We never went to the moon.

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Ryndanangnysen, Mar 4, 2015.

  1. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    I don't care where your spam started.

    Nope. Your opinion is still moronic, inaccurate and poorly informed.

    And a video was made showing that claim to be complete horseshit. You ignored the video. Still quick bits, but the astronauts are barely moving. The flag is still not billowing, no resistance, and the direction of the pole has no bearing on the orientation of the flag. All impossible. Your insistence on restating your clueless opinion doesn't suddenly make it correct.

    Nope. Stating horseshit doesn't make it correct. The same rules apply to cloth in water. Only a moron would not see this.

    If they let clueless cowards into a debating hall, they would be laughing at you. I addressed the issue succinctly. It is bullshit opinion. Bare assertion, go and google it.

    You seem confused with the word "proof" and your "idiotic and very ignorant opinion". He is not a sophist, and you don't know him. No source will confirm him as a known sophist, you are a liar.

    Pathetic. You are the biggest waste of space on the internet. Quite clearly it IS true. I guarantee you will raise it again somewhere, like the dishonest person you are.

    The spamming comedian. Yeah try again:

    They aren't from Earth, no plausible scenarios there. They aren't meteorites, no plausible scenarios there. They could not possibly have been collected in secret from numerous sites with this secret and massive space program you plucked out of your butt! No plausible scenarios at all. They came from the Moon, because the entire geologist community agree on the matter. The evidence that they are from a low gravity, volcanic astral body, with micrometeorite impacts, dry as a bone, but with oxygen isotopes matching with the Earth, lead to the overwhelming conclusion that they cannot be anywhere else BUT from the Moon. You cowardly avoided my posts:

    The rocks have been analysed thousands of times, for an internet zero like you to suggest they are all mistaken is comedic nonsense. Tell me exactly how you compare rocks brought back from the Moon with "real moon rocks"?! The Soviet samples show perfect correlation with Apollo ones.

    "The rocks cannot be from Earth. They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.
    They cannot be from meteors. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.
    That leaves the bullshit and impossible 842lbs of samples magically retrieved remotely with not a single scrap of evidence. Even now the technology to do this is ludicrously difficult."

    You don't know what the word plausible means. Hundreds of pounds of Apollo samples have been distributed for analysis!! Noting your total inability to provide one solitary scrap of evidence for your claims, that must also include the planting of science experiments, laser reflectors, thousands of pictures and video - it seems you are full of crap!

    AND

    To Mr Fat - where is your response to this?

    "Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters. The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program. To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    468
    (from post #960)
    I beg to differ. These people seem to have a naive willingness to believe when they read or hear the official story and they have an a priori incredulity when they see alternative info that doesn't make it through the mainstream news censors. An intelligent objective person has neither an a priori incredulity nor a naive willingness to believe. I think these people are paid sophists* who don't even believe their own arguments but I'll assume they're just naive.
    Patriotic politically-naive Americans should be shown what's really happening.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

    These people present official information as truth and just consider my arguments to be debunked. They don't seem to consider the idea that the government would tell a gigantic lie. People who are really like that usually slink away on forums as they see they've been lied to and it shakes them up a bit. They experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial. The ones who are unteachable when it comes to the info in the above line are usually paid sophists.


    This is so lame that it would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

    You said this.
    I responded with this.
    Now you're supposed to give a counter-rebuttal to my rebuttal. If it's so silly, it should be easy for you to address. It seems to have you checkmated. If you're not checkmated by it, give a serious counter-rebuttal to it.

    You've been saying some pretty lame things such as calling my rubuttals "Spam" instead of responding to them. You also maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue and all of the viewers have seen this. I'd say you've lost this debate even though you'll never recognize it. The only way to deal with a bunch of Black Knights** that try to bury the parts of the debate where they looked silly is to keep linking to those parts of the debate to thwart them.


    *
    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

    **
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    i get your point about people not seeking to learn things.
    paid-sophists" is another name for what some call "de-bunkers" profesional or such like...
    interestng to see the term de-bunker become science-a-tised by many to ligitimise the term into what was once called a "skeptic".
    i wonder if the term skeptic has been avoided by those who perceive it is a term relating to religous concepts around creationism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    You are neither of those. I have never come across a more obstinate and clueless person.

    It has been proven time and time again, that you are a liar. It is obvious you yourself have some sort of sicko thrill agenda, by cutting and pasting duplicate replies on thousands of posts. You are a spammer who knows full well that the missions could not possibly have been hoaxed.

    That video you posted where the fake expert says the rover was a model demonstrates that. Nobody can look at the footage and think that was a model. Even when watching very well produced films pre-CGI it is totally obvious when something is not full size. Once again you are clearly lying.

    Words cannot express how idiotic it is that you cut and paste that identical response. You are absolutely crazy. "Lame" and "debating halls" you ridiculous person.

    You are so good at playing dumb, you are an expert. If someone makes a claim, that is unsubstantiated, it is a bare assertion. Your response consists entirely of some very ignorant person making a whole paragraph of bullshit claims. Take any one of his statements and prove it is fact. You will not because you can not. It is complete gibberish. If you typed "fairies live in my garden" it would require evidence to back it up. Would you expect me to offer rebuttal to it?

    The rocks have you completely checkmated. You have nothing but ridiculous bare assertion of your own. Not one tiny scrap of evidence to support it. Nothing. Not from Earth, not from meteorites and without evidence, precedent, something comparable or technically feasible, recovery of that huge mass of samples, by anything other than the men who did it is absurd.

    If they let riff raff into the debating hall, you would be ejected with the rubbish!

    Liar. i have responded to them all. You have a little flowchart of cut and paste spam to follow.

    See that load of bolded text above? How about you stop being the cowardly liar you are and respond to it.

    LMAO at your circular stupidity. Let me reiterate. Your opinion, that is the words you type, that belong to you, is not a fact. Did you understand that?

    Do you know the difference between what you think and provable reality? You keep mixing the two up so it appears you don't. When you say a flag moves like that in water it is so astonishingly stupid that it becomes almost laughable that you then insist your opinion is right. You are an unreachable pocket of madness.

    FTFY.

    Answer the bolded quotes above troll.
     
  8. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    i have seen some raw-ish looking footage where moon landing deniers attempt to quarel over the footage stating there is no "crosses" or IS "crosses" or something such on the footage and asking about the quality.
    suggesting the footage is doctored.
    it seemed fairly clear to me that there was an overlay of other footage on the footage making ghost images.
    clearly a sign of some of the difficulties in receiving video stream and having it decoded then displayed.
    it was clear to see that it was like a double image of the same footage that had inadvertantly been layered over the top somehow.
    why that was i do not know. or if it was done on purpose by the deniers attempting to add stuff covertly to the footage.
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,812
    I refuse to call moon landing denialists "Luna dicks".
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  10. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    fantastic name for a song.
    probably techno-drum n bass
    would be a complete roof lifter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Michael 345 Next for NT Anzac Day 2018 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,957
    I'm more Don Quixote type

    To dream ... the impossible dream... ...

    To go .....to the moon in the sky....

    To steer... through the Van Allen belts....

    To fly ......through the blackness of space

    To try .... when your so low on fuel..

    To touch down ..... in Tranquility Base....

    To walk.... where were no man has been...

    To collect .... the rocks from the moon

    To love .... the Earth from afar.....

    To return....to a splash down at sea...

    We reached the unreachable moon

    Man of La Mancha

    https://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/bestofbroadway-americanmusical/theimpossibledream.htm

    Apologies to Joe Darion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    The spamming comedian. Yeah try again:

    1. The rocks have been analysed thousands of times, for an internet zero like you to suggest they are all mistaken is comedic nonsense.
    2. Tell me exactly how you compare rocks brought back from the Moon with "real moon rocks"?!
    3. The Soviet samples show perfect correlation with Apollo ones.
    4. The rocks cannot be from Earth no plausible scenario there.. They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.
    4. They cannot be from meteors no plausible scenario there. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.
    5. That leaves the bullshit and impossible 842lbs of samples magically retrieved remotely with not a single scrap of evidence. Even now the technology to do this is ludicrously difficult. They could not possibly have been collected in secret from numerous sites with this secret and massive space program you plucked out of your butt!
    6. You don't know what the word plausible means. Hundreds of pounds of Apollo samples have been distributed for analysis!! Noting your total inability to provide one solitary scrap of evidence for your claims, that must also include the planting of science experiments, laser reflectors, thousands of pictures and video - it seems you are full of crap!
    7. The evidence that they are from a low gravity, volcanic astral body, with micrometeorite impacts, dry as a bone, but with oxygen isotopes matching with the Earth, lead to the overwhelming conclusion that they cannot be anywhere else BUT from the Moon. They came from the Moon, because the entire geologist community agree on the matter.

    To Mr Fat - where is your response to this?

    8. Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters. The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum.
    9. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program. To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum."
     
  13. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    468
    (from post #969)
    I addressed this in post #956.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-48#post-3514700.

    This is about the third time you've ignored my response.

    I addressed this in post #949.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-48#post-3514555

    It's a mere opinion and he's a known sophist so he's not to be taken seriously.


    Neither the rocks nor that guy's opinion make the anomalies that prove the hoax go away.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302


    I know that you paid sophists will never admit defeat.

    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------
    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. Butdisinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect topretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's justa job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style,substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
    ------------------------------------------


    No matter how lame your positions are you go on saying lame things with authoritive patronizing attitudes. I've found that the best way to deal with this tactic is to post those anomalies that are so clear that they're impossible to obfuscate. You people have to try to obfuscate them anyway so you end up looking silly in spite of your authoritative patronizing attitudes and your success rate at swaying the viewers' opinions is pretty low.

    There's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry simply becomes ineffective.
     
  14. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,812
    And a much earlier point where bullshit simply becomes ineffective. You weren't paying attention as that zipped by you.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    linking to other forums to bulk out your arguement detracts from this site.
    if you wish to debate in this site then you may wish to engage personally instead of linking to topics in other boards.
    using those links to an anti-moon-landing web site is not going to engage many serious enough to discus things with you.

    repying to questions by just posting a link to another forum instructing people to read that forum is a little out side the realm of how this board works.
    this is a discussion board and thus scientific links to scientific data is well accepted.

    it appears you are asking people to do research of facts on what many would call "debunker sites".
     
  16. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    No you did not, you evaded it as you are doing here. You responded with a quote from a fool who did nothing but speculate. You ignored the entire list.

    You totally useless fraud. Your response to his assessment of your stupid video is that it is opinion?? So therefore you ignore it. It is not an opinion based response to offer verifiable observation. As opposed to the bit just above where in an act of cowardly hypocrisy, you DO offer a totally opinion based response!

    Spam response. You have it backwards.

    The rocks and the vast catalog of evidence prove the missions. What clueless spammers regard as anomalies do not alter that irrefutable fact.

    You know nothing you irritating human being. You have invested 10 years of your life on this crusade of stupidity. If you had been King Canute you would be 1000 fathoms deep by now!

    Virtually that entire paragraph is your standard spam response. You have the situation about the rocks laid out in cold hard facts. None of the facts are lame or sophistry, you just cannot answer them. You never do and you know this full well.

    The game is up, you need to get a life now. You really must have OCD or something. Your whole repertoire is one ridiculous cut and paste spamfest. Not one single new thing to say.

    Is to ignore it like a big fraudulent coward.

    Run away you internet joke.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    you have to go to the moon to prove the landings were fake
    let us know when you get there.
     
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,812
    No hurry coming back, of course.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  19. Michael 345 Next for NT Anzac Day 2018 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,957
    As I recall the ascent module from the moon has a lot of redundancy with the lift off rocket having 13 nozzles when only 2 were required to obtain successful ignition

    Let's see if we can do away with the redundancy for FF and cut the nozzles down to zero

    The hot air alone from FF should be enough for lift off. As a bonus we can organise the landing to be on the Far Side

    Very apt

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,812
    I think we can talk FF into testing Verne's lunar landing system. He would get a bang out of it.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,364
    I think he is of the "quantity over quality" mindset here. If he throws enough BS at the wall, some of it has to stick - right? And if not, well, he must not be throwing enough BS.
     
  22. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,812
    "Violence, if it doesn't work you're not using enough."
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  23. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    modern technology has made things vastly safer in western society
    infant mortality
    pre-post natal maternal death rates
    child death rates
    Vaccines
    Penicillin
    accident survival rates
    emergency services response times.
    saftey procedures and systems.

    what i think many people are not aware of, was that the astronauts were knowingly putting their lifes on the line.
    the teams on the ground knew some things were down to % chances of them not killing the astronaught.

    meanwhile todays safer society has obese people suing air line companys for emotional abuse. because the chairs are not wide enough, while it is statistically vastly more dangerous for that same person to simply cross the street or go to the local store in their car.

    look at richard bransons plane that had a lever in it that would instantly kill everyone on board if you pulled it at the wrong time.
    luckily 1 test pilot survived(probably pure chance)

    that type of technology and risk of death was normal for the astronaughts(and test pilots).

    reading helcion dazed summer meadow day dream ideology of "oh no you didnt" really does become quite tiresome.
     

Share This Page