Thread: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Originally Posted by Uncle Meat

Actually, it was.



And you're ignorant of English.

Actually it was not and that is irrefutable fact.

You're ignorant of reality

Originally Posted by Uncle Meat

Incorrect.

He has presented compelling evidence.

However, nothing has been debunked.

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

Originally Posted by Soupnazi

You're ...

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

Cool

Originally Posted by Soupnazi

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

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

However, it does not "completely debunk" anything.

Originally Posted by Uncle Meat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Scott

I posted this a few pages back and people are already talking as if it weren't there now that it's safely buried.
windyz.wmv - YouTube
(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.