The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Jun 5, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Continuing Disk 1 of 2

    Minute 102-106 "Mountain backdrops" are now discussed with Percy identifying various photographs with mountains of the same size in the background plus the mandatory eerie music! Mountains that are many miles away and thousands of feet high! He uses phrases such as "there appear to be" and "there seem to be".

    He identifies some features on distant mountains, then suggests that because these features appear on numerous photographs aimed in that direction, that this is somehow suspicious. Distance on the Moon is totally different to Earth. There is no atmospheric haze to give perspective.

    Here is a perfect demonstration. As you watch this, assess how big you think that rock is. Now watch as they just keep on approaching it:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J-pcvRYnU"]‪House Rock - Apollo 16‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


    Percy uses a closer image to "establish" that the LM is in "close proximity" to the distant mountain. It isn't. It is just pure camera perspective on a faraway feature of significant size. We then switch to a view from a large rock, apparantly showing no LM. The LM is actually far to the right of the picture. The effect is called parallax. Twenty seconds later, Percy actually shows the LM some distance away, to the right of the rock. He overlays a partial of the mountain and suggests that it shows duplicate backdrops. His partial is not the same size! The mountain is very big and very far away, it is just subterfuge to suggest that this is not the case. He again compares the LM a mile or two away, with the same close up previously used, showing the same mountain range, and suggests that it is identical. He makes the observation that gives the whole thing away, "what appear to be absolutely enormous mountains". Precisely!

    The mountain is closer, slightly bigger and at a slightly different angle.


    We then move to the comparison between a shot due West of mountains a considerable distance away, and the final shot from the landing site also facing due West. Here he uses subterfuge by circling a rock on the Station 5 picture, and compares it to the LM shot where he circles the flag!! Just blatant lying.

    Percy never overlays the two images. Here they are side by side, with the station 5 direction(1300 metres away) indicated on the top one. Notice the flag to the right of the LM, and in the picture below a rock in a similar position. These are the two things he compares.

    [​IMG]

    Station 5 pan a few miles due West of the LM:-

    http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-17.html

    Here is a great video that shows how little distant perspective changes when we have mountain ranges far from the camera:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPS1lSqYIi4"]‪Missing LM -- again‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


    Minute 106-111This is where Percy compares the various mountains to the side of this huge Moon valley, and isolates a few pictures at different stations, and says because they haven't altered much, proves they shot them in the same spot! Bunkum. Again, just in case I have not made this clear, the mountains are very big, and many miles away. Percy insists that these are continuity errors, when in fact they are perspective, location and distance related. His conclusion never acknowledges, that the lack of atmosphere is a major contributory factor to the absence of a point of reference in assessing distance

    Here is another great video showing how the terrain altered between the LM and station 5, with the same mountain view over quite some distance travelled, and also highlights the ramblings of another noisy HB - Marcus Allen (n.b. Pay attention to the dialogue at the beginning, it is Bill Kaysing telling us how he started his campaign of Apollo being a hoax) :-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g"]‪White Noise: Marcus Allen -- Pure Genius‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    We are now told that "tell-tale joins" are an indication of backdrops. These so called joins when we view the full high resolution pictures are so obviously blurred distant objects.

    Quick video to demonstrate this idea is more bunkum - camera zooms up the mountain towards Hadley Rille:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDiCJdUJWE"]‪APOLLO 15 View of Hadley Rille‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    This video just nails this idea cold. Demonstrating projection or background technology was not able to do these "backgrounds":-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVFjBU7zIEU"]‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Front Projection by Stanley Kubrick‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    This next video completely and utterly debunks this "backdrop" idiocy. The Lunar rover traversing towards Mount Hadley, distant mountains don't get noticeably nearer. They are very far away, and very big. Mount Hadley itself is 15000 feet high! Nothing on Earth could do that with crisp, dark and single shadows, evenly lit surface, approaching rocks, far away mountains of considerable size. Area 51? Bunkum!

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-6dWPf0LXE"]‪Apollo 15 mount hadley‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    Minute 111-115 I actually belly laughed at this section. Here Percy says "rather significantly" the footage from "Diamonds are Forever" showing the scene where James Bond breaks into a complex, discovers a Moon set and escapes.

    Percy concludes "the grey dome building looks remarkably like the Northern Hemisphere of the Moon". What a crock!

    [​IMG]

    Apparantly this is whistleblowing on a very grandscale!

    Who by? Guy Hamilton the director, the script writers, Harry Saltzman & Cubby Broccoli? Are they all in on the hoax? Bunkum of profound stupidity.

    Unbelievably Ronnie Stronge then continues with this hogwash by suggesting Ian Fleming was in on the "know", despite this book bearing almost zero resemblance to the movie script. Percy tells us this 1971 movie is littered with "subtle clues", the next one being a truly facepalming link so tenuous it beggars belief. He links the clip where Bond impersonates a Radiation shield inspector (for radioactive emissions that have zero relevance to space radiation!) to nose around, as being indicative of something suspicious. This is setting the scene for later bunkum about radiation doses in space. It serves to reinforce in the casual viewer a sense of the big ahaa moment to come. The scene concludes with my own take on this stupidity with the last piece of dialogue.

    "our shields are fine now get out"!

    Ronnie Stronge then stinks it up even more with this statement:-

    "The Movie Diamonds are Forever is confirmation though that some works of fiction can communicate vital clues". HBs must be lapping up all this incisive proof!


    Minute 115-118 The movie now concentrates on establishing the fact that NASA had complete control of everything broadcast from the Moon. How could it not have!? It then goes on to suggest that the entire broadcasts from the Apollo missions were all recorded on video before being transmitted. Utter hogwash.

    Apollo 11 did this due to the nature of cameras used and the technology to transmit on s-band carrier waves. At no point did NASA ever make secret the fact that the Apollo 11 transmissions were converted so that they could be shown on TV. Apollo 12 intended to do this, but had a terminal camera failure. Apollo 13 did not make a landing.

    However, Apollo 14 was completely live broadcasts:-

    Live Apollo 14 TV from the Moon - direct feed:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXeHmakq_rY"]‪ABC News Coverage of Apollo 14 Part 44‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    Apollo 15/16/17 used remote controlled TV cameras from Houston! The entire mission in all cases was broadcast live on Earth.

    The purpose of this section was to indicate "how easy" it could be to insert pre-recorded films into the loop, but never explains the stunningly complicated logistics involved. The whole of mission control would be seeing pictures, hearing and seeing nearby personnel talking with astronauts on the Moon, with daily Earth news relayed to the astronauts as part of the live footage. There is also the sheer number of personnel who would have direct exposure to this situation, yet not one of them has made any admission of potential subterfuge.

    This whole idea by Percy is astonishingly simplistic subterfuge. The idea that hundreds of hours of pre-recorded footage was shot, gravity somehow faked (which I will later show as completely impossible!), interactive dialog was "inserted", highly directional radio signals from the landing site and Command and Service Module were somehow "manufactured" plus so much more, is completely untenable. It patently ignores the tracking from third parties such as amateur radio hams.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    I made this short video detailing the barest minimum involved:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q"]‪If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary.....‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

    For those actually interested in the TV from the Moon, here is a PDF detailing the technology involved. Many people were involved in this, and the idea that they were all somehow hoodwinked is ridiculous. The idea also that they freely took part in a hoax is equally absurd:-

    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf
     
  2. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is there wind on the moon?
     
  3. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I felt that the video presented merely offered the explanaton to the bright spot on the visor. This next video debunks it completely, by demonstrating how a narrow rod obscures the Sun and cuts the diffusion on the visor completely:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ"]‪Apollo Landings Debunking the "Superlight" contention Part 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
     
  5. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't "debunk it completely".

    It merely provides counter evidence for a counter argument. A counter argument, by the way, that is in no way conclusive.

    "debunks it completely" LOL :p
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are actually right. I should have added the proviso "for anybody with a braincell".

    Explain how a thin rod, blocks out this "superlight", then whilst you are at it, explain how we have thick dark shadows not washed out.

    I'd draw a diagram showing the scenario, but I don't want to confuse you.
     
  7. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You find a dictionary and look up the word "debunk" (and "completely").

    Then you can draw me your pretty little picture.

    These may help you:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+debunk

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+completely

    [​IMG]


    "debunks it completely" LOL :p
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for sharing your crayons with me, I did say anybody with a braincell, so that seems to place you in the opposite camp.

    I would ask that you attempt to explain how it doesn't debunk it completely, but you don't seem to do anything but trolling.
     
  9. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh look, another contentless post from Uncle.

    Shall we go through the video point by point, Uncle, and see what you are having a problem with? YES or NO, before I start. If it's a NO, then you admit defeat before even trying... BTW, here's an example of what we will discuss (in VERIFIABLE and UNARGUABLE DETAIL) if you actually have the cojones to DEBATE.

    Q. How big is the Sun, viewed from the Moon? (Here's a hint, it's pretty much the same as it is from .. earth.)

    Now that should be a pretty easy point to start with.

    But let's face it, you know as well as I do where that point by point analysis will lead.

    So I'd bale out NOW if I were you.
     
  10. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're not me though (and that annoys you to no end), you're just a brainwashed fool.

    I pity you, yet I also laugh at you. You entertain me. Thank you.

    Have a nice life.
     
  11. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you know that I am annoyed? Or do you just *hope* that is the case? I'll let the readers decide that.

    And yet.. I'm the one offering to go through the video point by point, and you are running for it. Again, I'll let the readers decide. But seeing you wish to go the ad hom route.. I find you amusing, too, and a very good indicator of the type of person who denies Apollo happened as advertised.
    - ill informed.
    - non-scientific.
    - blustering.
    - handwaving.

    And most importantly (and beautifully demonstrated above), unwilling to engage in sensible debate, being either incapable of it (lacking the requisite knowledge and logic), or deliberately avoiding it in order to continue the trolling.

    A pleasure. I'll continue with the facts, while you continue with the ad homs.

    Already doing that!

    Now, getting back ontopic - How big is the Sun?
    ('subtended angle' works for me, but please yourself. I'll convert.. Maybe you could use your pinky - or a thin stick - to obscure it in some measurable way...)

    Or.. don't you know?
     
  12. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, that's where you are wrong.

    You are presenting an argument, not a fact.

    It's a good argument, I'll certainly give you that.
    However, it does not "completely debunk" the counter argument.

    "completely debunk" is your downfall: you have a solid argument, but you have completely debunked nothing. You need to learn the difference.
     
  13. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How big is the Sun?

    It's pretty easy. Do you not understand the question and its relevance?
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which bit did I miss?

    The visor diffusion is provably from an object that is fully obscured by a 2cm pole. It indicates 2 things:-

    1. The diffusion cannot be a "superlight", since it would overlap on either side. It doesn't.

    2. The diffusion occurs from a light source (a single light source that illuminates the entire area, with single shadows) narrower or equal to the width of the pole. As indicated from my first video, the Sun also does this on Earth.

    Are you able to to formulate a coherent argument, or is armwaving all you've got?
     
  15. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it "indicates" i.e strongly implies.

    It does not, however "completely debunk".
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You chose an alternate definition of a word as an explanation. The word "indicate", also means to point out or show.

    Indicate to me how a 2cm rod could block out a "superlight" completely.

    If you cannot answer this simple request, it indicates that the contention is proven - it was not a superlight causing the visor diffusion. You know full well that you cannot explain this, yet you still contest it. Why is that?

    I suspect it is to do with the fact that once we take this so called "superlight" out of the equation, we are left with a daytime shot on Earth with the sky and clouds blacked out somehow, and magic mountains created that perfectly replicate the areas where the Apollo missions landed.
     
  17. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We've finally had the Government UFO disclosure of the reality of UFO's now it's high the Government come clean about the faked Moon Landing so the nutjobs who still think we went can find a new hobby.
     
  18. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the pic you sent me.

    You're kinda cute, but not my type. Sorry (I'm into females).

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Continuing Disk 1 of 2

    Minute 118-120 We now move on to what I can only describe as a laughable contention from the film. This is where they suggest that a 10mph electric Lunar Rover should somehow produce huge "rooster tails" on Earth, because the footage we see on Apollo shows them and according to the film maker they aren't high enough!

    The whole concept ignores the fundamental reason behind them being made in the first place, 1/6th gravity. On the Moon an object will have 1/6th the weight but the same mass. Now the Lunar Rover still needs to accelerate that mass to overcome inertia, but it has 1/6th the traction as on Earth. The actual mechanism involved to eject material from behind a vehicle also relies on the wheel spin speed. Whilst the wheel is in contact with the ground, there is less chance of the wheel obtaining enough speed to eject surface material, as there is when it rises (free of friction to accelerate). This is why most of the arcs are produced when it comes down after a bump in the terrain. The 1/6th gravity contributes quite significantly to the bouncing effect of the rover.

    I have made a video debunking this section of the film:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA"]The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs - YouTube[/ame]

    Minute 120-122 Percy starts the most famous clip from this film by making an incorrect statement. He says "astronauts moving in slow motion is another hallmark of the Apollo footage". This gives the viewer the idea that something has been slowed down.

    Gravitational acceleration on the Moon will cause all objects to rise higher and for longer when even the slightest vertical movement is made. Together with less traction to move the 350lbs of mass, a restrictive suit has less traction to stop or change direction.

    A short extract from a study explains this:-

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9076966

    "We investigated the effect of reduced gravity on the human walk-run gait transition speed and interpreted the results using an inverted-pendulum mechanical model.

    We simulated reduced gravity using an apparatus that applied a nearly constant upward force at the center of mass, and the subjects walked and ran on a motorized treadmill. In the inverted pendulum model for walking, gravity provides the centripetal force needed to keep the pendulum in contact with the ground. The ratio of the centripetal and gravitational forces (mv2/L)/(mg) reduces to the dimensionless Froude number (v2/gL). Applying this model to a walking human, m is body mass, v is forward velocity, L is leg length and g is gravity. In normal gravity, humans and other bipeds with different leg lengths all choose to switch from a walk to a run at different absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number (0.5). We found that, at lower levels of gravity, the walk-run transition occurred at progressively slower absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number. This supports the hypothesis that the walk-run transition is triggered by the dynamics of an inverted-pendulum system."


    We are told that astronauts never jump as high as they should do in 1/6th gravity, and later we are told they are on wires! Go figure that one out.

    We are then treated to one of the worst examples of modern "special effects" by showing a man falling through some sort of wormhole suspended on wires. Bunkum.

    I have already addressed some of this section:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/gravity-and-motion-and-apollo-moon.html


    Here is a video I made showing the sheer deception used by David Percy. The video shows how Percy has taken a small clip, deliberately avoided the sections either side of it, and made erroneous claims as to the motion sped up by 200% reflects Earth gravity.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0"]Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube[/ame]


    Now, the obvious lens flare from Apollo 14 that is alleged to be a wire, and the "ping" on Apollo 17! The Apollo 14 clip is a very over exposed piece of footage. Everything about the shot shows this clearly. The "ping" occurs exactly where the radio antenna sits, and the secondary reflection is not vertical. It is the most obvious case of a lens flare you could get. Quite why they would need to use wires on Apollo 14 in the first place makes no sense. There is not an awful lot of activity from what I can recall.

    The Apollo 17 clip is an internal reflection probably made during the copying process. It has no such anomaly on the original footage. The "ping" is in the shape of the reflection seen a split second before, from the radio antenna.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqY1cYJEP_A"]Apollo radio antennae and corrupt hoax film makers - YouTube[/ame]

    The section where he deals with the astronaut unable to jump high on the Moon, is a complete strawman argument. Here it is explained:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU"]Apollo 16 jump - strawman - YouTube[/ame]

    Percy continues by suggesting a "floaty effect" and a "dangly effect" of the John Young jump, then asks us to compare it with the Apollo gravity testing rig. I cannot fathom how somebody could suggest that a purpose built rig with sideways, vertical and forward stabilizers very clearly visible, could be compares to the mechanical motion from using thin wires. It is a ludicrous suggestion. Forwards and lateral mechanical motion would dimply be jerky and unresponsive due to the wire taking 5/6th (or whatever figure HBs claim!) weight off of the astronauts.

    [​IMG]


    Percy shows a small clip from Apollo 16, where one astronaut helps the other astronaut up by pushing his hand. Since the astronaut weighs 60lbs, the idea that somebody could not do this is absurd. This is a fairly simple thing to do on Earth, where people are far heavier. Bunkum.

    A collection of videos - Wires and jumping debunked:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ"]Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - Percy Debunk - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg"]Moon Hoax Theory Lies: We can see the wires, people! - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc"]Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Wire Supports and Slow Motion - YouTube[/ame]

    A video showing the Apollo 17 astronauts trying to jump up high and falling over (obscured a bit by the Lunar rover):-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0"]Lunar Olympics - Astronauts jumping in 1/6 earth gravity - YouTube[/ame]


    Minute 122-124 Percy pads the film out here by waffling about how the film could have been altered to vary the speed. Since his theory about double speed is shot to pieces by watching any number of clips at double speed, this is just a means to reaffirm in the casual viewer, that his "analysis" was correct. He shows the John Young clip at double speed and tells us it looks like it was on Earth. No, it does not. His fall to the surface is still too slow for Earth gravity.

    Here it is at correct Earth freefall speed, with absurd motion:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axEFTsXlsfA"]Apollo 16 jump x 2.45.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


    Minute 124-127 We are now shown the hammer and feather experiment on the Moon, where the idea is suggested that it is very difficult to fake. Then David Percy gives us firstly his ahaa moment by showing the clip of "From the Earth to the Moon" where there is an edit! Followed by a "doctored" experiment of his own on Earth.

    Here is a video showing more deception by him:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXVMnA1Xp5Y"]The Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather experiment - YouTube[/ame]

    1. The Apollo experiment corresponds to Lunar gravity.
    2. The Earth experiment does not correspond to Earth gravity!
    3. The Earth hammer hits the fround first.
    4. The feather on the Earth experiment is weighted and bounces!
    5. The hand holding the feather on Earth is lower.
    6. The Earth feather drops predominantly vertically.
    7. The slowed down Earth footage does not correspond to Lunar gravity.
    8. Footage of "From the Earth to the Moon" has an edit in their depiction.
    9. The speeded up Apollo footage, at 200% and 150% does not equate to Earth gravity.
    10. The speeded up clip looks bizarre and does not show normal motion.
     
  20. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No answer?

    Here, Uncle Meat. Let me help.

    I'll give you a hint. There is a way that you can measure the Sun's apparent diameter just by examining a really high-resolution scan of many of the Apollo EVA photos. There is something that appears in those photos *very* frequently that shows the diameter in question.

    Do you know what that something is? And how you might be able to use it to get the answer, and determine that the thing in his visor is truly-really a sun reflection? (Or if it isn't, it is an EXTREMELY distant and extremely small (and impossibly powerful) single light source..)

    You can use the same technique on earth in order to verify this, so I'm guessing this isn't a topic you particularly want to engage in.

    Am I right?

    It's sorta funny, Uncle, because that little video sequence - all by its little self - contains EXTREMELY compelling proof that it was taken on the Moon.

    Extremely compelling to anyone with at least a basic set of skills and knowledge, that is.
     
  21. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect, but thanks for playing anyway.

    It contains extremely compelling evidence, not proof.

    Consequently, nothing has been "completely debunked".

    It's sorta funny :)
     
  22. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have never had such a disclosure.

    The moon landing was not faked it was quite real but your ignorant of science and therefore willfully ignorant of that reality
     
  23. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it was.

    And you're ignorant of English.
     
  24. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes in fact Betamax has done a remarkable job of completely and irrefutably debunking your claim that the landings were not real.

    But you are a troll who ignores the evidence.
     
  25. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect.

    He has presented compelling evidence.

    However, nothing has been debunked.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page