The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Actually it was not and that is irrefutable fact.

You're ignorant of reality

 

Yes it has been debunked with inarguable proof which is why you willfully ignore the evidence and never address it.

 

If nothing else, I've taught you some English this evening.

Cool

 

No, I completely accept the evidence. It's very good evidence.

However, it does not "completely debunk" anything.

 

It most certainly does which is why you refuse to even address it.

 

Last chance, Uncle Semantic..

How big is that Sun?

 

Mythbusters thoroughly debunked this years ago. End of.

 

I posted this a few pages back and people are already talking as if it weren't there now that it's safely buried.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00"]windyz.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
(2:00 time mark)

That's what's necessary on moon threads–the info has to be posted again and again because the pro-Apollo people try to bury it because they know it's too clear to be obfuscated. That's why it's important to put all the evidence on the first page.

 

Nobody is trying to bury your posts. You chose to run away from debate and fire in seagull repeat spam.

Your logic is thus:-

• You believe something.
• You present it here there and everywhere.
• Somebody decides to respond to it all.
• Because they disagree with you, they are not a serious debater because...
• "they have no credibility"
• "they don't believe their own argument"
• "they are not a serious debater".

Those are the most ridiculous grounds for refusing to debate I can imagine.

If you dispute what I say, offer rebuttal to the points I raise, don't redirect me to your original assertion which I have just answered!

I addressed this issue with a video demonstrating the motion of the flag was unfeasible when sped up to 150%, since there were vertical components that did not relate to Earth freefall, in addition, the movement of the flag was too fast at that speed. I originally thought Cernan supressed the momentum in the flag with a vertical force, but after watching it, he just gives a little twist to stop it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio"]Apollo 17 flag rebuttal - YouTube[/ame]

You haven't even responded to that at all, so how can you call this a debate.

Question: Since you are fond of using the word "plausible" to convey the most ludicrous of alternative explanation for something, why is it not plausible that Cernan stopped the flag with a little twist?



How can anybody take serious, a man who believes this video below shows a bubble, when anyone who has any power of vision can see that it most certainly is not.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc"]Cosmored and his spam "bubble" addendum - YouTube[/ame]

I highlighted that the man who made your credibility test believes that Apollo landed on the Moon. Where does that leave you?

Up the creek without a boat!

 

So which movie set was the fake moon landing shot on? I'm stoked to go visit the set one day just to touch it and say "I went to the moon" too.

 

Elvis is filming on it

 

Concluding Disk 1 of 2

Minute 127-128 We have a brief summary from Ronnie Stronge, whereby he refers to a firm conclusion as to the reason behind all the "anomalies" from the stills and movies. That is a re-assertion of what has preceded, yet I have already exposed it for misconception, lies, subterfuge and just zero understanding of how the missions were performed.

Then we have the dumb conclusion itself:-

All the "mistakes" observed, were in fact deliberate from all the people involved who wanted to unobtrusively blow the whistle. Rather than go to a news outlet, write a book, leave a deathbed confession, anonymous letter etc. They apparantly chose to leave "subtle clues" in the film, just like the James Bond film - bunkum. He cites life threatening danger to these people. Yet we have Bart Sibrel, David Percy et al. all free to say what they wish, alive and well. Figure that one out.

He offers the absurd glossing of this action, as the work of "brave souls who decoded their work with deliberate mistakes, which would be detected some time in the future". Only by the people with a vested interest in selling books and films that is.

Whilst giving us his unique "insight" Percy shows two pictures with supposedly the same backdrop, which are taken nowhere near each other and show a clear difference in parallax. We are also shown the hotspot from Aldrin's boot, reinforcing the idea that they have proven their case.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrU5qp9lmJg"]Backdrops and corrupt hoax film makers - YouTube[/ame]


Back to Una Ronald. I shouldn't laugh here, but why an old lady is being used for her opinion on Apollo, when her previous citation about 'coke bottles' is provable complete fabrication, is just beyond me. The film again uses the referback and affirmation method to instill in the viewer, that they have proven all the previous items. Flashes a coke bottle on the screen for effect. Facepalm moment.


Minute 128-128 Ronnie Stronge continues with yet another Hollywood movie - Capricorn One. They show the anything but convincing Mars set from the film, then we are told that the destination for the movie was originally the Moon. Who tells us this? Good old, "bare assertion is my word", Bill Kaysing! Bunkum.

Kaysing tells us a couple of locations where they filmed the Apollo footage. As always with Kaysing, not even one iota of proof, this from a man who was in the publications area of Rocketdyne, and had left 6 years before Apollo 11! Quite how he would be "in the know" on this information, they don't tell us. Fantasy from Kaysing, an embittered man who hated the US government.


Minute 129-131 Stronge gives us once again their conclusion that it was all faked, and refers us to Brian Welch a NASA spokesman, who quite understandably requests that Percy take his findings to the scientific community to present his "stunning" research. For obvious reasons, Percy doesn't do this, he is a businessman making a film and book for money. Having his work stripped down and exposed as complete nonsense before film release, wouldn't do his sales any good.

Stronge sets the scene for disc 2, by begging the question as to "why it had to be faked". He lists the numerous things the missions had to do to be successful, all of which were rehearsed in previous missions, then cites mystery "experts". He says these "experts" all say, that any number of things could have gone wrong that would have jeapordised not just the mission but the entire space program. Unnamed experts making bare assertions, is not that convincing to anybody but a conspiracy theorist.

Percy gives us his uninformed opinion as to the "compelling reason" why Apollo had to be faked. He tells us that apart from the radiation risks(instilling in the viewer a sense of excessive danger to the astronauts), there would be unknown magnetic and gravitational anomalies that could cause taking off from the Moon "very dangerous indeed". He "stuns" us with his knowledge by referring to mascons, areas of greater mass and stronger gravity on the Moon.

What he fails to point out(probably deliberately) is that these mascons were identified already by NASA's unmanned program and were less than half a percent variation of gravity! For a long orbiting satellite, that would be a problem eventually, but for the short stay of Apollo they would hardly notice, with the capacity to perform simple corrective thrust burns for any deviations. Percy does not tell us the consequence for any Lunar magnetic anomalies, yet the viewer is left with his assertion.

Percy and Stronge then combine to give us the dumbest contention one could imagine. Percy first cites his list of anomalies as a reason why "acceptable" images would be difficult to guarantee, hence the strawman "need" to fake them in advance. Stronge continues - quoted in full:-

"Some think it's highly likely that surrogate astronauts were actually sent to the Moon, while the named NASA astronauts were obliged to play out the role of space heroes, far nearer to home remaining in the relative safety of low Earth orbit. As actors in a drama, the named astronauts represented the greatest achievement of mankind whilst others unknown travelled beyond the confines of their home planet for the first time, to all intents and purposes naked before cration as we shall see in a moment."

Hogwash.

So the film now presents its trump card - we went to the Moon, but faked the pics, images and the atual men who did it!

This according to Percy, is because of the inability to guarantee the pictures and images would be good enough?? Who are these "some people"? Why would they think such a ludicrous thing?

HBs are very fond of quoting this film as evidence of Apollo as being faked, I wonder if they agree with the assessment the film actually makes!

 

So much proof that it was fake. and all the Mooners got is "it's not fake, it's not fake"

When will the Mooners learn?

 

LOL

"It was on Mythbusters, so it must be true".

LOL

 

Why do some feel the need to deny the moon landings?

 

Something to do with the fact that they never happened.

America failed: just admit it.

 

And your reasoning for this fantasy of yours?

 

It's not fantasy, sorry sweety.

Absolutely no reliable evidence exists to show that the useless Americans landed on the moon. None.

They failed, and they can't admit it.

Sorry pal, that's just the facts.

You can show us all your pretty little pictures and videos, but none of it is conclusive proof.

Your government lied to you sweetheart. They always do.

You fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 

I've stood before a saturn V rocket,I've smelled the charring on an apollo capsule,and talked to.astronauts who went.....they are 10,000 times more credible than you


Why? because you have no proof NASA 'lied' to me in any shape way or form..so you just insult my intelligence and try to be 'cute', calling me 'pal' and 'sweetheart',you WILL post to me in an adult manner in the future

 

this is accurate^

 

What is it about "Faked Moon Landing" do you not understand?

 

I'm not disputing the existence of rockets, capsules, and astronauts.

However, none of those things have been to the moon.

Hmmm, just like this lying thug?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU[/ame]

 

Exactly. I mean why haul off and punch somebody for calling you a liar for faking your Moon visit? where's the composure.???

 

I understand the concept of 'faking' the moon landing,why anyone would believe that is beyond me, as it serves no purpose whatsoever, except to instill animosity between the two factions

 

So we spent billions shooting Saturn V's and 1B's into space to perpetrate a great hoax,and only YOU are privy to it?

Credibility....get some.


As for Aldrin punching that creep...he throws a good punch for an octegenarian.