The moon is not a vacuum. It has gravity.
Men never set their feet on the Moon
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Evidently a bunch of bangs and knocks and other sounds did get picked up.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/men-never-set-their-feet-on-the-moon.164403/page-6#post-3680674
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/men-never-set-their-feet-on-the-moon.164403/page-3#post-3680310
They were sloppy. Those sounds are there and they wouldn't be there in a vacuum.
These are not connected. It is a vacuum with gravity.
This once again is so incredibly dumb and you are deliberately avoiding the most impossible to avoid point. Answer this and stop being a coward: why would they use microphones to simulate a vacuum? It is just so incredibly stupid for anyone to film things with live microphones knowing that every bang and knock could get picked up - THEREFORE THEY WOULDN'T!
Not to mention also, that you asserting they "were sloppy" is also incredibly stupid. The astronauts and ground control actually talked about a couple of incidents and later discussed noises in mission reports. I realise that someone like you has not even considered reading a mission report, but it means that they were fully aware of every noise! Your stupid hoax claim means this MUST have been recorded in advance and they for some reason chose to use live microphones (extremely stupid) and then discuss sounds that occurred (dumb beyond words) then leave the damn noises in (absolutely insane).
You are incapable of critical thinking and logic - if you were able to do this, you would see that none of this makes any sense in terms of a hoax and everything explainable in terms of vibration, communications noises and random suit sounds.
They wouldn't. That would be silly. It kind of looks like they were so sloppy that they didn't even try to simulate a vacuum. The bottom line is that those sounds are there and in a vacuum they wouldn't be there. Now we should try to figure out what kind of microphones they used and where they were, etc. We may never figure it out but that doesn't mean the anomalies aren't there.
Yes and that kind of thing is in the realm of what hoax nuts would do.
Are you taking the piss here? It would take monumental stupidity to video 12 EVAs and not be aware they were in a low gravity vacuum. For you to suggest that they didn't bother, is moronic.
You seem oblivious to explanations and people trying to educate you. There ARE sounds, but 99% occur where there is no object being struck. Your devious film makers have cherry picked the few moments where spurious sounds are in sync and suckered the gullible in to believing this happens all the time. In addition, there are a couple of times where the sound is propagated through vibrations something that is not dependant on air!
Already covered. You are simply unable to take in anything that explains away your idiotic claims.
There are no anomalies. There are simple explanations for notable incidents and for everything else it is provably random communication noises.
Moderator note: FatFreddy has been warned for spamming sciforums with material that he has posted to many other forums and which has apparently already been debunked comprehensively. This is a waste of our members' time. It is also inappropriate to try to resurrect years-old arguments from other forums here, and FatFreddy has previously been informed of this.
Due to accumulated warning points, FatFreddy will be taking a break from sciforums.
Due to accumulated warning points, FatFreddy will be taking a break from sciforums.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Hubble can't resolve anything as small as footprints on the Moon.
But the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter has taken high-resolution photos all of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Here's Apollo 11's original landing site. There's a small well-defined crater near the center of the photo. Just to its left there's a small raised object casting a long narrow shadow towards that small crater. The small raised object is the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent stage.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
No, for 2 reasons:
Hubble is designed to collect dim light from far away objects. If you were to point it at something as bright as the relatively near Moon, you would overwhelm its sensors and get nothing but a white screen.
The Hubble has an angular resolution of 0.04 arc sec (1/90,000 of a degree). That would only allow it to resolve objects larger than ~75 meters across on the surface of the Moon.
To give you an idea, the region shown in the image provided by Yazata would look something like this imaged from Hubble:
Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof of anything. They also don't make the anomalies that prove the hoax go away.
You post like a child in the playground going "Naaah nah nah nah nah". There are no anomalies, they have all been debunked or explained. This is a spam response that you have made on numerous forums quite a large number of times.
PROVE THE LROC FULL IMAGES HAVE BEEN FAKED. If you post previously posted videos that have been addressed and ignored, I will report your response.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
"Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :-
1. For images or video:"Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."
He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such.
2. For websites:"It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source.
or
"That's a disinfo site."
He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations".
3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "
For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax.
4. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. "
or
"I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly."
This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement.
5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."
This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".
6. Credibility Test:"This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?
This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored.
7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...."
So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked.
8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked." or "I can't see what you're referring to."
He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. Or, he simply denies seeing something that is completely irrefutably obvious.
9. Idiotic Closes:"You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..."
or
"you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video"
The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel.
10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.
11. Never mind that - look over here: When this hopeless individual has exhausted his inept repertoire of responses comes his most used spam. He resorts to spamming his wall of crap and ignoring the main issue!
"Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real."
"This lame stand of your totally exposes you as a shill*"
"It just makes you look like a horse's a-s and the viewers can see it. I don't see any point in my continuing to reiterate this."
What a sad, sad liar this person is. They have been humiliated completely on dozens of subjects, thousands of times on Apollo, yet they spew this cut and paste hogwash almost every time.
12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests".
"You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed."
"....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk"
13. Moronic Translations: This is the ridiculous post where he interprets his crazy viewpoint on something regardless of how many times it has already been addressed. It usually has some bearing on his equally moronic "Credibility Tests".
"Translation: The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid addressing it."
This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome.
You know they haven't been debunked. You people just have the attitude that they've been debunked. There's zero proof that they went to the moon and there's a ton of proof that they faked the missions.
I know they have. Don't make your appalling assumptions or claims about what I know.
No attitude. They have. Every one. Many of the claims actually prove the footage was on the Moon.
Itemised above in red. You are a full on spam cut and paster.
The rocks, the video, the images around the Moon in orbit, landing and launch videos, LROC, third party data. New Chandrayaan images. Japanese Selene data. The idea that NASA would be moronic enough to do it 6 times in ever increasing difficulty. Astonishing cine footage showing the lunar rover views for many miles, surface video showing perfect lunar gravity and correlation with falling dust.
You are a complete internet failure. Nothing can convince somebody who has invested 2 decades of ignorance on the matter.
PROVE THE LROC FULL IMAGES HAVE BEEN FAKED. If you post previously posted videos that have been addressed and ignored, I will report your response. You actually have no "proof" of your own. It's always someone else's dumb video or website. You are incapable of putting anything into your own words.
Here, I shall prove that. In your own words, give me 10 bullet points - without links or videos already spammed and answered - in your own words with explanations. I'll debunk them all again and you can ignore it all again.
You can't prove that they're real so they're not proof. Your idea that a picture is proof until it's been proven false is flawed logic. Something that's not proof doesn't make actual proof go away.
Sorry, but in order to make my argument, I have to show what I'm talking about. You don't have the right to tie my hands. Remember that victories that depend upon authority are illusionary.
This is all lame. There are explanations that would explain all of it. There's no proof there.
The rocks aren't proof that they went to the moon. I can't say it better than this German guy.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
-----------------------------
All fakable, there's no proof there as anything fakable might have been faked. If you consider fakable pictures to be proof, you're guilty of defective thinking.
A rocket being launched is not proof as we don't know where the rocket went. How do we know the capsule that we saw land in the ocean wasn't pushed out of a C5-A transport plane; we weren't shown enough of the footage to know where it came from.
All fakable. Again, if you consider fakable stuff to be proof, you're guilty of defective thinking.
All that footage is consistent with its having been filmed in a studio. It also contains an anomaly. Start watching this at the 3:13 time mark.
Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
Your saying it's perfect doesn't make it perfect.
This guy proved that the movement in the footage is not consistent with lunar gravity.
Physics of the Moon Flag
https://www.brighteon.com/5545a13a-1b33-4c2a-9393-050bac22b91d
Physics of the Moon Flag 2
https://www.brighteon.com/116e7f3f-e419-47d7-9944-e5864c63296e
Also, if you double the speed of the Apollo 11 footage, it's consistent with movement in Earth gravity which shows they faked lunar gravity with a crude fifty percent slow-motion.
Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage
The round icon on the lower right of the video is for controlling speed.
to be continued...
You want to tie my hands so I can't give a complete proof. Well, you don't have that right. I have to show what I'm talking about.
Here's a bullet point. There is lots of footage that was obviously taken in air.
Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it.
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
The flag that moved
This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.
windyz.wmv
Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker: Flagging The Dead Horses
AMERICAN MOON, 2017
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
(2:07:26 time mark)
There's no way I can describe all of that without showing the anomalies so I had to show them. You haven't debunked any of that. You just say you have. This alone proves the hoax.
to be continued...
Coward. I want you to itemise your best proofs that haven't been debunked. I asked you specifically NOT to spam the same crap as has previously been addressed and you do exactly that.
What a load of bullshit. You ignored it all previously, this is seriously pathetic.
Incorrect. There is no billowing of the flag whatsoever. You have been given instances of wind tunnel demos that show the amount of air pushed in front of a moving object yet you still persist with the same rubbish.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 15 flag (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
He absolutely owned you and you failed completely to respond, instead making your standard spam claims of him being a paid informant. Also in the list above. Ad-hominem ignoring the content.
It takes a tiny section of a video. Cernan stopped the Apollo 17 flag by simply twisting it the opposite direction to how he started it moving.
Owned again - the below post is always 100% ignored by you. Never do you address any of the response videos - afraid?
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 17 Flag (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
The Apollo 17 Flag
Video 1:-
Here is my first video showing the whole clip from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. In this video, the astronauts crossover a few times, so the idea they are using "wires" that we never see, can be quickly debunked.
Video 2:-
Now, we have discounted the use of wires, since it would be impossible to stop them tangling! Here is the next video with the film firstly sped up 150%. The dust and flag motion is excessive, and several movements by the astronauts look very odd. There are short glimpses of vertical motion showing that it still is too slow for Earth gravity. I then speed the film up 200%, and now it all looks patently absurd.
Video 3:-
The final video is a debunk of the motion, showing also that the flagpole is rotating, causing a massive dampening effect to any pendulum swing.
Seriously dumb claims all already addressed. There isn't anything to debunk. He simply fails to account for variable observation from solar angles. The flag is made of nylon and would probably have perished into strips of fabric. Since it is suspended from a rod across, there is every reason to expect it to cast a shadow. Moronic, and of course you believe it.
Once again seriously stupid. Already spammed here there and everywhere. A falling lid like that would send the clearly visible dust EVERYWHERE! That clip actually proves it is a vacuum. Are you this dumb that you can't see it?
All debunked whether you are smart enough to see it or not. You are just too entrenched in the ridiculous bullshit.
Address this first!!
Last edited:
If you're allowed to link to him, I should be able to too.
He got totally owned in this thread.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-4#post-1065732533
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-3#post-1065728331
He obviously doesn't twist it because the top of the flag doesn't move in a way that would be consistent with his twisting it. This not only shows that he's wrong, but it also shows that he's dishonest.
I don't see anything that would cause the wires to get tangled up. Could you post an exact time mark?
This video proves they were on wires...
The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150
...and this one helps prove it.
Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum
I'll be back later.
No, really you aren't - off forum links again?
Nah. You lost body parts.
Moronic circular argument. It does exactly that.
No, it shows you wrong and you dishonest
It says it on the video. Your usual pretend blindness in action once again.
No really it doesn't.
This animated gif proves beyond any doubt that he is in low gravity:
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: Direct Apollo Proof - Ignored by the serial forum spammer (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
Number 3: This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon.
EVERYONE CAN SEE THIS, why can't you?
- Status