Strongest piece of evidence for a NASA hoax?

From the Conspiracy section on the Wiki, which piece of evidence do you believe is strongest?

In my opinion its the increasing amount of non angelo-saxon scientists in its employ, cant trust any of them I say.

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

Utterly brazen that they would design such a thing.  It's like they were testing the world's gullibility... and close to 100% of the world failed.

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

Utterly brazen that they would design such a thing.  It's like they were testing the world's gullibility... and close to 100% of the world failed.

And you're one of the rare geniuses able to see through all the lies, of course.  This is so precious!

And you're one of the rare geniuses able to see through all the lies, of course.

That is correct, of course.

This is so precious!

I'm glad you agree.

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

Utterly brazen that they would design such a thing.  It's like they were testing the world's gullibility... and close to 100% of the world failed.

What makes you think it's actually made of duct tape and tinfoil?  What's so hard to accept about flexible shielding?  What factors would prevent humans from living in there for a few days?  These aren't very solid arguments.  Too vague and narrow minded.  How can this be considered strong evidence at all?

i think the moon rover issues flag up many questions

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/apollo.html

There's some schematics and other details about what was going on behind the unimpressive exterior of the lunar lander.  If you guys honestly think it wouldn't have worked for landing on the moon, you might want to find problems with its actual design.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/apollo.html

There's some schematics and other details about what was going on behind the unimpressive exterior of the lunar lander.  If you guys honestly think it wouldn't have worked for landing on the moon, you might want to find problems with its actual design.

Why would we compare its real-world application to a schematic? NASA isn't trying to convince the world it sent a schematic to the moon. This is no better than the thought experiments you RE'ers keep inventing. You're all about the meta and never about the actual.

Do you have a compelling reason to believe that the lunar lander photographed differed from the schematics?

There's a lot of incredulousness about the cost of this thing and it makes a lot more sense when you look beyond the exterior.

Do you have a compelling reason to believe that the lunar lander photographed differed from the schematics?

It looks like its made of tin foil, cardboard tubes and duct tape. None of the materials NASA claimed to have used appears in the photographs they released.

So no actual reason, more of the usual nonsense from rushy.

No rebuttal? Once again RE'ers show their blind faith. Another victory for FET.

No rebuttal? Once again RE'ers show their blind faith. Another victory for FET.

Thank you for reminding everyone why we should never take you seriously.

Do those schematics actually show what materials the lander is made of?

Do those schematics actually show what materials the lander is made of?

Nope, which makes it abundantly clear that rushy didn't even look at them (or you, for that matter).

If for you the APPEARANCE of the lunar lander is the STRONGEST piece of evidence that NASA hoaxed us that tells a lot.

Firstly that you're only interested by appearances and not by reality.
Secondly...
Thirdly...

Etc.

Hello, Tom.

As a widely respected proponent of the Flat Earth theory with an evident finger on the pulse of much of NASA's activity, and the Flat Earth Society as a whole, I am interested as to which piece of evidence (from the Wiki or elsewhere) you find most telling of a hoax and your reasoning behind it.

Would you also suggest that an Apollo hoax is mutually exclusive to the existence of the earth being round? For example, if it were proved that the moon landing did happen, how would this effect your view on the sphericity of the Earth? Similarly, if it were concluded that the moon landing was faked, would you consider that to be damning to the entirety of NASA's operations and the operations of other space agencies? I realise this may be the position you currently hold.

To be clear, I am simply interested in establishing to what extent some members of the Flat Earth Society use evidence of a moon landing hoax to cast suspicion on any or all other of NASA (or other space agencies) activities and evidence.

Thanks for your time, have a good day.

Pilgrim.

Of course it's made of duct tape and gold foil.
Duct tape is one of the strongest materials in the world.
And the tin foil reflects the sunlight to keep the inside cool.

And why wouldn't it work? Astronaughts have space suits and there is no air on the moon to cause pressure.
Fill a bubble of tin foil wrapp with a small amount of air while in a vaccume and it'll retain it's shape like a balloon.

Of course it's made of duct tape and gold foil.
Duct tape is one of the strongest materials in the world.
And the tin foil reflects the sunlight to keep the inside cool.

And why wouldn't it work? Astronaughts have space suits and there is no air on the moon to cause pressure.
Fill a bubble of tin foil wrapp with a small amount of air while in a vaccume and it'll retain it's shape like a balloon.

Except the the lander doesn't look like a balloon, suggesting that the foil is not enclosing any pressurized space or that the lander wasn't in a vacuum to begin with.

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

Utterly brazen that they would design such a thing.  It's like they were testing the world's gullibility... and close to 100% of the world failed.

But.... it's just so "utterly brazen" that is seems unlikely that they would make such an obvious mistake if they were presenting a grand hoax to 3 billion people.  Surely a hoax is more likely to present what people are expecting to see: A gleaming spaceship.

The reality is that there is a vacuum, 1/6 gravity, thermal insulation requirements, weight and volume restrictions and no air resistance to worry about.

Also, your Cheryl Wiesbade quote is from a cherry-picking non-expert, I'm guessing.  He/She's very specific about what the craft cannot do but I cannot find any substance, just shrieking opinion.

Except the the lander doesn't look like a balloon, suggesting that the foil is not enclosing any pressurized space or that the lander wasn't in a vacuum to begin with.

That's because the foil wasn't enclosing a pressurized space.  The "foil" is mylar wrapped around the unpressurized descent stage.  And the "cardboard" panels on the back of the ascent stage are just covers for the unpressurized aft equipment bay.

I realize this, but I was just showing that the lander not looking like a balloon could logically have two possible explanations.

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

And we all know that Cheryl was a highly qualified, trustworthy source, right Roundy?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 20, 2012, 05:51:01 PM

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

And we all know that Cheryl was a highly qualified, trustworthy source, right Roundy?

Her: http://www.targetescorts.com/wiesbaden-escort.htm ?

Quote from: markjo on June 21, 2012, 07:12:40 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 20, 2012, 05:51:01 PM

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

And we all know that Cheryl was a highly qualified, trustworthy source, right Roundy?

Her: http://www.targetescorts.com/wiesbaden-escort.htm ?

No.  She was another member's alt and has long since been perma banned.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on June 21, 2012, 01:41:12 AM

Do those schematics actually show what materials the lander is made of?

Nope, which makes it abundantly clear that rushy didn't even look at them (or you, for that matter).

Of course I looked at it, I was just asking to confirm.  Anyway, why did you post the link if it doesn't actually tell us anything about the materials?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 20, 2012, 05:51:01 PM

In my opinion it's the Lunar Lander.  I think Cheryl Wiesbaden said it best:

   "As far as I'm concerned, that picture clinched it. That is the saddest contraption
    duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that
    could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what                                                   
    NASA claimed it did."

And we all know that Cheryl was a highly qualified, trustworthy source, right Roundy?

Probably the kind of person who doesn't know how to check the oil in the car, and has to call tech support to locate the USB port on a computer.

Regarding the second quote, yes, tape is used to hold on the thin pieces of coated alloy material.  Does 'mizzle' even have a concept of different types of tape other than what's used for paint masking and birthday presents?

And the first quote is from Tom Bishop himself.  The one who runs that page (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).  Either way, we know he's biased on the subject.

I'm still looking through the evidence list though.  I notice a few already that have been explained.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on June 21, 2012, 02:01:54 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on June 21, 2012, 01:41:12 AM

Do those schematics actually show what materials the lander is made of?

Nope, which makes it abundantly clear that rushy didn't even look at them (or you, for that matter).

Of course I looked at it, I was just asking to confirm.  Anyway, why did you post the link if it doesn't actually tell us anything about the materials?

To show where all the money spent on engineering went.  I wasn't aware that the entirety of the FEer argument was that it was made out of cheap materials.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=GAO_Audits_NASA

The Department of Defense is fake.
Seriously, it lost 1 trillion USD.  By your logic, that makes it almost twice as fake as NASA.
Oh, damn, the Merchant Marine Academy too?!?!?!?!  Is NOTHING safe from the conspiracy?
Also, the entirety of the USFG is fake.

Everything is fake.