TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Destroyer of illusions, Aug 14, 2017.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Transported how? If you truck it, no. The loading, unloading and vibration will create dust from friction. It is 100% inevitable.

    Small areas with carefully moved sand washed in situ would be dust free. We never see this.

    A total butt kicking on all 3 threads. Some of the comments just sum it up totally. You ignored them.

    Number 1
    "
    So are you saying it's impossible to make dustless sand and place it along a route so that no dust is kicked up when it's driven on?

    Yes. And I'm further agreeing that the material in the Grand Prix video clearly cannot be sand, for it is visibly impressible. And since you are the one proposing that a dustless impressible particulate was created and used for this purpose, it is your burden of proof to show that it can be done and that it was in fact done.

    You need to get a serious grip. You're not proposing anything remotely rational. You're simply supposing that some previously unknown material exists that somehow magically has all the properties you need in order for your alternative theory to be true. You can't salvage an absurd theory simply by listing all the improbable things that would have to change in order for it no longer to be absurd, and then on that basis simply say that list must have happened.

    You're clearly ideologically entrenched on this issue and now simply grasping at straws.
    ---------------------------------------"

    Number 2

    "

    So are you saying it's impossible to make dustless sand and place it along a route so that no dust is kicked up when it's driven on?

    Yes. And I'm further agreeing that the material in the Grand Prix video clearly cannot be sand, for it is visibly impressible. And since you are the one proposing that a dustless impressible particulate was created and used for this purpose, it is your burden of proof to show that it can be done and that it was in fact done.

    You need to get a serious grip. You're not proposing anything remotely rational. You're simply supposing that some previously unknown material exists that somehow magically has all the properties you need in order for your alternative theory to be true. You can't salvage an absurd theory simply by listing all the improbable things that would have to change in order for it no longer to be absurd, and then on that basis simply say that list must have happened.

    You're clearly ideologically entrenched on this issue and now simply grasping at straws.
    ---------------------------------------"

    As for the Internationalskeptic thread, I like this response. It shows your blatant dishonesty!
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135828&postcount=7915

    Yes. You are quite crazy if you think your opinion carries any weight. Answer the two points above that you previously ignored!

    Their credibility is fine, they aren't lying and they are experts. YOU have no credibility, routinely lie and are completely ignorant on every aspect of Apollo.

    Your straw man is the pinnacle of irrelevance. We simply do not see dust free environments on any footage.
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Number 2 above should read

    "Actually "those geologists" told you that your theory was crazy. You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how. Nor did he explain where he managed to get such experience in the transportation of sifted, milled aggregates.

    When I go to those threads I don't see the hales of agreement you claim."

    All academic of course, the completely irrational serial forum spammer will ignore them.
     
  3. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well, I have to admit that these nasa engineers certainly seem to know what they are doing - I wonder how much money this "fender repair" cost the taxpayers?

    s72-55170.jpg
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thinly veiled sarcasm from the troll. Fender parts are thin on the ground on the Moon. That is one of those publicity pictures. I can't imagine half a dozen men being stretched to find a solution. Something flexible and strong enough then tape, then something to hold it in place.

    If you want to debate economics, knock yourself out. Apollo created half a million jobs. The knock on effect from full employment for those people combined with the innovations from the program, created whole industries.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ZCMEQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw1FetilDocHiDzEA4ED6nz2

    https://www.computerworld.com/artic...-s-apollo-technology-has-changed-history.html
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This goes against Jay Windley's position. So do you admit that he's wrong when he says it's impossible?
     
  6. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So funny you guys got burned!

    upload_2017-11-18_5-53-11.png
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show me exactly where he says creating a small area that is carefully washed, is impossible!

    You have no answer to any of the REAL issue points. A truther would be concerned about that. You are just a dishonest spammer.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He said it's impossible, period. The viewers can see what he said.

    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1094
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    So are you saying it's impossible to make dustless sand and place it along a route so that no dust is kicked up when it's driven on?

    Yes. And I'm further agreeing that the material in the Grand Prix video clearly cannot be sand, for it is visibly impressible. And since you are the one proposing that a dustless impressible particulate was created and used for this purpose, it is your burden of proof to show that it can be done and that it was in fact done.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your misrepresenting his position isn't going to fool any viewers who take the time to read what he and the other pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum said.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can they? I agree with him. The transportation creates friction that creates dust.

    MY interpretation is that a small area is possible. With carefully placed sand, thoroughly washed and carefully raked to remove the flatness from water.

    Now spammer, show me where you asked him that!

    I am not in the slightest way misrepresenting his position. YOU are! He was asked about transporting aggregate. He answered it. The viewers can see the engineer expert and a whole host of other knowledgeable people kicking your ignorant butt.

    None of what you claim is what occurs in the Apollo footage. You are not a truther, you are a lying deceitful spammer.
     
  10. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The fender is going to be hot. We know the lunar regolith if very abrasive. The tires are made of metal and as they spin and slide on the lunar surface the friction is going to heat them up even hotter than the 250 degrees they would be stationary. This energy is going to radiate up to the fender. We also have radiant heat from the lunar surface itself as well as frictional energy from the regolith hitting the fender. The electric motor in the wheel would generate heat and we would also have reflected sunlight off the astronaut as he worked on the fender.

    Put some duct tape in the oven and try to work with it with rubber gloves on - let me know how that works out for you... :roll:
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hyperbole. Your useless and very ignorant understanding of thermal dynamics and the engineering setup of the LRV is obvious. The missions landed in lunar morning where the surface is lower than maximum temperature and only receiving incident IR.

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N4XvePkmKjA/TChNeUV4iDI/AAAAAAAAAOw/YDByFWIxUVA/s1600/Black+Body+Moon.jpg

    Comparing a vacuum to an oven is moronic. Comparing rubber gloves to the Apollo gauntlets is moronic. Suggesting duct tape is not going to work at those temperatures is moronic. Suggesting the sealed unit housing the motors would somehow increase the fender temperature is moronic. Suggesting tires are going to get hotter than the ambient surface temperature through friction is moronic, they are half in the shade at all times. The fender is receiving low incident IR from the morning Sun, some is going to be in shade. When sideways on most of it is in shade!

    The fender attachment(maps) is what is having the duct tape to hold it together. It is held on to the fender by clamps.

    You are clueless.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You disagree with him in your interpretation. He maintains that the dust that's kicked up by the rover in this video...


    ...has to be in a vacuum because it would be impossible to put large-grained dust-free sand on a movie set without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over (which is so lame that it destroyed his credibility).

    Look at what he says here.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989

    Your interpretation is against what he maintains. If he'd wanted to say that that small areas were possible, he would have said it. You're having a hard time obfuscating this one.

    Anyone who reads what Jay Windley* says can see that he's a paid sophist** who knows the moon missions were faked. He really looked silly here.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=ebd50d8b8a85b37acfd7c8ed8ddbbfc6

    That thread is a big embarrassment to the pro-Apollo camp. When you defend Jay Windley, all you do is make yourself look silly.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    **
    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is 100% correct. His position is one of expertise. Yours is one of ignorant and pathetic obsession.

    Unbelievable spam Answered already. What he says is 100% correct, only an idiot would claim otherwise.

    No it is not. He was not asked about small areas, and he was not expected to since in the entire Apollo record, we never see such thing.

    You ignorant spammer. Not only do you presume to think your useless opinion outweighs an expert, you now think you know what he wanted to say!

    No I am not. None of the answers I give to very ignorant people like you are hard. You are getting detailed responses to direct claims. None of it is obfuscation. Your spam knows no bounds, you're
    having a hard time finding anything intelligent to say. It really bothers you that your ridiculous straw man doesn't work and you enjoy the fact that you have to lie and be deceitful to cover up where you got butt hurt!

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/

    Cornered and cowardly afraid to admit it. THAT is the real issue. What we see, not what you foolishly claim could be done.

    On the contrary. Nobody(except trolls) agrees with you. Nobody who reads that will come to your insane conclusion. Windley is an expert who dismantled every moronic thing you said. Everybody knows the missions were not faked, except a small delusional collective who should refrain from procreating!

    No it is not. Nothing you ever claim causes anyone embarrassment. You are a twisted individual who has encroached into the world of online insanity. There can be no other conclusion, only a mad man would type the same identical things over and over, on multiple forums and spanning 10 years!

    I am not defending Windley, no defense is needed. I am agreeing with him and laugh at you, the mad and ignorant person who thinks they know things when they are just too dumb to know that they don't.

    "In the field of psychology, the DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is."
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of your rebuttals are just empty hand-waving that don't discredit my arguments. Anyone who takes the time to read everything can see that. This one is the lamest though.
    Hey viewers-

    Make sure you read page #2 of this thread.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=ebd50d8b8a85b37acfd7c8ed8ddbbfc6

    Can you believe that anyone would say that Jay Windley has credibility after reading that? Disinfo agents never admit anything no matter how lame their positions are. Betamax is such a good debater that he could argue that the earth is flat and win. How long should one stay and debate with a Black Knight?




    The dead link in post #1 of the thread is probably this video.

    Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The appeal to imaginary viewer support. You must be completely deluded if you think anyone except the troll agrees with you. We did get somebody else posting in this thread who found that my posts were indeed kicking you two fools into oblivion.

    You are a liar and a coward. You are afraid to debate Windley and you are afraid to debate me.


    Yet again, the appeal to imaginary viewer support. You keep forgetting that a) you are in fact very ignorant and b) your opinion is biased and useless.

    Indeed I am good at debating. When armed with truth and education and arguing with lying, dishonest idiots, anyone would be!
    The spammer diverts from Apollo back to the when his current spammed argument is taken apart. He simply can offer NO evidence at all to support even his ignorant straw man!
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  16. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You left out the rest of the DK effect:

    "Persons of high ability tend to underestimate their relative competence and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform are also easy for other people to perform."

    Who most suffers from illusory superiority on this forum?

    “The fool doth think he is wise,
    but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”
    William Shakespeare
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have to actually laugh at your cognitive incompetence. Are you saying I have high ability and think that everybody should be able to understand? Because that is what that section means. Or maybe it ironically demonstrates that which it asserts!
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I debated him on several occasions. I gave up on this site because so many of my posts were getting deleted and I couldn't make my case.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

    I want to debate him on neutral ground but that seems to be impossible.
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1584

    Here's a thread on which I talked about debating with Jay Windley and other pro-Apollo posters at Clavius.
    https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628

    If you have to log in to see it, click on the link in this post.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8141778&postcount=7982


    I've been debating with you for years. No matter how clear it is that you're wrong, you handwave the facts away with rhetoric and invective and do the victory dance. I've learned that the only thing to hope for when debating with disinfo agents is to make them say lame things by dealing with the clearest anomalies as they have the attitude that they're winning the whole time they're discrediting themselves by saying lame things.

    Anyone who reads page #2 of this thread can see that the posters are a bunch of disinfo agents and so is the moderator.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=ebd50d8b8a85b37acfd7c8ed8ddbbfc6

    You look pretty silly when you don't recognize the obvious.

    That's a damage-control site and the moderator uses his power to control the direction that debates take. That's always been the story with me when I try to debate on those sites. When I start winning too decisively, the moderator rides to their rescue and deletes my posts or closes the thread or warns me not to talk about certain things.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Avoiding quoting the spammer who once again blows hot air, says nothing and make all sorts of irrelevant claims:

    You have not "debated" me for years. You run away from the tough questions and avoid answering complete threads. From the spammed threads from years ago, you so obviously do not debate anyone. You just re-assert your useless and ignorant opinion. You further proceed to claim that "everyone" can see it and these "viewers" agree with you. Of course they never do.

    You pretty much get your sorry ass kicked wherever you go and complain like a weasel when moderators delete your relentless spam. You label every one as a sophist, shill or disinfo agent every time you get your very foolish claims trashed. You don't ever win ANY debates. You are a very sad and pathetic individual who is bizarrely obsessed with a whole host of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

    You have nothing original to say.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

    That whole blog was made on this forum and pretty much completely ignored. The "truther" says he debates. Clearly he is a liar.
     
  20. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We WERE talking about rocks...
    There is not much difference in the age of the moon rocks vs the earth rocks - probably because they are both from the earth :smile:

    From Wikipedia:

    Rocks from the Moon have been measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.44 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands.[3] Based on the age-dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago,[4] but scientists do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are between 3.8 and 4.28 billion years old.

    So they admit that some rocks on the moon are probably only about 1.2 billion. Here is a lunar meteorite that only tested at 2.9 billion:

    Researchers at the University of New Mexico have identified a 2.9 billion year-old lunar meteorite. The meteorite, found in Africa in 2000, was examined by a group of scientists in the Earth and Planetary Sciences department headed by Senior Research Scientist Lars Borg.

    more info:

    The aluminous, low-Ti mare basalts are the oldest
    mare basalts that have been dated directly. Clasts of
    these basalts in Apollo 14 breccias range in age from
    3.9 to 4.2 b.y. (Taylor et al., 1983). Photogeologic
    observations of the distribution of dark-halo craters,
    which have probably excavated mare basalt layers
    from beneath the ejecta of lunar basins, support the
    inference of widespread mare-type volcanism prior to
    3.9 b.y. (Schultz and Spudis, 1983). However,
    fragments of aluminous mare basalts from other sites
    are not so ancient; an Apollo 12 fragment is 3.1 b.y.
    old, and one from the Luna 16 site is 3.4 b.y. old.


    The moon rocks are from the earth...
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. The Moon rocks are from the Moon.

    Your inept googling is just an example of you understanding none of what you cut and pasted. I don't even know what point you are making. I doubt you do. You know nothing about this and make lots of noise contradicting experts who know this subject inside out. It just doesn't occur to you to go and do something less stupid.
     
  22. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The point I am making is:
    Using the supposed ages of billion year old rocks for proof of anything is nonsense...
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really, that is your point is it? The Apollo rocks gave veen analysed by experts in the field of geology for 50 years since they were brought back from the Moon. They conclude that lunar rocks show examples that were originally formed from 4.5 billion years ago. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you, the Earth rocks are subject to erosion from water, ice, sand and air. None of the first formed rocks exist anymore and is why the Earth date is deduced from incoming meteorites and Apollo samples.

    The fact is quite specific, Lunar samples have ages older than any known Earth rock and it is one of many indisputable reasons why these rocks are from the Moon. Of course when I say indisputable, I mean from logical and reasonably intelligent people. Feel free to carry on proving you have neither of those two attributes!
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  24. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Why is it indisputable? Do you think radiometric dating is beyond challenge?
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the same results are produced over and over and consistently fall within a narrow band, the accuracy ceases to be an issue. Decay of isotopes is a very exact science.

    You aren't even qualified to give your inept opinion on it! Let alone bumbling around Google trying to " challenge" geology.

    http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901

    I love the way you cowardly avoid all the other points on the geologist's list and concentrate (with idiotic conclusions) on just this one.
     

Share This Page