Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

I just discovered this thread. I've just recently discovered ZetaTalk while Googling about the moon out of place. I know it's out of place because it doesn't shine through the bedroom window like it used to for years. Nancy is the only one talking about this! How can you tell such lies about her?

Sorry, George, but she inserted herself into a thread about Zetatalk. She rerouted the discussion with wild claims and then complains when the regulars challenge her to provide independent supporting evidence. As far as I am concerned, she is welcome here, but if she disrespects us by assuming things, as she did with me, then she is the one that gets what she deserves. You don't just go to someone's neighbourhood and stir up shit without getting back as good as you give. Probably the best way to deal with her is to ignore her. Seems to have worked with Maxipads and Luser.

I'll admit, Clare has been somewhat fun debunking, but I think I'm done. She's clearly shown this afternoon sticking her toe into the water of the moon hoax that she will make any manner of ridiculous claim out of sheer ignorance...which is pretty much par for the course among moon hoax believers. With them, it's like taking candy from a baby...way too easy.

You mean the moon used to shine in your window every night for years? Is that what you are saying?

User number "985205" on this thread is ZetaMax:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]


Busted.

Oh brother. Here comes another one.

Tell us, if the moon were "out of place" then why are all solar and lunar eclipses still perfectly on time and in place? Why are thousands of lunar occultatioon observations every year occuring exactly on time (to the millisecond) and exactly in place.

[link to www.lunar-occultations.com]

How can GOTO teleswcopes programming in the 1990's track the moon perfectly and point to not only the moon but any particular crater when commanded?

The fact is that the moon's track is not the same year to year since its plane of orbit is tilted with respect to the ecliptic by just over 5 degrees. Depending on the date and the year, the moon's NORMAL track can vary quite widely from year to year. To jump the gun and claim that it's "out of place" just because YOU don't know any better is exactly how Nancy ropes in her ignorant believers by telling them that it's "not normal" and otehr such hogwash.

Well, that didn't take long, did it.

Great work, guys!

Of course. Maxipads must be really bored now that nobody gives him any attention.

Max exposes himself again for the liar that he is!

BTW ... The Lone Ranger, in case you read this ... you might want to contact Dr.Postman.

It was ESP:)

Probably would have been more fun to string him along for a bit...sorry.

Naww, we have fed the beast long enough. Now we starve him.

George, I'm sick of this. The arguments around the Moon hoax, JFK, etc. are so complex ... and the attitude here is that if I say a person can "interfere" in one thing and not another, some people want to say one is "intervene" and another is "interfere", but the CONTEXT of one makes the meaning clear as "intervene on behalf of" (and besides, faking things, if the Zetas exist and could do that, would also be intervening on our behalf, so the nay-sayers here are moot on that point) ... and having my posts called word salad is tiring.

I know a lot of people here are good.
I also know that I always said the Moon rotates -- from the total superposition level, but not at the level where it "revolves around the Earth" (which it does not do, from any other physics level or viewpoint, either).

So, contact me elsewhere.

Good luck to all the rest.

By the way, the original suits for the astronauts were of lead; the LEM was shot in stage sets to accomplish the sizes big enough; the one in the museum was not big enough to guarantee easy use; and the landing site and flag are never seen on Moon photos ... except now they've indicated where they should be and YOU KNOW WHAT?

This is really really weird, but the guy who developed the high-end, acclaimed Advanced Photographic Extraction Process (APEP), Ron Stewart, did videos (now removed from Youtube, only months after he posted them and did an interview about it), showing that instead of finding the site and flag, he found structures on the Moon.

Now, not being able to view his work up close, since it's been removed, I cannot comment re. the structures. But he said clearly AT the site NASA said the flag, etc. are, there is no evidence of it.

That much was for sure.

So -- nevermind on the structures he claims, he does say there is no landing site THERE from our "landing".

Now, all I want to make clear about myself here, is that I am aware we could have landed somewhere else, or that the man's discovery of structures could be off -- or even that his APEP didn't show enough. But APEP works on other things ... why not here?

The interview was done by the -- yes, overly excitable -- Alfred Lambremont Webre, who is a woo-woo kook in many ways. Again, I do know the difference. But Ron Stewart is not. And Webre did have him on his show, so good for him.

Stewart says he was shocked to find structures and refused to speculate on the purpose but he assumes they must be from aliens at some point. Of course, this supposition might be wrong, but his APEP is an excellent development, and one way or another, it didn't show the flag and other equipment at the various claimed Apollo landing sites.

And so, here is the only evidence we have left -- again, yes, if this were so, it would be covered up, of course, hence the videos now gone:

Article, including some Webre-style hogwash, but also excellent points is:

[link to www.examiner.com]

Interviews are MUCH BETTER, because it's in Ron's own voice, with only his claims, and here they are:

Part I: [link to exopolitics.blogs.com]


Part II: [link to exopolitics.blogs.com]


I submit this ONLY regarding claimed landing sites, not re. aliens.

And no, I don't think we went to the Moon. Sad to say. But hey, they did a lot of things after, so they did use the money. Wisely? Hm. Maybe.

And why are Clementine's images so much poorer than the original Moon images? Anyway. Fakery is common.

Bye, guys. Anyone wanting to contact me can send a small blurb about who you are from here, and your ID, and give it to Fetzer. I am sure he would notify me and I will get back to you if you want.

I have some problems here at home, so will be looking at those more than this.
Ciao.

This expression WAS unclear:

"I also know that I always said the Moon rotates -- from the total superposition level, but not at the level where it "revolves around the Earth" (which it does not do, from any other physics level or viewpoint, either)."

What I meant is that the Moon does not actually revolve arond the Earth from any other viewpoint than the Earth, or from any mind-level (superposition) other than if the E-M orbit of the Sun were stopped. In those cases, the Moon revolves.

But it does rotate. Yes. From every OTHER perspective.

So choose your superposition, and you have the right term.

1. a) E-M stopped around Sun: Moon revolves, one face in.
b) Seen from E: Moon revolves.

2. a) E-M in real motion, i.e., in orbit continuing around Sun: Moon rotates, along its sine wave, weaving around Earth, so to speak, and oriented, in tidal lock with the Earth, always to face its rotation toward Earth.
b) Seen from Sun or other bodies than Earth: Moon rotates.

Oh, and George: I would outlast them -- but they're not careful, and yes, the sticks are annoying and stupid. T-y for the comment re. my having to deal with them. I am sick of this though. I hope some people learned something from my posts and will look into the many issues I've brought up.

But I am sick of them.

And we are sick of your claims without any prove (like the one about the Spacesuits made of lead for example).

ROFLMAO. Pure comedy entertainment. Thanks for the laughs, Clare and Maxipads.

Rod Stewart is a crank and his "extraction process" is total bunk.

I've researched this carefully.

For example, he claims he can resolve digital photos beyond the information contained in the pixels.

I continually find it fascinating that people will believe outlandish stories such as structures on the Moon based on zero credible evidence but won't believe that the massively documented Apollo missions actually happened.

Re. the poster on the Moon photos issues:

go through these:

[link to www.aulis.com]

The photo I was mentioning is the 1st one in Mythbusters, hwere they treat the problem as "the shadows can go down if there's a hill" -- which is true. But they always point to the light source, and that's not debunked -- because, like the fakers, they used a light source nowhere near as far away as the Sun would be. Why? Because our human-made light sources are not as powerful from far away enough.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Also, the episode on the wire supports on video was misleading: NASA has doctored its footage since the studies were done.

Etc.

Rather fascinating stuff.

Not all Jack's points are absolute, and he admits this, but he has pointed out too many and too many clear anomalies.

Plus, they simply wouldn't have had time to do it all. Never mind the fact that the camera was not specially protected for rays, said its manufacturer, but the NASA spokesman buys the landing so he brished the implication aside and said they must have protected it.

And film would have been ruined anyway. Think about it.

Well -- happy hunting for more lies. Unfortunately, one can say, who cares? And in some ways I don't. They lie they lie. What can I do? Well, at least I know they lie -- sometimes.

The issue of what Russia would do is another thing: they had a conspiracy of their own, reported at the time and investigated separately. Their Gagarin probably didn't fly: he was the photo stunt guy. They whisked him off after the photo op. There's a whole thing about that.

But though these things sound like, "Oh God! Anything is possible here!" No -- anything IS possible when you're dealing with humans and have evidence they did it.

And why not? Everyone was competing. So anyway, the Russians didn't want their faking to be exposed.

Complex, but <shrug> likely true. Scientific discovery is this way: one thing seems (say, from the Earth) to be true but when you lear about all the other factors and positions and unseen forces, etc., many things are known to be true, but would seem couterintuitive when you start learning.

Don't you love it when people whine about being mistreated, say they are leaving and then continue to piss on your rosebushes?

Interesting.

Well, he didn't find the equipment. He found large block structures.

But as to "massively documented", it's a house of cards, like 9/11.

Watch the movies on the hoax. I id hours of watching. I remember it from one of the movies. If you are really interested in knowing if it's fake, then learn about it.

I am prsenting what they presented.

It might have been in the "Paper Moon" one, but I think it was also (or instead?) in the long, and imperfect, but interesting -- and not "totally debunked" -- Moon Movie or A Funny Thing Happened. I can't remember.

When you think someone has "debunked" something, you should look into that, too. Just as the debunkers of Costella's work on the film are wrong, many of the ones on these other items are wrong --

not always, but sometimes.

And how do you know? Well, sometimes they debunk the WRONG aspect of something (like with the Mythbusters show). Sometimes they debunk a piece but it was the LINK of that piece of evidence to another piece which was the key factor.

And so on.

For instance, I can say the apple's blue, but until I show it in regular light, it will look blue. So of course, proving the apple's really red, doesn't say anything about the fact that the (fake) shows a blue apple. Yes, it requires blue light -- a complexity, such as another conspiracy to make it happen, etc. -- but proving the apple is still red, in REGULAR light, would not prove that this apple isn't blue and had a special light.

I am using a metaphor here, of course.

To all those who want me gone, I'm gone.

For those who wanted me to reply, I have left some parting attempts. Though they require your own work too. Otherwise I would be on here forever AND it would turn the thread away from the Nancy stuff, which I know DrPostman doesn't want.

Best wishes,
Me

FFS, Clare. Nobody says you have to go anywhere, but you should respect the topic of the thread. If you start your own thread, out of respect, I would leave it alone, and so would most debunkers here. Anyone that wants to discuss with you can. As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to stick around, but understand that when you make extraordinary claims, the onus is on you to support those claims. We have seen so many times that when kooks can't back up their claims they play victim and threaten to leave. It does nothing to boost your credibility.

No, he didn't. It's pareidolia involving distorted images.




It's massively documented.

For starters, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project and thousands of companies, universities and research centers were involved.

I've followed this debate for a long time and there isn't one shred of evidence from the MHBs that I haven't seen soundly debunked over and over again.

Oh, for the photographic interested fellow --

The Hasselblad cameras were MANUAL F-STOPS.

The big gloves would NOT have been able to adjust the F-stops to all the light conditions and it was POINT-AND-SHOOT without a viewfinder, in numbers of beautiful shots and though they had many thousands of seconds there, on the Moon, they had lots to do other than photograph, yet we have a ratio of something like 1 photo every 90 seconds, or something like that.

It's all implausible, if not impossible.

Some photos are the SAME FRAMING, i.e., the shot was exactly centred and framed perfectly (tripod like), yet these guys would have been pushing a button on their chest.

No, someone did the shots.

AND if any were faked, not that the rest HAD to be, but they are PRESENTED TO THIS DAY as on the "same roll of film", as if they were done together.

All NASA would have to do is say, yah, we did some studio shots.

The problem is, they presented them ALL as real, and there are lots of problems with the landings, when you look deeply into it. Impossibilities, improbabilities, loose ends, even mind control suggestion -- for the astronauts don't remember their actual mission directly, they've said, and cried. Honestly, though the nuggets of truth are mixed with suggestive but not absolute proofs, and other outright mistakes on the part of the Moon mission debunkers (which you guys are trying in your turn to debunk) ...

there are lots of problems with the whole thing.

But I am more knowledgeable about 9/11 and JFK, personally.

Good day, guy(s).

Let's see now...pixels are SQUARE...and compression artifacts look like...wait...here it is...BLOCKS. Well what do you know!



No, it's not. The world's engineering community is in firm agreement that it is the most highly documented and studied enginering project ever in the history of man. The fact that 400,000 people from thousands of companies in dozens of countries were involved in it and not a single death bed confession speaks LOUDLY. Hell, Clinton couldn't even keep a blowjob secret when only TWO people knew about it! But in this case, we have every mission shown LIVE on worldwide TV with millions of people watching (which brings in thousands of more people who would have to be in on it) and the entire world's engineering and scientific community which to date has found NO evidence against the reality of Apollo. Russia would have loved to have exposed it as a hoax if they thought it was since it was breaking their economy trying to build the Energia rocket and get it launched to the moon before the US. Not only they, but dozens of other countries tracked the spacecrafts. At Jodrell Bank radio observatory in England, they were tracking the doppler shift of the radio signal from the LM and even detected when Neil Armstrong took over manual control before landing. Dozens of ham radio groups also tracked the outgoing and incoming CSM's and a number of amateur astronomy groups photographed the water dumps of the CSM on the way to the moon and the gaseous emissions from the damaged Apollo 13.

Clare, you demonstrate perfectly the monumental ignorance of the typical hoax believer.

I sure hope so, because you haven't the first clue about Apollo.

Wathcing moon hoax videos to find out if it's fake is NOT the scientific way to do. Because these videos start with the premise that the moon landing was fake and wont present the evidence that debunk their claims, they will just direct the viewers attention to influence him to believe their version.

If I would be really interested in this topic i would watch the original NASA footage without any comments by "researchers" who already layed out the facts to fit their hoax-agenda and without the NASA comments, too ... the pure footage.

And I see you are affiliated with Jim Fetzer the no planer ... then I see where you are coming from. I truly think 911 was an inside job, but Fetzer with his totally bunk "no-plane" theory hurt the 911-truth movement more than anyone else. He is disinfo to ridicule people who are truly researching what really happened on 911.