Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

Ad hominem noted. I feel sure you have something more substantive to add to the conversation.

Yes here's the cure, but exclusively to who it may apply;

those in denial are by heir will, lost in space.

It's not really ad hominem since it was not directed towards a particular person. It is more like a "no true Scotsman" argument.

However, "if the shoe fits, wear it".

I stand corrected.

Mind controlled perhaps, but not more than anyone else, moron? NO.
Intelligence is NOT a defence against BELIEF, any strong belief simply overrides facts and evidence, that's just a simple fact of human nature, a curse upon mankind if you will.
That's why one's aim should never be to win the argument against a particular person, one simply should present the evidence for others to see. Like in a court - prosecutor vs defence - it's all for the benefit of the jury.

Which brings me to the problem of the dust, it seems for 50 years no one has really spotted the obvious problem with the moon photos which was staring us in the face - hiding in plain sight - all along.

Apollo 16, photos of Shadow rock! Simple proof of fakery:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
Note the incorrent shadows on the LHS (far side, wheel + antenna) of the buggy.
Also note the thick dust shown by footprints and tyre tracks.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With Astronaut checking out the shadow
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With stick and then also an astronaut leaning up against it (note: dust free!)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

As the dust all around the rock is UNDISTURBED the rock must have arrived FIRST, then the dust came like snow.
The dust gradually accumulated over MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years to get there....
....so why is there NO dust on top of the rock? Why is there NONE in the nooks and crannies?
....Why is there dust under the overhang, shadow area? How did it get there?

The only possible explanation for this rock being clean is WEATHERING that washed and/or blew the dust off the rock.
As the moon is in a hard vacuum there is only one conclusion:

These photos were taken on EARTH.

The photographs that they said were taken on the moon, are all the proof one would ever need, to know it was all faked.

That is if people knew a bit more about photography.

Go find the National Geographic issue from December 1969 and check out the photo printed there. A very famous, well known image. Everybody's seen it.

Note there is no depth of field in that image. Which means the lens is wide open, or very close to wide open. Probably about f4.5 or f5.6. The film was 160ASA Ektachrome. The setting is supposedly in bright sunlight, since that is the only source of light they said they had.

Highest shutter speed on the old Blad was 1/500th of a second, so such a wide aperture would have way overexposed the film even at that speed --- but it didn't.

There's the proof right there and don't give me any shit about low angle of the Sun and so on.

There are quite a few other things about that image that are wrong too, but that lack of depth of field proves it's faked all by itself.

...dumb question, but where does it say this guy is a "NASA engineer"?
...and why should there be dust when the camera pans away from the surface to follow the ascent module? The engine is fueled with hypergolics, full thrust immediately. There may have been some dust once it got some altitude above the descent stage "launch pad", but the camera had panned away from the surface at that point.

and there isn't aa crater due to the very wide exhaust plume in the vacuum of the Moon...rocket exhaust behaves differently in a vacuum, not like the straight plumes you see at sea level.
Watch any launch from Earth, you will see how the plume expands in the thinner air as altitude increases.

Still avoiding this, eh?

Sigh.

Seeing all the Rovers and landing frames actually on the moon, not the stage. I like everyone expected to see the astroNuts jump 10' up and throw things six times higher they they really could.

15 seconds later:

[link to sservi.nasa.gov (secure)]

[link to astrobob.areavoices.com]



Your unrealistic expectations and failure to grasp basic physics is not NASA's fault.

As a counter, how do the hoax believers explain this?



Here's the math:

[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]


Here's some more:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Best of luck, and have a nice day.

Last Edited by 74444 on 02/10/2019 12:09 PM

So you want me to provide the evidence that would convince me NASA really went to the moon with Apollo?

An interesting idea, but I'm the one asking: I know of no such evidence. If there was a way for someone to say 'look, this proves they visited' and I couldn't explain it as a trick, lie or mistake I'd then at least have some evidence to weigh against the MOUNTAIN of evidence that they didn't.

It seems all NASA believers have is appeals to authority, question reframing, distraction, point labouring or pure fiction like 'missing' the VAB. Isn't there a test we can still do today to prove they went?

As for avoiding questions: perhaps you'll have a go at mine. How did the 'Shadow Rock' remain dust free, and how did all the other moon rocks littering the surface remain dust free?

The dust puzzle is interesting as I appear to be the only one to spot it in half a century: but pretty obvious when you think about it LOL.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/10/2019 01:01 PM

I don't want you to provide the evidence itself. I want you to use your imagination and tell, if you can, of *anything* that might convince you of the veracity of Apollo. What would it take, if any at all?

Because, particularly in an environment such as this, *anything* can be accused of being a trick, lie, or mistake. I can think of *nothing* that couldn't be *accused* of that -- and you dismiss out of hand anything you can accuse. Using that formula, you may dismiss *anything* out of hand, and pick and choose whatever evidence fits your pre-conceived notion. There is no objectivity possible with your formula.

As for your dust idea, I shall table it until my own curiousity is satisfied, thank you.

Last Edited by 74444 on 02/10/2019 01:34 PM

I especially like the single footprint, if doesn't prove it nothing does.

ANOTHER gish-gallop? How droll.

Opsss... in the second link, they should have tried to edit out the black line where they intersected the hills photo behind the surface photo. BTW the exact same hills can be seen in a training photo shoot in the Apollo or Antelope valley in Hawaii. Probably some sort of time/space parallel universe coincidence.

Some solid evidence, that's what we need to support NASA's huge claims. Shame it's so far away, if only there was a way to contact a landing site and verify it was there. Remember that the evidence for it all being (badly) faked is solid too, it's like a jury triel.

BTW, I don't dismiss stuff out of hand, I'm very specific about why any evidence cannot be relied upon. Obviously however if I get a long list of stuff I'll use brevity.
E.g. The moon rocks. Chain of custody. Says it all. When NASA present a moon rock as a moon rock NO ONE - including you has any validation of where it came from, who picked it up and when they picked it up.
As for the Holland petrified wood incident, I note that BEFORE it was discovered to be petrified wood NASA and everyone else was entirely happy that it WAS genuine moon rock, the back-story was established after the cat was out of the bag. It's not conclusive, but it does beg the question of where and why would the donor have sourced some petrified wood when pieces of real stone are to be found on Earth by the trillions of tons.

If you just ask me one thing I'll give a longer response.



It's an observation of the facts presented in many NASA photos of the moon - rather than an 'idea'.
The observation is fact: there IS no dust on top of any of the stones.

Another fact is that there are no craters or trails around the stones.
A third fact is that many of the stones are sitting 'in' the dust layer, others are sitting on top.
A fourth fact is that in an area of little air-flow (i.e. a disused warehouse) the dust falls evenly on everything in much the same way as snow does.
A final observation is that snow can 'drift' causing a thicker buildup next to items but we see none of that here.


I await your explanation with interest, you may wish to confer on these facts, I'd be insulted if you didn't LOL.

While you mull over the dust perhaps you can comment about the weird shadows on the buggy?
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

And, off we go into yet ANOTHER direction! I honestly don't know what line you are referring to.



You can, of course, demonstrate evidence of this remarkable claim, with measurements and overlaying photos proving they are "the exact same hills."

And imagine my surprise when you, once again, don't.

I have no objection to the idea that the United States could have visited the Moon, but I do think that what the public was shown of the landings was fake. There are too many inconsistencies, and I don't think you can get around them.

Sigh. *WHAT* would you consider "solid evidence?" We have the LRO shots of the landing sites, but that, apparently, isn't solid ENOUGH.

What *IS,* if anything? Give three examples of "Solid Evidence" that you would accept for the veracity of Apollo, please.

Last Edited by 74444 on 02/10/2019 03:14 PM

And apparently no one is going to touch this one either. Ah, well.

The LRO images add no evidence because they are merely another form of NASA saying 'We went because we say so'.

Do you really think NASA would prove their own Apollo missions were a lie? Logically then if they lied about Apollo they would backfill a story with the LRO using some simple CGI graphics mapped on as the data arrived. It's basic stuff today.

Therefore the LRO evidence cannot be trusted. Incidentally NASA did make a schoolboy error in showing the flags (via their shadows). The non-UV stable nylon flags would have been dust decades ago, so the LRO data rather disqualifies itself which was rather stupid of them.

Example: I don't want to divert the discussion at a tangent but NASA regularly fake ISS transmission with CGI/VR and a lot of it is quite convincing. This is for reasons of simplicity, hygiene and presentation, it doesn't mean the ISS is not real.



I don't really understand your question. The evidence required is no different from any other evidence, just show us some that isn't from NASA and no one can easily pick apart.

As I said before it's a shame there's no way of seeing the sites from earth to independently verify them. Even an old transponder left there would have been something.

And there's the rub. *ANY* evidence can be picked apart. You cannot, even with the nigh-infinite power of your imagination, give examples of evidence that could NOT be.

I must tacitly conclude that you aren't rational about the subject. There is, quite literally, no evidence whatsoever that can change your mind -- for there is no evidence that cannot be so "picked apart." You've all but admitted it.

You haven't managed to easily pick apart the dust puzzle yet have you? You omitted the word 'easily' that I used, but regardless - what use is evidence than can be picked apart? You yourself use that technique when someone says 'look the shadows are wrong' (etc.) so it must be a valid method.



An irrelevant conclusion, you appear to be using that to retreat from the discussion because you are unwilling or unable to provide some evidence that isn't from NASA and no one can easily pick apart.

Can you provide any?
Perhaps you should just put forward the best piece evidence you have?

The main evidence is in a location whose access is controlled by the same organization that provides the only witnesses to the event in dispute.

That type of situation would not be taken seriously in court:

Judge: "What is your proof?"
Defendant: "I will provide a witness".
Judge: "Where is the witness?"
Defendant: "I myself will be my witness".
Judge: "LOL"

And now I'm beginning to understand how people can argue (and argue stubbornly!) that rockets can't function absent an atmosphere to "press against."

How people can insist that our little planet is flat, and the visual horizon is a LOT farther than three miles away.

How people can celebrate the scary ascendancy of an Alexandria O.-C. Lookit her, her's dummer'n me, an' her's in Warshenton now, gonna do some great stuff. This one deserves more contemplation; it's sort of an inversion of Schadenfreude, made possible by retards getting a taste of identity politics.

Thank you for this epiphany.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
— Albert Einstein

for that video to work, they will have to be able to streaming video on moon. lol

Ok.

Like every other conspiracy I looked at both sides.

After so very many problems with the official story, so many problems with their pictures, video, and bubbles in space and on and fucking on I came to the conclusion that only someone who never bothered to really looked, a shill, or a true moron, could possibly believe in the moon landing.

Better?

Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)

Johnny Carson liked Carl Sagan and invited him onto his show quite a few times. One visit, in particular, has stuck in my head for over 40 years.

It was in the early 1970s, probably a Friday night, around the time that Erich von Däniken's "In Search of Ancient Astronauts" was enjoying its 15 minutes. So Johnny seized on the ancient astronauts as something that the two of them could discuss on a more-or-less level playing field.

Carl's memorable answer went something like this: There are people out there who look around themselves and find things that they just can't understand. So for these people, the only possible explanation for these things is that the ancient astronauts must've been responsible. No other conceivable explanation. The ancient astronauts! Now, since there are LOTS of things that these inquiring minds can't understand, there are lots of examples of the ancient astronauts' handiwork.

We're told that no child should be left behind. I'm not so sure about that. There was a time when I would get excited during the NFL draft, hoping the phone would ring and it'd be George Halas. Never happened. I guess they left me behind. I'm at peace with that.