TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

It has already been pointed out to you many times that your opinion is neither fact nor informed. Your worthless claim amounts to "pictures are fakeable", then go right ahead and prove this. The transmissions from the LROC satellite are made up of images that are gigabytes in size, taken in real time. Nobody who has ever engaged with you, a worthless spammer, will expect you to prove this. You link to ignorant videos made by ignorant people, you always fail to respond with your own words.

You were asked to show your evidence for Clavius being a "known disinfo site", kindly supply it.

You were asked to show your evidence for Jay Windley being a "paid sophist", kindly supply it.

I reiterate that your worthless opinion is not deemed as evidence, please bear that in mind!

There are no anomalies that don't have simple and easy to understand explanations:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Please try not to furnish this thread with more of your spammed opinions about flags and jackets, addressed in my blog!

Prove they were faked. Do so without supplying an idiotic video made by an idiot. This blog, thousands of websites and millions of forum comments make them go away. Nothing it seems makes you go away!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Prove they were taken in a studio. Prove they were landed by unmanned craft. That would involve showing any evidence for the design, launch, tracking and landing of these unmanned reflectors. As usual, we shall expect nothing from you except obfuscation and hot air.

 

No smart guy, I'm saying you can set up your own experiment and test the ****ing reflector yourself

 

I thought this would be obvious but I will answer your questions:

Anyone can look at your video in post #113 and can compare it to the one I posted in #114 and see that the sand is clumped and dark in spots with impressions made in it in your video - and light with rounded small hills with no impressions in mine. The sand in your video is obviously damp. Regardless, at the start of your video with the girl close to the camera we see the sand rise with her as she jumps and fall with her synchronized like in the video "The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute" that I previously posted. So your video actually lends support for the idea that the sand should go up with the astronaut and come down with the astronaut in synchronization.

The supposed astronaut was hooked to a wire and spring apparatus adjusted to give the appearance of moon gravity. The sand gives away the deception though, because it behaves the way the astronaut should have if he was not hooked to the wire and spring; as it falls down away from the astronaut as he is going upwards.

Anyone with any common sense should see that the sand does not behave as it should with the astronaut. Multiple examples have been given as to the way the sand should act according to the laws of physics.

 

Yesssss!

Moon landing, shmoon shmanding!!

 

And Elvis is still alive

 

Until he can produced the "evidence", the original film he claims to have shot, he just blowing a bunch of hot air, and out for a publicity stunts.

 

It's almost like he thought about what he was going to say before he said it.

 

Don't waste your time on them - for one thing, a closed mind cannot be opened, and for another, thanks to 2 decades of dumbing down this is the age of mass naivety.

 

It came across to me as being ready to say it. But it's subjective, of course.

 

Heartbreak Hotel, Room 666.

 

Almost ROFLing here!

 

Anyone? Who are you with your biased and very ignorant opinion? You seem to value it very highly, yet sadly it is provable nonsense. We had the same diversionary tactics in all the other threads. Quite clearly when the girl moves around we see very fine sand being kicked along the ground, when she jumps there are instances of static attraction and clear fine sand.

The main difference between your video and mine is that you use a man running and planting before jumping and compare it to a stationary person. The two are not the same, nor are the effects of static and the larger force on the former. The Apollo astronaut is also wearing outer foot coverings that are made from materials that have a different static effect than bare feet.

Yet again you fail to answer the only thing I actually asked you to!

Explain specifically why somebody jumping with wires would not drag soil vertically from static, compared to somebody without them.

What we see is the sand in much sparser quantity and very similar to what is seen on the Lunar footage. Maybe I need to reiterate my statement. Your opinion is worthless and based on bias and ignorance. There is nothing informed about it.

Ignorant opinion. The lunar regolith is not sand, he is stationary, it's grey against grey, the footage is grainy, he is on downward slope. Your methodology(if you can even call it that) is useless, unscientific and biased. You rely on idiotic videos to feed your claims.

You have been asked to explain these "laws of physics" yet continually fail to do so. As for common sense, we did this irony already:-

"Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have." Rene Descartes

Damp sand? You seem to think being deceitful is a virtue. You were proven wrong, failed to answer your original boast and resort to lies:-

 

More wet sand Descartes? Loads of standing jumps, very little displaced sand!



And once again:-


Now compare to a different view of the running jump, we see that the sand displacement is predominantly lateral disturbance, caused by the outer edges of the feet, compared to the static attraction of the standing jump:-




Now explain where the large vertical trail is on this jump at six seconds:-



The trouble with the "laws of physics" is that they aren't interchangeable to suit your ignorant claims!

 

The bigger the lie, the more there are who'll believe it??

 

Means ... proofs and facts you deliver these folks who deny that landing on the moon which they finally accept to be true and not then answering that these things are fakes too!

I will for sure not start here a discussion about 9/11 conspiracy BS claims, but there is a very good example given about this behavior:

Truthers saying it was an inside job: "The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel of the steel bars to let the building collapse ..."!

Fact #1: "No one told that the fire was hot enough to melt steel, but it was hot enough to make the steel weak like lead! Anyone who will deny this should educate his own a little bit about metal industry and here for example how to bend massive steel components to see how much temperature is used to make the steel able to be bended etc.!!

Fact #2: "heat of jet fuel weaks steel bars so heavy, that steel become sweak like lead at least!" See this test done ... after a little ebit more than 3minutes under fire you see hat happens and what happened in WTC!



Reaction of Truthers to these 2 facts: "Irrelevant because bla bla bla ... "

 

Not only is he not the science advisor, he didn't deny the moon landing either.

 

I know! I'm just going along with the joke!

 

I lost track of this thread

Wow! Somebody is actually defending that the Moon Landing was faked?

I remember in the 90s when there was a sudden swarm of pseudoscience (UFOS, psychics, pyramid-power, Bermuda Triangle ... ) that this was a real discussion topic. But the surge went away almost as suddenly as it appeared.

Fact is that it's easier to actually go to the moon than it is to fake a moon landing.

It's dangerous to go to the Moon, but not really that difficult once you have a space program. Hardest part is to get out into space. Which we had already been doing for several years But once you do that, it's just like "falling".in the right direction.

 

You don't really believe that, do you?

 

You don't really believe the contrary, do you?

 

Why isn't this thread in the conspiracy/alternate reality section?

 

And? it's a big event so of course he would plan what to say once he's there. That makes he "prepared." This is no proof that the landing was faked.

 

Give people conspirology - and they would be happy to chat about it.

 

Let's rephrase the question:

IF it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to travel to the moon and back; THEN wouldn't it be easier to FAKE it?

 

Stupid question. Who says it's impossible? You?

If it isn't impossible, which is the case, it was 1000s of times easier to go.

NASA had successfully launched heavy payload rockets. Successfully tested the operation of the Command Module, the Lunar Module, the spacesuit, docking in the far harder Earth orbit. They had successfully tested the Lunar Rover, had thousands of hours of astronaut training including landing via the training vehicle(try to resist making more of a fool of yourself by posting one of the accidents with that craft). Most of the astronauts had flown long LEO missions on board Mercury and/or Gemini.

Name something that was impossible. And prove it was.