Proof that the Moon Mountains were Backdrops to a Movie Set/MOD WARNING

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Apr 4, 2015.

  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of your links or videos offer any evidence
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You keep quoting that quite appalling film as some sort of proof when it is littered with deception, lies and stupidity. On second thoughts!

    Do you have any evidence for unmanned Moon missions with the correct launch window and trajectory to place lasers where they now reside?

    We'll take that as a no shall we.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course I don't. How would I get that? You're really getting desperate if you're asking me for stuff that's impossible to get.

    http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------
    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs

    This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.)
    -----------------------------------------------

    It's irrelevant anyway. If they had the technology to send robotic craft to the moon back then, it's plausible that reflectors were placed there by unmanned robotic craft so reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were men on the moon. This is pretty basic.

    Are you maintaining that reflectors on the moon are proof that there were men on the moon?

    If the Surveyor program was real, they had that technology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is because you assert that the moon landing was faked and the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

    So far every video and link you have posted has been debunked discredited proven false and trashed without one exception.

    You have nothing buted repeated delusional claims
     
  6. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    First of all the Apollo Astronauts placed several Laser Reflectors and these reflectors had to be aligned just like a Satellite Dish has to be alighned with a Satellite in Geosynchronous orbit....except much more precise in order for a Earth Ground Based Lasers to EXACTLY TARGET AND STRIKE THESE MOON LASER REFLECTORS and the return Laser Beams from multiple reflectors placed on the Moon with the aid of Computers enables us....TO THIS DAY.....determine how fast the Moon is losing it's ability to Orbit the Earth as one day in the distant future THE EARTH WILL LOSE IT'S MOON.....whether by our Moon being out too far away from the Earth in it's orbit as the Moon's Orbit increases in distance from the Earth every year....or by the Sun's expansion into a Red Giant.

    As far as the video and I watched the whole thing....this is just SENSATIONALISM in order to sell COMMERCIAL TIME and there is very little acurate or viable science in what is stated.

    One of the most idiotic statements on that video actually there is a coin toss up in idiocy between that guy talking about putting the Shuttle atop of a Saturn V.....and the other idiocy of placing Radio Rebroadcasters or Radio reflection Devices on the Moon!!! LOL!!!!

    First of all back in 1969 and the 1970's THERE WERE HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WHO OWNED AND OPERATED HAM RADIOS!!!

    When at least 3 HAM RADIO OPERATORS were recieving signals from the Apollo Missions Craft they could with a bit of very easy to do TRIG.....calculate EXACTLY WHERE THE APOLLO ASTRONAUTS AND THEIR CRAFT WERE ON THEIR WAY TO THE MOON!!

    This process of calculation is known as TRIANGULATION and the ONLY WAY TO FAKE IT IS TO ACTUALLY SEND A SPACE CRAFT LARGE ENOUGH TO HOUSE A BROADCAST AND RECIEVER UNIT WITH THE POWER CAPABILITIES TO SEND OUT A STRONG ENOUGH SIGNAL!!!

    Then...this caft would have to break into two seperate parts...one orbiting the Moon and the other Landing on the Lunar Surface!!

    Basically as I stated.....IT WOULD COST MORE MONEY AND BE 1000 TIMES MORE DIFFICULT TO FAKE THE NASA LUNAR LANDINGS THAN TO ACTUALLY DO IT!!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you saying that they couldn't have been adjustable and adjusted by remote-control?
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They were fixed.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out the info on space radiation in post #1 of this thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

    What you say makes sense if the factor of space radiation is not considered but the anomalies in the footage and photos show it was all faked. Space radiation is probably why they had to fake it.
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read a book about radiation.

    Your video is ignorant nonsense. Space radiation is not so dangerous that it constitutes an obstacle.

    Anomalies prove nothing and neither do any of the photos or footage. This has been done to death and all of your links have been repeatedly debunked
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I challenged you to directly debate this with me, you ran away. That link is made up of the same level of ignorance as you display.

    You have no understanding of any single subject on this matter.From the very first exchange we had you have shown me nothing. Starting from where you didn't even understand the concept of variables and accuracy ranges to determine an accurate gravity factor, right through to the hundredth repetition of your spammed flag nonsense. There are hundreds of companies who regularly put hardware in space based on data from a multitude of sources. It works as designed, because space radiation is a known factor. You have no answer to this do you.

    I took apart your entire rubbish spam and you pretty much ignored every response I gave you. You claim to have responded, but all we see is ignorant observations. You appeal to the viewers and "everybody" yet nobody ever agrees with you.

    Your spam taken apart:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Apollo Space Craft were shielded from Radiation. It would take a huge Solar Flare or Coronal Mass Ejection to penetrate that shielding.

    This argument has been debunked time and time again.

    AboveAlpha
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just quoting the official version doesn't debunk anything as it may be a lie. Are you saying the official version equals truth?

    Look at what Van Allen said.
    http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=26317.0
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

    Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.
    ----------------------------------------------
    It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
    ----------------------------------------------

    He later said this.
    (excerpt)
    ----------------------------------------------
    Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
    in 1959 was merely "popular science."

    "Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

    "Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."
    -------------------------------------------------------

    I know you people are going to say that science advanced and more was learned about the belts. That's one plausible scenario. Another plausible scenario is that Van Allen was either bribed, or threatened, or both.

    Simply presenting one plausible scenario doesn't debunk the other one.


    Anyway, there is a mountain of proof that the landings were faked and zero proof that they were real...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

    ...so this debate on space radiation isn't about whether they faked it; it's about why they faked it.
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Adequate means of safeguarding them had been developed...simple.
     
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is not plausible he was bribed or whatever.

    It is more than probably it is normal science for knowledge to advance and conclusions to change.

    There is no proof in any of your links that the landings were faked
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Snipping your cut and paste spam. Here is a post made by Jay Windley from the IS forum:-

    "Of course absolutely no other country but the United States ever sent any sounding rockets several hundred miles above the Earth's surface to see what it's like up there. Only one man in the history of space exploration over five decades has ever put a radiation counter that far up in the sky -- James Van Allen. So luckily all you have to do is strong-arm him into recanting his published findings and lie for the rest of his life. That will ensure that no one will ever know how much radiation is in the trapped radiation belts. And of course the engineers in all the countries that send spacecraft into geostationary orbit have to be secretly given the real data for space radiation. Because if they used the publicly available models, which must necessarily underestimate the dose rates in order to make it seem like Apollo succeeded, their spacecraft electronics would burn out and their solar panels would be destroyed. And it's a good thing none of those engineers in five decades has ever screwed up and let anyone see or copy the "real" radiation figures, or has ever gotten a pang of conscience to spill the beans. The Powers That Be must count themselves lucky that it's so easy to conceal the behavior of the universe from any unauthorized inspection."

    If all goes to spamplan - this is where the spammer resorts to some diversionary hogwash about soil and transportation whilst deliberately ignoring the conclusion of any geologist that Moon hoax claims are idiotic.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is something that only a technician could deal with but you seem to be saying that if it hurts humans, it's going to hurt electronics. Couldn't a probe or satellite be built that could survive radiation that would kill a human?

    Jay Windley has been exposed as a government disinfo agent. Go to post #7 of this thread.

    Proof that the Moon Mountains were Backdrops on a Movie Set
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/403884-proof-moon-mountains-were-backdrops-movie-set.html


    Quoting Jay Windley isn't going to help your cause.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As usual you appear unable to grasp the very simple point being made. Satellites and space hardware in general is designed with tolerances set by space radiation as one variable. Deviations in the expected dose would alter performance. There are no such deviations. Your inability to comprehend subjects outside of your education is not my problem. Physicists understand this issue, so arm waving it away as some mystery that only select "technicians" understand is very deceptive.

    You've been exposed as a spammer and a stubborn person with no truthing capabilities. Mr Windley is not a government agent, you have exposed nothing but ad hominem insults. You accused me of the same thing yet offer nothing but your ridiculous Chinese spacewalk as "evidence"!

    Spam, asked and addressed already. More to the point, you ignored the responses.
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are we supposed to take you seriously after this?

    (post #12)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    After what? A serial forum spammer with no intellect or relevant education making repetition after repetition of the same post without responding to the rebuttal? You are to truthing what Hitler was to diplomacy.

    "As usual you appear unable to grasp the very simple point being made. Satellites and space hardware in general is designed with tolerances set by space radiation as one variable. Deviations in the expected dose would alter performance. There are no such deviations. Your inability to comprehend subjects outside of your education is not my problem. Physicists understand this issue, so arm waving it away as some mystery that only select "technicians" understand is very deceptive."

    Avoiding my response seems to be your regular way to keep your head in the sand. Nobody is taking any notice of your claims, because they are hogwash.

    Fabric does not spin unrestricted in water at any speed, vacuous fools say otherwise.
     
  23. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
  24. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,816
    Likes Received:
    7,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What needs to be studied here is not the moon hoax fantasy, but what sort of human brain continues on when the evidence does not support the presumed hoax.

    For clearly, no matter what the evidence says that supports the fact that we went to the moon and back, it really doesn't matter. I guess it's just the power of belief, that is impervious to all of the evidence. That is, there could never be ENOUGH evidence, and so what needs study is WHY this is the case with some human beings. Is it something physical, a defect within the brain itself? And does it also affect other areas of reason?

    This thread should probably be in a psychology section, if we have one.

    Every village idiot I have ever known, had no trouble accepting the fact that the US sent men to the moon and back. So even these people had some logic and reason available to them. Does this mean that the conspiracy guys are lower on the totem pole than the common village idiot? And is there a pill that might fix this? Some drug? I would recommend ayahuasca, or some DMT that you could smoke. Seems to help with other cognitive afflictions.
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At Johnson Space Center in Houston,the Apollo 17 capsule is on display, have studied it,and touched it as well.

    There is NO DOUBT that men went to the moon,walked upon it's surface,and came back.

    NONE
     

Share This Page