| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
You disagree with NASA?
[link to science.nasa.gov]
---
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."
--- |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 6:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The legal system does not determine facts.
It's the best we have, because it has a coherent system for forcing people to tell the truth. Our system of issuing and enforcing subpoenas, and then threatening jail time for perjury, is about the best way I can see of getting the truth out of reluctant people.
If you have a better way, you are free to suggest it to your Congressman for a Constitutional amendment. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
The fights in Congress these days are all about the legality of torture.
Law is law. It's the best system we've come up with so far to answer questions that are firmly in behavioral domains. Take the famous case of Solomon and the Baby. At the time, King Solomon used what was essentially a legal maneuver to determine which mother had the greater claim.
These days, we can do a DNA test. Would you still claim that the Test of Solomon outweighs the evidence of the test tube? Perhaps, the mother found by the Solomniac method might be a better mother to the child. But that does not make her the biological mother.
Science has its own court. It is as flawed, in its own way, as the legal system. But it is also as effective, in its own domain, as the legal system is. You want to find if a scientist was cheating on his taxes, go to the legal system. You want to see if he confirmed the Higg's Boson, go to the system of peer review, documentation, and reproducibility. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 6:37 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it.
You disagree with NASA?
[ link to science.nasa.gov]
---
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: " Both are worse."
---
Then, the Apollo astroguys who walked on the Moon should have had, at least, their feet turned into "Crispy Critters"(TM)!
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 6:39 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it.
You disagree with NASA?
[ link to science.nasa.gov]
---
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: " Both are worse."
---
Then, the Apollo astroguys who walked on the Moon should have had, at least, their feet turned into "Crispy Critters"(TM)!
Oh, but wait! I bet the astroguys who "walked on the Moon" had footwear that was TOTALLY IMPERVIOUS to harmful radiation. Just like the rest of their spacesuit gear. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You want to see if he confirmed the Higg's Boson, go to the system of peer review, documentation, and reproducibility. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
Did you come into this thread late? You already lost that argument. The alleged moon landing was never independently reproducible. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 6:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it.
You disagree with NASA?
[ link to science.nasa.gov]
---
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: " Both are worse."
---
I knew this in 1982.
A DETAILED description of the mechanics of high-energy cosmic ray bombardment of lunar soil, and the subsequent emission of neutron and gamma rays, can be found in a book I own, published in 1960.
I try to be careful with language. "Cook your lunch" is not quantitative, but it is clearly of a much greater magnitude than what is theoretically described and experimentally confirmed about this particular source of radiation. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 6:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it.
You disagree with NASA?
[ link to science.nasa.gov]
---
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: " Both are worse."
---
I knew this in 1982.
A DETAILED description of the mechanics of high-energy cosmic ray bombardment of lunar soil, and the subsequent emission of neutron and gamma rays, can be found in a book I own, published in 1960.
I try to be careful with language. "Cook your lunch" is not quantitative, but it is clearly of a much greater magnitude than what is theoretically described and experimentally confirmed about this particular source of radiation.
I'm not with you here.
Are you saying that Mitrofanov, who says "Both are worse" is wrong, or what?
Is he mistaken about the danger of radiation FROM the lunar surface (never mind GCRs and Solar incoming)? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 7:21 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Not everything in the world can be reduced to binary answers.
Several times a week I engage in a variety of activities that are widely recognized as, and well documented as, dangerous and leading to a large number of fatalities.
Yet I am alive and talking to you.
You have to quantify the danger. And you have to understand what measures are possible to ameliorate it.
If I stick a metal saucepan on the stove, will it burn my hand? Yes. Second degree burns, even. But I can use a hot pad. That little bit of protection is enough -- for that specific threat.
I also weld, and bend steel. Would I pick up the red-hot end of a rod I was bending with a hot pad? Not on your life! It would burst into flames. But I will pick up the other end of the bar in my bare hands, and carry it comfortably to the quench.
And that is the point. I know the cosmic ray interaction with soil is probably new to you. To you it must appear as both mysterious and unstoppable. As I pointed out, however, it was predicted a decade before the landings took place. It is not instant death. Not an impossible hazard. Just one more element that must be factored into design of human activities on the Moon then...or now.
At the risk of over-simplification, this is a ridiculous hazard. When cosmic rays smack into soil there are a small number of products released. Of those products, a vanishingly small number manage to avoid having collisions of their own and actually get out of the soil.
Meanwhile those primary cosmic rays are also striking the astronaut.
This is like: forget the bullets, it's the sand kicked up by the near misses that scares me!
(The over-simplification is thus; cosmic rays have high penetration but low interaction. The most dangerous thing that can happen to you regarding a cosmic ray is that it smack into something like a metal sheet and release products that are low-penetration but high-interaction. Fortunately for us, these lesser particles are so inclined to stick in the first thing they hit, a layer of HDPE -- plastic to you and me -- will absorb their energy instead. Bad for the plastic, but who cares. Plastic rarely suffers genetic damage!) |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/16/2007 10:37 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
They have discussed tracking them, you just aren't interested in finding that out for yourself.
Baloney. I've looked. Show us a link. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
How hard did you look? Google for "soviet tracking of Apollo". The first page of results contains links to translations of Russian articles about tracking Apollo 8 and 11. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/16/2007 10:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
Easy to handwave, hard to back up.
Do you know how bright the Apollo capsule was in LEO? It did two orbits of the Earth before being boosted on to the Moon, and people were looking out for it. It was far brighter than any satellite. If it had stayed in LEO, people would have noticed. Also, there are photos of it, taken by amateurs, showing the capsule en route after the Trans Lunar Injection burn that sent them on their way. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 12:35 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
Easy to handwave, hard to back up.
Do you know how bright the Apollo capsule was in LEO? It did two orbits of the Earth before being boosted on to the Moon, and people were looking out for it. It was far brighter than any satellite. If it had stayed in LEO, people would have noticed. Also, there are photos of it, taken by amateurs, showing the capsule en route after the Trans Lunar Injection burn that sent them on their way. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Youre a fucking lying blowhard.
You have no idea what youre talking about. When the apollo spacecraft was connected to the third stage, it was much larger and easier to see, and some did report seeing it where is was supposed to be. I was one of them.
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection. There is no truth to your statement. You cannot easily see an object the size of the command /service module at an altitude of 300 miles. You'd have to know just where to look, and even then a positive ID would be IMPOSSIBLE. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 12:38 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Easy to handwave, hard to back up. Quoting: IDW 313289
Tell me about it. NASA pays you to wave your hands like a fucking retard and you never back up watch you say.
Talk about handwaving. The whole Apollo evidenciary chain is one handwaving excercise after another. The only thing is I dont believe in majik. Youre not going to easily pull of an illusion on me, I am naturally skeptical of known liars. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/17/2007 12:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection. Quoting: IDW 313289
Prove it. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 12:45 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Not everything in the world can be reduced to binary answers.
Several times a week I engage in a variety of activities that are widely recognized as, and well documented as, dangerous and leading to a large number of fatalities.
Yet I am alive and talking to you.
You have to quantify the danger. And you have to understand what measures are possible to ameliorate it.
If I stick a metal saucepan on the stove, will it burn my hand? Yes. Second degree burns, even. But I can use a hot pad. That little bit of protection is enough -- for that specific threat.
I also weld, and bend steel. Would I pick up the red-hot end of a rod I was bending with a hot pad? Not on your life! It would burst into flames. But I will pick up the other end of the bar in my bare hands, and carry it comfortably to the quench.
And that is the point. I know the cosmic ray interaction with soil is probably new to you. To you it must appear as both mysterious and unstoppable. As I pointed out, however, it was predicted a decade before the landings took place. It is not instant death. Not an impossible hazard. Just one more element that must be factored into design of human activities on the Moon then...or now.
At the risk of over-simplification, this is a ridiculous hazard. When cosmic rays smack into soil there are a small number of products released. Of those products, a vanishingly small number manage to avoid having collisions of their own and actually get out of the soil.
Meanwhile those primary cosmic rays are also striking the astronaut.
This is like: forget the bullets, it's the sand kicked up by the near misses that scares me!
(The over-simplification is thus; cosmic rays have high penetration but low interaction. The most dangerous thing that can happen to you regarding a cosmic ray is that it smack into something like a metal sheet and release products that are low-penetration but high-interaction. Fortunately for us, these lesser particles are so inclined to stick in the first thing they hit, a layer of HDPE -- plastic to you and me -- will absorb their energy instead. Bad for the plastic, but who cares. Plastic rarely suffers genetic damage!) Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
Dude, you are one seriously stoooopid individual. Do you ever read over your posts and say to yourself, God I sound like I'm too stupid to pass as a real geek? You are, you know. Yeah,sure, I believe you! plastic makes a good shield to stop secondary ionizing radiation! You are by far the stupidest of the Apollo geeks. You are a know nothing wikipedia genius. You consistenly misinterpret and misrepresent almost every piece of information you relate. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 12:50 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection.
Prove it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
Well, if I can prove a trip to the moon would have been fatally impossible for two seperate reasons, and taking off from the moon impossible, I have done just that. blowhard. They went somewhere, I am assuming! Maybe not. Maybe the spacecraft was unmanned. But if men were launched, they stayed in an orbit below 400 miles ot the simply would never have returned.
Radiation is an unforgiving cumulative effect killer. There were several kinds of radiation that in of themselves could have been fatal, independantly. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 12:54 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Oh, God, IDW's back on the radiation hobby horse again.
Why can't HDPE and other plastics be used as radiation shielding, IDW? |
| AlienAbductee
User ID: 312874
10/17/2007 12:58 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm with 3222 on this one. I hear a lot of people telling us in as many words as possible how the hoax was pulled off, but offer nothing to substantiate THAT claim either.
If the many people who doubt NASA's claim to have put repeated missions on the moon based on their word and a few admittedly poor quality videos (due to whatever reason you want to cite), that is their right. These people are simply wanting some kind of concrete evidence, independent of the original source that is open to scrutiny by any who are impartial to the outcome.
I think then it would be logical to allow those who support NASA's claim to be able to review the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. Since the consensus seems to be growing more and more that NASA did in fact NOT have any way of sending these men to the moon, but instead choreographed a phenomenal fraud that fooled millions of people, we should be able to review the detailed documentaries, journals, testimonies of those whose consciences could bear the secrets no longer. I would be fascinated to see how such an amazing feat of deception was pulled off on the world to go undetected for such a long time.
The only real problem is that since some of our debunkers won't accept NASA's documentation as proof, nor Google, YouTube videos, or Wikipedia articles as any kind of credible evidence; I'd be hard pressed to accept a lot of newly typed documents from many of the Apollo hoax sites that are continually offering old evidence in new ways.
So gentlemen, how do we find a way to put our evidence out there to support our claims to each other in a way that the other will accept? Granted proven science when properly cited and applied should be exempt unless a more brilliant scientist has proven to a community that he has defeated it. Failing that, we could go around in circles until someone else finally lands on the moon and answers the question for some of us... |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 12:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection. Quoting: IDW 313289
What was that about handwaving, IDW? I must have missed where you vacked up this allegation.
There is no truth to your statement. You cannot easily see an object the size of the command /service module at an altitude of 300 miles. You'd have to know just where to look, and even then a positive ID would be IMPOSSIBLE. Quoting: IDW 313289
There you go again. What basis do you have for believing this? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 1:03 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You consistenly misinterpret and misrepresent almost every piece of information you relate. Quoting: IDW 313289
The grand bullmoose gold medal winner of ironic statements. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 1:09 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You cannot easily see an object the size of the command /service module at an altitude of 300 miles. Quoting: IDW 313289
Oh, really?
[link to www.n2yo.com]
There's a list of bright naked eye satellites, many of which orbit hundreds of kilometers higher than your arbitrary figure of 300 miles. A lot of them are rocket stages, which woulld be a little bit bigger than the CSM (though not hugely so, as they are upper stages), but many are satellites that are smaller.
People would have seen it, IDW. There were many people who tracked the capsules optically. Do you want a list of them as well? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312982
10/17/2007 1:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
likely an out take from a NASA training film or some Sci Fi film. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 1:21 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection. Quoting: IDW 313289
I should take more time to do one post rather than shotgun post like this, but here's another:
Are you claiming that the CSM separated from the S-IVb before or after the TLI burn? Obviously, you are implying that it was before, as it would be on its way to the Moon if it separated afterwards.
People were watching the capsule and waiting for the TLI. They would have spotted the separation before the burn, there would have been two object moving (close together at first) in the same orbit. That really would have attracted attention, as it might have implied that something had gone wrong and something had fallen off the spacecraft. Given that I've shown you a link proving that satellites are easily visible at that altitude, how do you account for the failure of anybody to notice what you are proposing?
Handwaving indeed. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 216563
10/17/2007 1:21 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Someone mentioned the Russian reflectors on an earlier post.
The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971.
Hazzard,
We've already noticed that most of your knowledge comes from wikipedia articles, this one, for instance:
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
The question that you have avoided to answer before in other threads and keep ignoring is, I repeat: "Why did you choose to quote the article so selectively?" Let's see the full quote:
"The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971, at least in part due to some uncertainty in its location on the Moon. Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth".
However, this is not the point that you'd hope we all, including you, miss.
The point is if Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2 on two separate UNMANNED missions managed to deliver and deploy the retroreflectors at least one of which continues to return signals to Earth, then, your argument that the mere presence of such operational retroreflectors on the surface of the Moon constitutes "undisputed evidence" of the Apollo moon landings is evidently wrong.
Or, alternatively, you can admit that the Russians secretly landed on the Moon too. So which option do you prefer?
In fact the Soviet robotic missions including those of Luna-16,20,24 proved that you don't need to have people on the Moon to make pictures, install retroreflectors, return soil samples back to Earth etc.
You should take your sources of "undisputed evidence" with a grain of salt (pun intended, remember, SALT detente treaties and the great grain robbery of 1972? Lol).
Hazzard, as the host of a thread, your manners could use some fine-tuning. How about a thoughtful, polite response to some of the thoughtful, polite questions asked of you ?
:P |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/17/2007 1:28 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When the command service module seperated from the third stage the third stage went on to the moon and the command service module stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection.
I should take more time to do one post rather than shotgun post like this, but here's another:
Are you claiming that the CSM separated from the S-IVb before or after the TLI burn? Obviously, you are implying that it was before, as it would be on its way to the Moon if it separated afterwards.
People were watching the capsule and waiting for the TLI. They would have spotted the separation before the burn, there would have been two object moving (close together at first) in the same orbit. That really would have attracted attention, as it might have implied that something had gone wrong and something had fallen off the spacecraft. Given that I've shown you a link proving that satellites are easily visible at that altitude, how do you account for the failure of anybody to notice what you are proposing?
Handwaving indeed. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Irrelvant.
What separated where is not proof of a manned landing on the moon.
Not to mention the whole tracking thing was already debunked numerous times. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 1:32 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Irrelvant.
What separated where is not proof of a manned landing on the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
It wasn't intended to be. It was a specific refutation of IDW's hoax claim.
Not to mention the whole tracking thing was already debunked numerous times. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Really? Do tell. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/17/2007 1:34 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Irrelvant.
What separated where is not proof of a manned landing on the moon.
It wasn't intended to be. It was a specific refutation of IDW's hoax claim.
Not to mention the whole tracking thing was already debunked numerous times.
Really? Do tell. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
I shall refer you to the past 29 pages of this thread.
It was debunked numerous times.
But you knew that. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/17/2007 1:42 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I shall refer you to the past 29 pages of this thread.
It was debunked numerous times.
But you knew that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Please be specific. I am not aware of any 'debunking' of Apollo tracking that was not addressed in return.
I think you are making it up. Go on. Be specific. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/17/2007 1:46 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I shall refer you to the past 29 pages of this thread.
It was debunked numerous times.
But you knew that.
Please be specific. I am not aware of any 'debunking' of Apollo tracking that was not addressed in return.
I think you are making it up. Go on. Be specific. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Again, I refer you to the last 29 pages. I wont do your research for you. That would lazy. (On your part)
You were there.
You know it was debunked.
Either way, tracking is no evidence of a manned moon landing.
Ever wonder to yourself, why you are here?
Why do you hold on to this like its so important?
If you really believe it, you wouldnt be here defending this nonsense. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 1:52 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What a load of crap got posted to this thread in the past hour. Same old same old.How many times have I told you, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. WHo is making the extraordinary claim?
I presented my disqualification of the Apollo hoax systematically, covering each component of my arguement thoroughly ,and to date no proof has been presented that I am wrong. The burden of proof does not lie with NASA's critics, but with NASA. |
| IDW
User ID: 313289
10/17/2007 1:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls, Nomuse, others, if Apollo wasnt a hoax you wouldnt have a job propping it up.
Its really that simple.
The fact that an organised propaganda campaign exists after 40 years is compelling circumstancial evidence.
Never mind all of the physical evidence.
There is no way in hell a single one of you believes what you say you do after the education youve been given. Even if you had a head like a sieve, serious doubt would exist. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
