CraigD Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 I’m impressed by one mystery of this thread: why, with posts such at the one containingLots of the people in the Apollo program were probably fooled too. This means nothing. All the data they say they learned is bogus. It would be easy to create bogus data--in fact it would have to be part of a conspiracy al big as this one.does the poll have, as of this moment, 0 “No” votes? Unless one is being disingenuous, I’m unable to understand how one could make statements such as the above, yet answer “Yes” or “Skeptical” to the question “Have earth people walked on the moon?”. Would not the certainty expressed in such posts be matched by an equally certain “No” vote? IMHO, this thread has for some time contained no new ideas, only repetition of claims that all but one participant appear to have rejected. If this remains the case, it will be closed.
Buffy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 To paraphrase Stormin' Norman: He is neither a researcher nor is he schooled in the experimental arts, nor is he a logician, nor is he a scientist. Other than that he's a great judge of evidence. Wild duodenum are lurking in the trees, and the jungle swarms with green apostrophes, Buffy
freeztar Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 I'm not going to touch on the individual issues you brought up because it's simply a waste of my time, seeing as you ignore/dismiss every reasonable response given to you. I do want to touch on a couple things though. Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious. One of the forum rules is that you must provide evidence for your claims. I asked you for this evidence and you dismiss my request as unneccesary. Do you see the problem here? My understanding is that in a vacuum the speed of an object doesn't change after it's launched.The moon is not a vacuous environment, and it has gravity.The Lunar AtmosphereYou sound like you think you've debunked this issue. All you've done is put forth another possible explanation. That is not debunking.You would be wise to heed your own words. Not recognizing the evidence doesn't make it go away.I agree. Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. In your skepticism of "proof that they went to the moon", it's remarkable that you take the claims that they didn't go to the moon as "proof".Do you see the problem with this logic?
cosmored Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 does the poll have, as of this moment, 0 “No” votes?I'd never gotten around to voting. I just voted no. Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious. One of the forum rules is that you must provide evidence for your claims. I asked you for this evidence and you dismiss my request as unneccesary. Do you see the problem here?So are you saying that a difference in a degree or two will cause a five-fold difference in the size of the reflection on a visor? You can't be serious. It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to close the thread because you and the other pro-Apollo people are floundering. The moon is not a vacuous environment, and it has gravity.How much effect would the slight atmosphere have on a thrown grain of sand? Would the curve be effected enough to be noticed? Would it be non-parabolic? Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. In your skepticism of "proof that they went to the moon", it's remarkable that you take the claims that they didn't go to the moon as "proof".Do you see the problem with this logic?Everything you people have presented, such as the number of people involved in the Apollo program, has plausible alternative explanations. If just one piece of real evidence is found that at least some of the footage was taken on earth, all of that evidence with other plausible explanations falls by the wayside. In post # 59 and in my last post I presented this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips. (first six seconds)YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent. At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed. Man didnt land on the moon http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736 It looks just like movement in earth gravity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nobody analyzed this evidence. You know what the viewers are going to think if you ignore strong evidence. Rules of Disinformation(excerpt)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's hear an analysis of this from a pro-Apollo person.
Tormod Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Closing this thread as it belongs at a hoax site and not here at Hypography.
Recommended Posts