Man has landed on the Moon. July 20, 1969. Sir, questions, sir.

fab·u·lous

fab·u·lous [fábbyələss]
adj
1. excellent: extremely good, pleasant, or enjoyable (informal)
2. amazing: amazingly or almost unbelievably great or wonderful
3. typical of a fable: existing only in, described in, or typical of myths and legends


[15th century. Directly or via French fabuleux from Latin fabulosus “celebrated in fable,” from fabula (see fable). The meaning “extremely good” developed in the mid-20th century.]


-fab·u·lous·ly, adv
-fab·u·lous·ness, n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

ENGLISH DICTIONARY..... ENGLISH DICTIONARY... ~ ... It's called an ENGLISH DICTIONARY ...

Rev A

 

I did not ask you for the definition of fabulous.
I was asking you what did you find as fabulous.

polscie

 

The evidence shows they faked the moon landings.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

The reason they had to fake them was probably space radiation.
http://www.google.es/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_esES364&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=post3989728

There are plausible explanations that would explain why the Soviets didn't snitch. Here's an excerpt from the above thread.
------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war-
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It someone were to make a deathbed statement saying the moon missions were faked, the press would never report it as the press is controlled.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to these guys.
Thomas Baron and astronauts killed to keep Apollo program - YouTube
Sacrifice On Pad 34. - YouTube
Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (MUST SEE) - YouTube

 

I see that your addiction for spamming the internet remains unabated. Duplicate posts and assertions, made with not the slightest reference to any of the posts made that refute your hogwash.

Most of your post debunked here.


Let us preempt your stock response by claiming I am "discredited" because you say so, whilst steadfastly ignoring the hundreds of questions levelled at you.

Just one of the numerous posts you cannot answer.

 

Big bold red statement, and flawed in the extreme. The Soviets had their own highly complex plans for a Moon landing and there is a wide selection of websites that you can source out to explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_manned_lunar_programs

If you continue to assert that it is not possible, perhaps you should explain why the USSR spent a considerable sum of money in trying to beat us to the Moon, then once the race was lost, decided that they would not capitalize upon the "hoax" by exposing it to the world.

I expand upon this in more detail here.

 

Just in case there's anyone who hasn't seen this...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095

...Betamax said that the Chinese spacewalk was real. He's not here to seek the truth. He's here to obfuscate the evidence and try to confuse people. He knows the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-belivers do.

 

I'm sure anybody with a scant operational ability with their mouse can see that thread in this very sub forum. Your repetitive spamming holds no bounds.

Indeed I do, and made a very long argument as to why I know this. I just posted a link to an unanswered question for you. Your spamming/trolling continues by refusing to answer said post. Surely you have the means to make me see the light about your "greater knowledge"?

With you, there is no truth. Rarely do I come across somebody with your level of stubborness and blank refusal to admit when you are wrong. That in itself is the most positive evidence that you are not a "truth-seeker". Your methodology(if one can call it that!) is to continually offer identical posts on hundreds of different forums and ignore every single refutation offered. Over many years, I see nothing withdrawn, just additions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn41RM-x4wA"]Cosmored the spammer - YouTube[/ame]

I'm here to debate you. You ran away and ignored 99% of the posts I made, that consign your hogwash to the pit of ignorance it deserves.

Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. Every scientific criteria I use in my daily life tells me this, every hoax contention that I have ever come across is rooted in the most profound ignorance of sciences, some of which I am familiar with, some I have a good working knowledge of and some that I am expert in.

When a conspiracy theorist uses an ad-hominem attack as a means to defend his "argument", then pointedly and provably makes no attempt to defend his assertions, it tells us all we need to now about the power of his debating skills and the strength of his contention. Zero.

I shall offer a single question as a means to demonstrate this:-

Given that the whole crux of your argument concerning the Chinese Spacewalks being faked, is the operation of wave-blowers to achieve negative buoyancy - please now cite me one single source to support your claim.

 

No. Never was a Star Trek fan, Did enjoy the original Star Wars Trilogy as I imagine most people here did.

But its actually from studying what the worlds different scientists and space agencies are doing. From watching shows on Nat Geo and the Discovery Channel. From having an interest in years on the very topic.

We have sent robots to Mars. They were able to snap pictures. If a Robot can land on a planet than a space shuttle could land on the Moon.

Regardless of whether you think the Moon landing was a Conspiracy (which it obviously wasnt faked) everything in my previous post is a very real possibility in time. If you dont think that we are still just scratching the surface of what we are capable of from a technological standpoint then you need to pay more attention to the Scientific Community.

 

That does not answer my question.

I asked, How did YOU determined what the Russians knew?

How did you determine that?

Are you admitting it is an assumption you are making? If not, then explain how you acquired this information.

Based on what? Are you a scientist? How did you determine that these things are impossible?

 

This has all been discussed before.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-20.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-21.html

Read what Betamax said about the cables' having "Shape memory".

Hey Betamax-

You're a pretty good sophist but there's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. Those safety cables are buoyant and this is too clear to obfuscate. They only move upward at times when the movement is perfectly consistent with buoyancy. If "Shape memory" were the explanation, they wouldn't only move in the upward direction.

You have no credibility.

 

On the contrary, it has all been avoided before. Now I asked you a specific question to support your theory, yet once again you dodge it.

Wound cables stored during manufacture would always resume that shape in an environment without restriction. Those who are even remotely interested in this line of debate can see this in action with a garden hose.

You are a lousy uninformed spammer, with nothing new to offer but repetition and clear diversion.

So now we are to believe that reinforced steel cables float upwards in water?

An object will not rise unless it has positive buoyancy. In what strange HB world do you conclude that a steel cable has this property?

And they don't, they move sideways and downwards at random. The majority of their movement is driven by the astronaut's direction.

Here is what an underwater training session looks like, and a time where it is patently obvious that even the air feed hose doesn't float:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTU8U7y0CUI&feature=player_detailpage#t=74s

All you present is the level of ignorance one associates with a standard conspiracy theorist. I have asked you to verify your argument, and once again you fail to do so.

 

The maker of the video on youtube who calls into question the Chinese spacewalk, is an Apollo believer. It makes a mockery of Scott/Cosmored using it as a means to disprove Apollo. Further, the explanation for this is the suggestion that said film maker has been "got at". One has to laugh at this moronic claim, given the sheer number of videos being produced by Jarrah White, who for some reason has been left alone.

Why would NASA even bother with somebody who has never gone on record as disputing Apollo? Why indeed would China not do the same and force him to withdraw his claims?

The paranoid delusion continues with another example:-
Noam Chomsky, used during the "wall of spam" as a means to suggest suppression of the media to "hide the hoax", actually refutes quite succinctly, the suggestion that the 911 terrorist attacks were "an inside job". Bizzarely Scott/Cosmored (who shares his forum spamming hobby of Apollo being a hoax, alongside the standard 911 hogwash), also claims that Chomsky has been "got at" to make this statement. I kid you not.

Finally, I offer this very short video, where I have isolated the other lynchpin of the argument, namely the "bubble" moving past the astronaut's helmet:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCfzhoeHABQ"]Does anybody think this is a bubble? - YouTube[/ame]

Scott insists this is a bubble, and I put it to the readers of this thread that it is clearly a piece of space debris. Unless, like Scott, they think that bubbles are flat and rotate in water.

One who makes such absurd claims to support their theory, whilst steadfastly avoiding the task of responding to questions and offering citations, is clearly not a "truth-seeker" and patently not qualified to call into question the credibility of anybody!

 

Here's the info on the Chinese spacewalk. People can look at it and judge for themselves.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

Watch it at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

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

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

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

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
(1:55 time mark)

I believe what my eyes see so maybe there's no steel inside the cables.

Anyone who actually watches the videos will see that this is simply not true. They only move upward when the movement is not caused by pushing. You're trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to click on the links and watch the videos. That' about all you can do now.

This is really lame. Maybe the hoses are made of different material. One set of hoses was Chinese and the other was NASA's.

(from post #107)

When I start threads on forums I stay and debate until the discussion plays out, or until I'm banned, or the thread gets closed.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=259183
http://www.comicscorral.com/forums/showthread.php?4294-We-Never-Went-to-the-Moon&highlight=apollo

I stopped talking to you after it became very clear that you don't even believe your own arguments; only a disinfo agent or a moron would actually think the Chinese spacewalk was real.

You're just like the Black Knight in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ

You'll never recognize your wrong. Instead of recognizing you're wrong, you try to change the subject and draw attention away from the part of the debate where it's clear that you're wrong. What is a person supposed to do in a debate with someone like that? The only thing to do is come by from time to time and link to the part of the debate where you were obviously wrong to thwart your efforts to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it. You're success rate among people who actually watch the videos is probably close to zero.

 

Oh I dont remember saying something was fabulous, its a kind of a ummm' gay word, well I have a couple of gay friends a female (my niece) and a guy and they both use the word excessively. Hmmm' I guess that's my own preconceived notions leaking out! could you direct me to the quote? That is why I use quote tags.

Rev A

 

Well yes they can. Then they can look at my analysis of it and see how the video conclusions are flawed in the extreme. They can also look back at the two posts I made prior to this one and notice that you have failed to answer them.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

So you now compound your ignorance by suggesting that the Chinese would use "floaty" cables that don't actually rise anyway, instead of steel cables, and this during their first spacewalk. You don't think that if they went to the trouble of hoaxing a simple spacewalk, they wouldn't pay attention to simple details?

Or show a couple of examples.

Cable moves sideways:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMxQEHfU6hM&feature=player_detailpage#t=56s

Cable goes down in a couple of instances;-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMxQEHfU6hM&feature=player_detailpage#t=222s

Lame you say? I seriously question what kind of intellect suggests different hoses could account for why an air umbilical hose does not rise, yet a steel reinforced tether does!

Ad hominems as per usual. Even now you divert and avoid responding to my requests for links to support your "wave-blowers" hogwash.

I shall paraphrase the one reply you have offered so far:-

"Just because you can't find it on google, doesn't mean it isn't a fact"

Behold the power of delusion.

Not when I am not.

Back at you.

Support your claims with citations, answer the questions aimed at you and offer refutations to the points I raise. You have offered none of these.

 

As I've said before, there are two red cables. There's a thin one and a thick one. The thick one is the buoyant one. You're intentionally showing examples of the thin cable to deceive people.

 

So you concede that the examples I gave showed movement you denied, and now you attempt to explain it by suggesting that the tethers are different sizes. With every post you make, you demonstrate your inability to make sense. So we have steel reinforced cables that float, air umbilicals that don't, and now you are telling us that the "thicker" of identical twin tethers is the one that has positive buoyancy!!

 

Look at the beginning of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

There are obviously two types of cables. Here's where I pointed that out earlier.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...issions-were-faked-studio-20.html#post4587436
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------
Watch it at these time marks.
0:50, 2:10, 3:00, 3:10, 6:08, 6:44, 6:53

The buoyant cable is the thicker one. It's not the thinner one.
--------------------------------------------

You're trying to deceive the viewers who haven't read that whole thread by misrepresenting my position. That's a pretty low tactic. I think most of the viewers can see what you are.

 

Hmmm. I think on reflection you may be correct. I watched a small part of this and it does seem that one is bigger. I originally thought that the cables were more flatter and viewed one side they would be wider.

Nope, if I was trying to deceive anybody I would not concede this.

Okay, so now I have done so, I need you to answer the points I raised.

Why does the bigger cable rise? Cite your reference for wave-blowers. Concede that it isn't a bubble in my video, because I believe you know it is not one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCfzhoeHABQ

 

It rises because they're in a water tank and it's buoyant.

I already commented on that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...issions-were-faked-studio-21.html#post4594471
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is really a moot argument because the buoyant safety cables have already proved they were in a water tank.

The fact that not much comes up when "Wave blowers" is googled doesn't mean that they don't exist. There are lots of things that exist that can't be found in google. If your argument is, "It can't be found with Google. Therefore, they don't exist", you are guilty of defective thinking.

I did find this though.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/chin...gers-5326.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A blogger, who is a physicist, commented in a Chinese Epoch Times article that, assuming the operation was conducted in the water, the bubbles rose faster than they would have if the water was not propelled using a wave-blower. Wave blowers are commonly used in underwater space-training exercises to simulate the weightlessness of space.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

People can watch the videos and decide for themselves.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

If we watch the entire footage of the bubble instead of your short piece, we can see that it follows the exact trajectory that a bubble would follow. It hugs the visor and goes upward. It accelerates the way a bubble would as it gets bigger as the pressure decreases as it gets higher. A piece of debris would not behave like that.

It's pretty clear that you don't even believe your own arguments.

 

If you are the one making the claim, you are expected to provide proof. Your claims are not correct by default.

 

You pro-NASA people are having a hard time trying to obfuscate this one.

The buoyant safety cables alone prove the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM
Watch the thick cable at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

The way the flag flutters when the astronaut moves it from right to left at the thirty second mark of this clip also proves they were in a water tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

So when we see bubbles going upward at different angles we can deduce that there are currents in the water as it's already been proven that they were in water. As it's a tank, the currents must be being produced by some kind of machine.

Batamax has failed to obfuscate the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables and shown he is not to be taken seriously when he analyzes the Apollo anomalies. Let's hear your analysis of the buoyant safety cables now.

 

LOL @ "pro-NASA"

You cant come on an anonymous forum and make random claims and expect everyone to just take your word for it.

 

Cosmored it appears to be a complete waste of my time debating somebody who exhibits such willful ignorance of basic physics and reality.

I have major projects in the offing and cannot spare any more time educating you in such simple things.

Here are some points that you seem to have no answer to:-

• Despite repeated requests, you are completely unable to cite a single reference to the use of wave-blowers for negative buoyancy control. The premise that a water current(chiefly used in water parks to create waves!) could be used for this purpose is flawed at even the base level. Currents move objects, including the astronauts and all cables. The astronauts and cables show no sign of any water current.
  
• When the hatch is opened, supposedly to the "pool", there is not the slightest indication of bubbles being released. Anybody who has performed any scuba diving would know this to be impossible.
  
• Numerous objects are expelled from the hatch(video below) including a clump, of what looks like a piece of paper, that moves away from the hatch.
  
• I cited an actual astronaut training video underwater where the air umbilical feed showed no tendency to rise whatsoever. Yet here you are ignoring the simple explanation for shape memory and offering your bare assertion that it has to be "buoyancy", because you think it. Indeed, you ignore one cable at the expense of the other because it doesn't actually go up. There are quite a few examples where neither cable rises, and a few where it goes downwards and sideways.
  
• You offered the most foolish explanation for why your "Chinese hoax spacewalk" film maker believes Apollo. He was "got at", when people like Bart Sibrel, Jack White, Jarra White, David Percy et al. are free to do as they please. Your use of this film to support your Apollo "hoax theory" is therefore dismissed.
  
• You offered the same explanation for why Noam Chomsky dismisses your 911 nonsense, and use him to support Apollo as being a "hoax" because he questions governments.
  
• Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the "bubble" is space debris is simply staggering. Clear evidence that the object alternates between flat and open as it rotates. You make no attempt to reconcile its movement with static electricity and its motion consistent with angled approach towards a wide angled lens.
  
• You haven't even addressed the other 20 or so points I refuted!
  
• Your explanation for an open piece of fabric(the flag) twisting unrestricted supposedly in "water" is just moronic. Water viscosity simply would not allow any movement like this. Even if the fabric were reinforced (it is not, as we see it wrap around the pole) such action would still be a forced motion necessitating more wrist movement.
  
• Your responses are virtually identical on this forum and every other one where you post this same hogwash. Your failure to acknowledge the possibility that you are hopelessly wrong makes me wonder at your motives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"]About paper and bubbles of ShenzhouVII - YouTube[/ame]

As a parting shot, I offer the forum a video that debunks this whole stupid claim by itself, despite trying to do the opposite:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW__oOciq2c"]Why bubbles went to different directions in China spacewalk - YouTube[/ame]

Your whole case is built on your opinion, ignores basic physics and conveniently excludes facts that are inconvenient to you.

Stay in ignorance.

 

Hey Sadistic-Savior–

I asked you to give your analysis of the buoyant safety cables and you ignored me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM
Watch the thick cable at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

I'm waiting.