Proof of a faked Apollo landing???

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Bob0627, Nov 20, 2017.

  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is no issue at all.

    There was no hoax and yes we landed men on the moon. that is definitively and irrefutably proven. No intelligent person believes otherwise

    Notice how Scott has been hopelessly crushed in each and every thread

    Her speed not have so much as a speck of evidence and he has been owned with every post.

    There are perfectly reasonable answers to what you ask however

    We have not gone back because it is not worth the cost. It is really just that simple. Unless we intend to build a base or find some extraordinarily rare and valuable element on the moon there is simply no reason to spend the money to go back.

    Those spacecraft they need to shield from radiation are.meant to spend extended periods of time close to or in the van Allen belt.

    The Apollo astronauts and brief and limited.exposure flying THROUGH it. In addition the flight plan took them through the belt over the North pole.where the radiation belt is thin and weak which is why they planned the f!ight that way. Even so they do in fact have a higher rate of various health problems which are linked to radiation, such as cataracts.
     
  2. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,220
    Likes Received:
    7,267
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is Helium 3 on the moon. It is very valuable.
     
  3. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not valuable enough.

    It's cheaper to make it here
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We never went back because until the technology/cost improved there was no compelling reason to. Now it finally has is and that means several nations are considering doing so. Which more or less compels the US to get back in the game.

    As for the NASA moon landing tapes going missing, so did many early episodes of Dr WHO. Any conspiracy theorist's out there want to argue that was another attempt to hide the 'Truth'?

    If so be my guest if nothing else it would be funny. Simple bureaucratic stuff-up trumps 'conspiracy' every time.
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It's pretty clear that you are a very dishonest person acting dumb and doing a rather good job of it. It's also very similar to conversing with a small infant. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-
    • There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
    • The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
    • There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
    • In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
    • In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
    • It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
    • Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
    Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-
    • Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
    • He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
    • This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
    The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

    Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
     
    bigfella likes this.
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Apollo spacecrafts were all equipped with analog circuitry that was quite considerably larger and different to modern state of the art digital versions. The silicon chips house vital programs that could cause issues if they failed. I'm sure you know basic computer language is just 1's and 0's/ on or off. When energetic particles enter into a space craft whilst traversing the Van Allen belts or to a lesser extent in cis-lunar space, they have no effect on larger parts. However, in a very real way, a single particle strike can very easily turn a 1 to a zero on a silicon chip.

    That is what NASA was testing for and that was what the announcer is talking about.
     
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,220
    Likes Received:
    7,267
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't know what announcer you are referring to. What I am saying is that about the 2011 time frame I saw a NASA issued Request for Information (RFI) that wanted companies to provide proposals on how to shield humans in space (not computers) from radiation. Since the last so called moon landing I don't believe NASA has sent a human beyond a low earth orbit.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly he is correct and you are wrong.

    Any grade school child can tell that these videos do not show what you claim.

    Any intelligent person knows that the evidence crushed your claims and that the lunar landings were real
     
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Low earth orbit still exposed people to radiation

    We now send and keep people in space for years hence the need for such protection.

    The lunar landings were real and that is fact which No one can dispute.

    Scott is routinely and massively defeated when claiming they were faked
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to hear your view on the question that Betamax refuses to answer.

    When the cover falls, does the outside corner of the cover nearest to the camera make physical contact with the surface where the dust is, or does it come to a stop slightly above the surface where the dust is?
     
  16. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He did answer it
     
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He has answered and proved you wrong g.
    Many people.would love to hear you present some evidence which has not been debunked.

    You have been asked how tens of thousands of people involved in the lunar landing could keep such a secret.

    You never answered and never addressed the question

    You posted a video of a few scientists who failed the peer review process which is not an answer and does not address thenwuewtiin.

    Try and answer without linking to that video is

    It is consistently you who is defeated and crushed and refused to give answers
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2020
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Jackass. Answer - No for the 10th time. The softer area just underneath is where the impact occurs.

    Speaking of things that are unanswered, you disgraceful lying fake:-

    It's pretty clear that you are a very dishonest person acting dumb and doing a rather good job of it. It's also very similar to conversing with a small infant. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-
    • There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
    • The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
    • There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
    • In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
    • In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
    • It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
    • Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
    Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-
    • Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
    • He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
    • This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
    The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

    Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is still a little unclear. I want to know what you see on the outside when the cover comes to a stop. I see it coming to a stop slightly above the surface where the dust is. You seemed to be saying that it impacted that spot in your earlier posts.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...apollo-landing.519410/page-10#post-1072141640

    That's why I want you to tell us what you see on the outside. Do you agree with me when I say that the lip of the cover never touched the surface where the dust is? Please give a clear unambiguous answer.

    I want to know what you see too soupnazi.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Clear and unambiguous answers have been given about 20 times now. You are spamming the crap out of this thread and cowardly scuttling away from the glaringly obvious. Unambiguous - you are a lying jerk who doesn't warrant internet privileges. People like you should be kept away from a computer simply because you infect the world with your insanity and dishonesty. I've seen you on other threads with a hand in every idiotic conspiracy going - your sick and twisted posts show you have some sort of mental affliction preventing you from understanding anything contradicting and better explaining your total garbage.

    It's pretty clear that you are a very dishonest person acting dumb and doing a rather good job of it. It's also very similar to conversing with a small infant. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-
    • There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
    • The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
    • There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
    • In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
    • In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
    • It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
    • Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
    Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-
    • Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
    • He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
    • This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
    The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

    Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want you to answer the question because in your earlier posts you seemed to be saying that the lip of the cover made contact with the area where the dust was. Things are not one hundred percent clear.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...apollo-landing.519410/page-10#post-1072141640

    All you have to do is say "Yes", or "No".

    Do you agree with me when I say that the lip of the cover never touched the surface where the dust is when it came to a stop?


    Please just say "Yes", or "No" in your next post.
     
  22. joesnagg

    joesnagg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,268
    Likes Received:
    6,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead", and just how many THOUSANDS would have to been involved in faking the moon landings? As yet it's still a free country, people can believe anything they wish.
     
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He did answer the question.
    You have lost the argument and cannot save face
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who starts reading at the top of page #9 can see that he didn't.

    I also asked you to answer the same question and you are refusing too. Refusing to answer a question in a formal debate at a university would get you laughed out of the debating hall. Your attitude does not fit the situation.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://cosmicrevelationsblog.wordp...-then-exactly-did-we-land-on-the-moon-part-i/
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”.
     

Share This Page