt to push as fact.
What are you bunch going to hang your hat on when NASA finally returns to the Moon??
How much wringing of hands and idiotic denial will come from your direction when we finally go to Mars?
Sad, so very sad that such psychotic delusional maladies exist and so badly affect some gullible people as yourself.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am suspicious about why you are into this stuff..do you have a book that you are trying to sell?
Let us for a moment go with you...all I can say is..so what...great con.
911 is an inside job..so what who cares?
Those in control no doubt do things for our benefit so why worry?
Alex
Time to post my favourite video Alex!
https://953wdae.iheart.com/content/...s-a-guy-for-harassing-him-about-moon-landing/
A shame he didn't follow it up with a few more! Such raving nutty criminal ratbag like this Bart Sibrel nut, deserve all he got.
- Status