Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

YES. YOU. ARE!

The accuser ALWAYS has the burden of proof.

"You, Anonymous OP 8597527, are a child-molester, a drug peddler, and a jaywalker. Proof me wrong!"
Do you really think that is how it works?


They are however not here.
And they have nothing to proof to you.

Again. YOU being ignorant of the evidence is YOUR problem.
I have never seen evidence that you are not a child-molester, a drug-peddler, and a jaywalker.
So must we presume that you are a child-molester, a drug-peddler, and a jaywalker?


Burden of proof lies with the accusers of fakery.


It is not possible to proof with 100% certainty that something is genuine.
Only that it wasn't faked with any known methods.
That is why the burden of proof lies with the claimant of fakery.


Than show us something that hasn't been debunked a hundred times over.
For once, surprise us.


Trying to shift the burden of proof is standard procedure for hoaxies.

That's yet another reason they aren't taken serious in the grown-up land.

Here is your silly mantra again.

"The accuser always has the burden of proof?" Says who? In all cases, regardless of circumstance? If a wild claim is being made void of accusation, this somehow liberates the claim from the same standards as accusations?

You are such a parroting simpleton.

If you can't prove something then you just hide behind courtroom style legalese.




Yawn.

Hal, I can bend spoons with my mind. Fact!

Don't believe me? YOU are the accuser. PrOOf me wrong! (I even recorded it on video, but I lost it, sorry. )



Hal, Your arguments are such a joke.

You are the silliest intellectual-wannabe I've ever had the pleasure to watch spin his wheels.

No, streetwise! You must prove that the Apollo videos are fake (Remember? It's your claim that the Apollo missions were a hoax). They just have to prove that NASA has not falsified its Moon videos (as they have done, for the moment), showing, rationally and scientifically, that there's no anomaly in them which could be inconsistent with its recording on the Moon.

it's a space shuttle the clues in the name SPACE if it can survive the vaccuum of space in orbit around earth then it can obviously survive the exact same vaccuum around the moon.

I hallucinate with you, kid! You've made a very serious accusation: that U.S. government organizations (NASA, the government, etc), dozens of universities and corporations, and thousands of citizens involved in Apollo Project have deceived and cheated to millions of people around the world, for over 40 years, to justify spurious interests. For the sake of analogy, this is (and, of course, saving the distances) as if you accuse to an employee of to defraud his company. From whom is the burden of proof, boy? Yours, of course, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty, in a trial, and in the real life. Your attitude is typical of a coward who accuses without evidence (an slanderer), and in addition intends the accused must prove his innocence.

You're like the inquisitors accusing people of witchcraft and hoped that they prove their innocence: an irrational and dangerous fool.

This is not a courtroom, Moran.

A court case can be thrown out over a technicality, even if guilt is obvious and known by all on a level of common sense and simple bullshit detection.

How is it going to get there?

Are you even following this?

_____________________________________________________________​___________________


Me. My neighbour. My great-aunt.
Pretty much every rational adult.


Yup.

If you claim Napoleon was six feet tall nobody would care.
If you claim there was a nefarious conspiracy to keep that fact hidden, then yes, show the evidence.


Any claim not supported by evidence can be summerally dismissed.


Not my job to educate you.
It's your job to educate you.
You being ignorant of the evidence is nobody's problem but yours.

Being ignorant of the evidence boils down all your accusations to arguments from ignorance.
And can thus be ignored.

May I once again remind you that YOU started this tread?
It is about the claim that Apollo was hoaxed.
The claim that it was proven to be hoaxed.
It started with a lie.

And we've shown it is a lie.
That is what has been proven.

It's the only thing that matters here.

BTW, challenge still stands:
What evidence would convince you that Apollo is historical?
Continuing to evade this question can only mean that in your mind there isn't any possible.
Thus the rabid dogmatist here would be you.


Who cares?



Couldn't care less.
People claim all sorts of bizar shite they can't proof.
How is this relevant? It doesn't matter what I believe.
It would be perfectly okay for me to say "I think he's deluded".
It would not be okay for me to say "It is certain he is a fraud."
Because I can not proof that!

Nobody cares what you believe.
But as soon as you accuse thousands of wrongdoings it is no longer just a believe.
It is slander.


And you must be a child-mollester, a drug-peddler, and a jaywalker.

_____________________________________________________________​___________________


By his own standards we have proven that Anonymous OP 8597527 is indeed a child-molester, a drug peddler, and a jaywalker.


NEMO QVASITIO HISPANIAE EXPECTANT!

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/19/2012 04:26 PM

what a silly religious twit you are.

Wow, it's astonishing how ignorant you are of spaceflight all while making the claims you're trying to make. Hint, the reason(s) the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon has nothing to do with the vacuum in perilunar space versus low earth orbit. How much delta-V did the space shuttle have vs what the Saturn V had (with a CSM or CSM/LM)? What was the maximum temperature the shuttle's TPS could withstand vs the ablative heat shield of the command module? And don't even get me started on the dynamic loading limitations of the shuttle versus a re-entering capsule returning from trans-lunar trajectory. Some food for thought...

When I watched this video it was the final piece that confirmed it for me. Not only does his body language and eye movement show he is lying when he is speaking of being no the moon, but to say that even from the Command module the stars were not visible, and that space is just black, confirmed that he is lying.

While I can understand why there are no stars in the pictures, and even understand that at times with the sun shining right in your face on the moon, you couldnt see stars, to suggest that even on the trip from the earth to the moon there are no visible stars is just the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard...

Body language is used consistantly in the legal field because it is a valid science, and while some extreme con men can get around most of the body's tells, the majority of people can not. The fact that there are so many tells in this interview just blew me away. And yes I did spend a few days doing research and learning about it, however I did already have a good foundation of understanding and knowledge about body language prior.

And if you pro nasa boys can tear yourselves away from the school yard back and forth pissing contest, I would like to know what your reasons are for why there are consistantly blue reflections in the LM and CM windows please..

[link to www.youtube.com]

Would anyone in his right mind ( considering that he is on the moon where anything can go wrong) do this stunt. Once he reaches the standing position, wouldnt he have tripped backwards by inertia ??

Sorry cant embed

Would anyone in his right mind do this kind of stunt:
[link to www.youtube.com]

Of course this is not a trial, it's the real life but: Do not divert the focus, as you always do!

Look, let me explain one last time to see if it opens a door in your limited brain:

1. You and your colleagues have made a claim, an assertion, a statement: that the moon landing was a hoax. Next, you and your colleagues have alleged anomalies, presented as evidence.

2. We have refuted, scientifically and rationally, each of these anomalies, proving that your statements were false.

3. In addition, we have presented evidence that the manned moon landing was real (dozens third-party links with proofs of the manned landing)

4. Still, we say (and Hal has remarked it, hoping to see if you learn something about it, kid!) that an adult defends his claims without requiring that the others must to prove otherwise.

Well.

a) You take 120 pages saying nothing about the issue, proving nothing, demanding all, and accusing us of being shills.

b) You have not rationally respond to any rebuttals that we have done, usually trying to divert attention.

c) Although the burden of proof is yours, we have given evidence that the moon landing was real (links of third-parties that have provided photos of landings, the trajectories of the Apollo missions, consistently with their passage through the VA belts, astronomical observations from the Moon, etc.). Your usual answer has been more fucking selfishness: "What you say, doesn't matters because I know..., I feel what's the true..., I have the intuition..., and you are shills"

d) One more time, you change the subject, saying that this is not a trial and that the technicalities are without sense.

So now, tell me, little grasshopper: Who is the fucking dick who are playing with subterfuges?

It's not our fault if you're a guy unable to understand basic issues of primary school. So, please, get a brain and an education. Oh no, that you can't... Because you are a fucking blamer, boy!

But it doesn't have the thrust to get there.

If the internal lights are on then no you can't. They did see them at some times though as it is mentioned in the transcripts and they used them to navigate with.



Another poster answered that multiple pages back. They said they'd read it was glare caused by a coating on the windows. That it was also seen on many shuttle and ISS videos.

So on earth in New York City with alllllllllll the lights there, you can see stars, even through the smog and the lights.. but on the command module, with no pollution, no city lights and few internal lights you cant... do you really believe what you just said?

As for the glare, I will do some more searching and see what I find, thankyou for that piece of information

As someone who's studied body language, I have to disagree. I've seen many interviews with Armstrong and he's not a naturally comfortable speaker, displaying signs of nervousness. He has never been entirely comfortable in front of the camera, even before Apollo.

If you actually knew anything about body language, you'd know that it's almost impossible to tell when someone is lying. There's a great deal of myth about it, but there are very few useable signs, and none of them are reliable.



Rubbish! Anyone trying to use body language as a justification for claiming someone in court is lying would likely find their case in serious trouble. It is not a "science", it's much more of an art, and one which doesn't claim to be foolproof or highly accurate. No judge would, I sincerely hope, take it as evidence, and anyone convicted using it would likely get off on appeal.

It's about as scientific as using a person's horoscope to determine their guilt. And I say that as someone who has learned a lot about body language, having been taught by an expert, the author of several books. I can pull a lot of tricks, read a lot of things about people, often get my way when I want to, but one thing I'd never do was to claim someone was lying purely on the basis of body language.


Oooh, you found a fancy sounding word to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. So, c'mon then, tell us what Armstrong's "tells" are.

This of course is nothing more than clutching at straws. You can't debate the issues already raised, having neither the knowledge or ability, so you throw in yet more diversions...

With the lights on in the cabin (not just a few) and the glare on the windows I can see it would be very hard to see stars. Seems like a non issue though because they did see them sometimes as it is in the transcripts and they used them to navigate.

This is all well and good.

The problem is, after all your arguments and "evidence" and "science", at the end of the day you are trying to tell people that this is real.



It's a joke. Really it is.

LMAO...the cabin wasn't even big enough for 2 astronots with full space gear on.


unless of course Buzz stepped outside and put his on

So, what exactly do you think is wrong with the lift off shown? You obviously don't think it's real, but fail completely to explain why - as usual.

Anyway, from what I can see you'd need a hell of a big studio to film that in if you were faking it...

Yet another assertion with no evidence to back it up.

How much space was there in the LEM? What were the dimensions? How much space was needed to accomodate two people with suits on? How much additional space would be needed for putting suits on or taking them off?

Maybe if you concentrated on one claim, instead of jumping around all the time we could get somewhere. Instead you seem to be just copying claim after claim after claim from all the old Apollo hoax sites, with no interest in actually looking at anyone's answers to them. They're all old, well debunked, and the information is out there if you could only be bothered to look for it.

Once again you show that you're not actually interested in finding out the truth, you're only interested in bolstering your religiously held beliefs, and nothing anyone can say, no evidence we could show you, would ever change your mind.

Answer me one question - what would change your mind? What one piece of evidence would it take to convince you that Apollo happened?

I suspect the answer is "nothing", because, unfortunately, you have no interest in truth, only in ranting at the universe, claiming you're right, but secretly, inwardly, knowing you're almost certainly wrong in every respect...

And Buzz's Mom was in there with a broom, sweeping out all the lunar dust that those young scamps tracked in, that would otherwise have fucked-up all the vital LM equipment.

Come on! This is outdated!

The Apollo missions was not interested in stellar observation when the astronauts were on the moon (except, may,be the Apollo 16). The cameras and the films were modified and optimized to take photographies that documented the landing itself.

In the case of the Apollo 11:

1. To photograph targets of opportunity:i.e., scientifically interesting sites, and potential Apollo landing sites as time and circumstances permitted.

2. To obtain photographs of the lunar module and lunar surface activities after LM landing.

3. To obtain vertical and oblique stereo strips of nearside and farside regions of scientific interest.

4. To record mission operational activities.

and

5. To obtain documentation for subsequent landing crew training." (NSSDC ID No. 69-059A·01 (p. 1), [link to ntrs.nasa.gov]


To capture the light of the stars it's required a long exposure which had implied the other objects in the landing scene would have been completely washed out. To take a photo of the stars is not difficult, but it requires some technique and long exposures (ask Astro): try to get a snapshot in a very dark place on a clear night, and at the same location, try to get a photo of an object on the ground using your flash. Try it and tell me.

Other overlooked problem is that the moon landings occurred during daytime conditions! Were you conscious of that? How many stars do you see during daytime conditions?

BTW, the Apollo 16 mission was ready to take "high-resolution photography to support future landing missions, photography of surface features of special scientific interest and astronomical phenomena such as solar corona, Gegenschein, zodiacal light, libration points, and galactic poles." (Apollo 16 Press Kit, RELEASE NO: 72-64, p. 123; [link to history.nasa.gov]

Some examples:

A view of Earth during translunar coast:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Identification of stars seen in the background of the ultraviolet pictures of the Earth taken with the Carruthers UV camera from Apollo 16 on the lunar surface:

[link to www.astr.ua.edu]

They never attempted to film the star-field, which they could have easily done, because the Hoax would have been revealed!

No stars made it easier to hoodwink the sheeple.

Except there are pictures (that have been posted previously in this thread, deja vu anyone?) that show two astroNAUTS with full gear on. So basically you have no proof of your assertion.

No, filming the star field would have required a long exposure and a tripod. If the lunar surface was in the same pic it would be overexposed and featureless and therefore unrecognizable anyway. So the only decent pic you could get would be of just the stars themselves and that would look exactly like they do from Earth. Then we'd have these same people still saying it was a hoax. What did look different about the stars on the Moon as opposed to Earth was their UV which is blocked by the atmosphere. Apollo 16 brought a UV camera and did take pictures of stars for that purpose.

Is easy to take photos of the stars during the daytime, on Earth?

If you were a selenite and you went to the Earth during the daytime, what would do you? Photographing the stars or the planet which you visit?

Good point!

That's not what most of the hoaxies say.


Be that as it may, the Shuttle would do okay in deep space. But it doesn't have the delta-V to get there. It would be like trying to drive moped across the US...except that there's no gas stations in space.