The moon landing is fake.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Yant0s, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    3,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why can I only see the contamination at certain angles? For example, if I see the sun light hit a lake, I can see the light from a whole lot of angles.
     
  2. Yant0s

    Yant0s Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Because the lake is not closer to the sun than you are. Dive down to the bottom of the ocean and look up.

    If a patch of oil (contamination) is floating in the exact right spot it's quite possible you will get your water northan lights.

    I see you have a curious mind. I suggest looking this up on Google and studying the evidence that supports dome theory. :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2020
  3. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    3,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you look at the pictures of the northern lights, they often cover the sky. Does that mean the entire dome is contaminated. Also, why isn't the sky bright like day? If the sun is lighting up the contamination like that, why doesn't it light up the rest of the sky too?

    If I am looking at some oil from the bottom, I will always be able to see this light oil if I am below it. So why can't we see the north lights from Alaska every night?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2020
  4. Yant0s

    Yant0s Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Like I've been trying to explain to you it's all about the angle. Of course it doesn't light up the earth at ground level. The sunlight is simply skimming of the contamination on the dome at the edge of space. The light is then redirected off contamination towards earth, hence the light show.

    As I've said previous all your questions relate to the angle . That is what you must seek to understand .
     
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    3,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But from the pictures of the northern lights, it appears that the whole dome is contaminated. So you should see some part of the lights at any angle. And we should be able to see them year-round, rather than at very limited times of the year. The light also appear to be kind of low, and looks to be too low for the satellites to be moving around underneather. I'm also curious what happens when an asteriod hits the earth. Does it fracture the dome?
     
  6. Yant0s

    Yant0s Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    43

    What if I told you that asteroids didn't exist..... regarding the lights. What you must realise the dome is a great distances away from the earth's surface and that effects how you see the lights.

    I hope that fully covers your question . Now can we move away from northan lights, much more important things to direct out brain squiggles at.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,425
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    There's one piece of data anti-mooners forgot, and it is this:

    The 1969 moon landing, and while you youngens read about history, I'm old, I frickin' remember it,

    it's entire purpose was to score a victory to get to the moon first, we were racing the soviets to overcome their propaganda victory of sputnik in 1957

    The Soviets had their own ICBM missile tracking system, and they tracked the launch and the moon landing. If we hadn't launched and landed on the moon, the soviets would have known it and they would have had every incentive to announce to the world and score a propaganda victory for Russia.

    They didn't. The reason they didn't because we did land on the moon.

    Check mate. End of argument.
     
    Cosmo and Shinebox like this.
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're assuming that we were being told the truth. What was happening behind the scenes might have been very different.

    Check out Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.
    http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
    Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,425
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did Chomsky declare the moon landing was fake? I doubt it. Find me the chapter and verse, please.

    I'm not about to beat a dead horse. We were on the moon, get over it.
    And be proud of that fact. There is overwhelming independent third party scientific confirmations. It was tracked from independent sources, don't forget. You're suggesting a world wide conspiracy, and that just doesn't make sense.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It doesn't matter as Chomsky and a few other anti-establishment pundits have been gotten to.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...undits-who-support-the-official-story.514874/

    They seem to be afraid to say what they really think.


    I dealt with the issue of third party confirmation in this other post.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-7#post-1071851819

    A bunch of countries saying they confirmed the moon missions doesn't make the anomalies in the footage and pictures go away.
    https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034

    The bottom line is that the anomalies prove the hoax.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,425
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was tracked by other countries.

    Anomalies have been debunked, and the debunkings do not go away.

    That you would even say "they seem to be afraid to say what really think' demonstrates your inability to understand what constitutes evidence. See, if you did, you wouldn't have resorted to such a statement, which is bunk, because you do not know what they 'really think' so why even say it?

    You just murdered your credibility, right there
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I gave a rebuttal to this.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-7#post-1071851819

    Now you're supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. You just reiterated.


    Post a link to where the anomalies* have been debunked and we can look at what these people actually say and discuss whether they've really been debunked.


    I didn't say, "They are afraid". I said, "They seem to be afraid". You're misrepresenting my position.

    I didn't notice that the video on Chomsky in the link had disappeared. I can't find it anywhere so here's something else.

    https://sf911truth.org/noam-chomskys-willful-ignorance-of-911-by-kevin-ryan/
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    This avoidance of questions and the use of a haughty anti-intellectual engagement of the matters under debate has been going on for a long time. Such methodology only leads to speculation about what Chomsky must really think and whether he is under threats or if he is simply a “Left Gatekeeper” used to make certain topics “taboo” to keep them out of legitimate analysis of pivotal events.
    --------------------------------------

    I would bet he's been threatened.



    *
    https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out the comment section of this video.

    Many still convinced moon landing was a hoax

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    No one under the age of 35 believes we went to the moon. Take off the rose-colored glasses grandpa WE DIDN'T GO!
    -------------------

    the fact that youtube only shows you debunking videos and only mainstream media videos just shows you it was a hoax.
    ------------------

    As old people die off, there won’t be any landing believers left.
    -----------------

    Why all the moon landing conspiracy videos are no longer available on youtube,, and somehow everyone uploading the video to debunk that claim

    ----------------
    One of the best frauds in our history. We have never left near earth orbit and have not passed through the Van Allen radiation belt. At least that's what NASA and Pres Obama said. You have to be willing to look at the science. We have never been to the moon.

    ----------------
    I remember there use to be hundreds of conspiracy videos on youtube strange most are now gone. That flag excuse is just ridiculous.

    ----------------
    All the moon hoax videos suddenly disappeared from YouTube.Like the moon data was "accidentally" destroyed.

    ----------------
    Intellectual people know it's a hoax

    ----------------
    Silly people ! It was a lie and yet people still believe it after all the proof !

    ----------------
    I used to believe in all the space travels and moon landings until I opened my own eyes and realized that our whole paradigm is a prank played on us and those who chose to be ignorant. The moon landing footage alone is such a disgrace. It’s laughable. Once one domino falls they all start to fall

    ----------------
    If you set the playback speed to 1.5 you get your answer.

    ----------------
    It’s very interesting that just a year ago if you typed ‘moon landing hoax’ into You Tube search, you got page after page of websites claiming the landings were faked. Now you get pages and pages of sites debunking this as a ‘conspiracy theory’. In fact, its now almost impossible to find a site proposing a hoax.I wonder why this should have changed so much, so suddenly?Also whether the 911 hoax theory sites will soon go the same way.

    ----------------
    Went then but cannot go Now. Haha. All the data was lost. Really. Only democrats believe that garbage they'll believe anything they're told.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here's something else.

    The Apollo (13) Hoax Revisited
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wowie, my head cannot get around the fact that you are still here banging your drum of ignorance. How long have you been doing this now, must be over 15 years?
    You must be so proud to see all the Youtube idiot comments agreeing with you. These are people who know nothing about any of it and spend litle or no time seeking answers to simple questions.

    A Lunar Module on the Moon is subject to black body reflection from the surface as well as the direct sunlight. Depending on local albedo it can reflect anywhere between 8-12% of all infrared received. The lunar surface at high noon is heated by the Sun and receives 340 Watts per square metre on average - the direct figure is considerably higher.

    All that time and you appear to have no capacity to learn a single thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2020
    Cosmo and joesnagg like this.
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It doesn't sound like it would make that much difference. Anyway, you also maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so you are a known obfuscator.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...obviously-in-a-studio.362999/#post-1064028979
    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    No one who takes the time to look at the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is going to take you seriously.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To ignorant people that would be true. To people with any honesty, just placing their feet on tarmac in summer would show how hot the surface gets. That heat is radiated away at well over 1000W per square meter - there is no atmosphere to absorb that heat.

    We discussed the Chinese spacewalk insanity about 5 years ago / 4yrs ago and 3yrs ago. I see you have spammed a new one. There is something very disturbing about people like you.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The lunar module on the moon's surface would definitely be hot. The part that seems strange is its getting cold when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X5KvOqGDt-k/hqdefault.jpg

    Until it's been shown mathematically that it would lose more heat than it receives, this is up in the air.

    Spam is unwanted advertising that you get in your email. The hoax-believers' arguments and evidence the put forward are not spam.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not sure that the LM would get that hot at midday and with no power.

    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17150#msg17150
    "Spacecraft thermal engineering is based on very well understood physical laws, but the computer models are still quite complicated because the environment and spacecraft themselves are so complicated. The spacecraft is represented as a large collection of physical points (or "nodes"), each with a certain thermal mass (specific heat). The nodes have conductive, radiative and perhaps convective connections with each other that have to be evaluated and specified in the model.

    The nodes of the external surface are radiatively coupled with the sun, deep space, earth and/or moon in ways that depend on the spacecraft orientation, the positions of those other bodies, and the optical properties of the various surfaces (specifically their darkness at both visible and longwave IR wavelengths). Once you've got this model built you can let the computer turn the crank and solve for the temperature at each node that results in thermal equilibrium. As in computer graphics the basic rules are simple enough but the sheer amount of computation required makes the end result anything but simple."


    I'd explain it to you but I suspect you would simply play the same game you always do. The systems are designed to balance the internal temperatures from the electrical heat with excess removal by environmental control. External heat is largely reflected, absorbed and conducted to shaded areas and radiated out. Thermal equilibrium is achieved. When the electrics are turned off there is no internal heating mechanism. None of the heat from outside is getting in, half the craft is always in shade.

    On the Moon at midday, the big difference is that most of the entire area surrounding the Lunar Module would be radiating 1kW per square meter and much less of the craft is in shade.

    It's not up in the air. You simply are unable to understand simple thermodynamics.

    Forum spam is unwanted garbage. You have posted the same crap you posted many years ago. You spammed it across multiple threads and it was satisfactorily debunked dozens of times. You have no capacity to assess your own short comings.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is the basics but it would still have to be proven in detail mathematically. We would have to know the exact level of reflectivity of that particular metal, etc. You haven't proven anything.
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nor do I need to. You need to explain why there would be an over-heating issue on Apollo 13. The reasons for potential over-heating on the surface have been explained to you, which is why they went in Lunar Morning!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are Gollum holding the ring doing his victory dance. I don't need to win any debate with you, even though I have kicked your ass every time. The evidence for the Moon landings is beyond your comprehension and you simply refuse to entertain it. You offer meaningless and spammed links that you also do not understand.

    I can show you every geological expert agreeing on sample authenticity, you post some idiotic website that addresses none of their findings. That's it for you, so long as you can find some scrap of garbage to prop up your baseless claim it will suffice. Even today you still post your entire wall of spam, have never removed any of it and continue to make spam noise wherever you go. That is a severe lack of integrity right there and something that you will never change.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,078
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is from the Clavius site. The people who work that forum are known obfuscators.

    Look at post #26 of this thread.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

    Jay Windley* says that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. All of the other posters agree with him. That site is a joke. If I remember correctly, you agreed with him too. If you agree with him on that, you're simply not fit to discuss the Apollo anomalies.


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

Share This Page