« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39   Go Down

moon hoax information index.

  • 1150 Replies
  • 207109 Views
?

Ecthelion

  • 238
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2016, 10:27:57 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
Here are just three examples. To some, probably no big deal. To me, If we went to the moon, I have to scratch my head and wonder.

Well, wondering isn't a bad thing - if something makes you wonder, you might learn from it.

That said, even if it's a bit of a stretch to infer that from such a small sample size, I don't think your methodology is very sound.

There is a number of important things to consider when looking for evidence for a theory, and two spring to mind here especially:
a.) You need to be sure, before you analyze the observations, what, according to the theory, you would expect to see. If you come up with meanings and patterns while you look at an example, you run the risk of positive bias affecting your results. Humans tend to look for positive confirmations of their beliefs, and that can lead to unwarranted leaps. Those can be avoided if you are clear on what exactly you are looking for before you start looking, or at least before you start to formulate conclusions.

b.) Connected with the above, you need to look for the negative results. Once you come up with an explanation, immediately look for the way to prove that explanation wrong. If you keep looking for more evidence that supports your initial explanation you'll get carried away by all the positive reinforcement and overlook other possibilities.

With that said, let's look at the examples:

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
Exhibit A.
How did they get the rover in this position without tire prints?


This is mostly a problem with what I said above under a.). You make the (implicit) assumption that if this picture was really taken on the moon, there should be clearly visible tire tracks. But it isn't made clear why you expect that. Will the tire even make the tracks you are looking for? Has the rover actually used it's wheels before this picture was taken? In which direction?

Without a clear question, just observing that there are no clearly visible tracks offers no information.

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
Exhibit B.
Missing camera,

Well, is the camera missing? Why do we expect a camera on the second picture? The text says "each must have a camera on their chestplate, but it doesn't explain why. The text clearly goes from the result and then interprets the observations to fit that result, but if you try to retrace the steps it's a lot less obvious.

Tellingly, the text also states "note that only one of the suits has an antenna", without explaining why that is notable.

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
Exhibit C.
Why would there be a sneaker print on the moon?


Is there a sneaker print on that picture? It looks like the same kind of profile as the other prints, only slightly tilted.
Logged
*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2016, 10:50:11 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
Here are just three examples. To some, probably no big deal. To me, If we went to the moon, I have to scratch my head and wonder.



Exhibit B.
Missing camera,


Exhibit A debunk

The rover doesn't really make noticeable tracks at low speeds, the dust falls from the mudguard practically covering its own marks.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Exhibit B debunk




I think we had to do this last week yandor with your silly lunar module handles, seems like you accept any image that confirms your bias without a spec of research!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 12:59:58 PM by getrealzommb »
Logged
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2016, 11:22:43 AM »
Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.
Yes, exactly.  The tracks made by the rover were less pronounced when it moved slowly and then they got out and kicked dust around.  The alternative is the absurd idea that a vehicle with wheels that moves under its own power was lowered into place with a crane.  Why?  What purpose would that serve?  Who would do that when the vehicle rolls?  I'm betting Yendor will never answer.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.
Actually the antennas on the suits are retractable and made of a flat material similar to a modern tape measure.  So when it is not seen it could be retracted or it could be edge on and just not catching the light.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.
Same here.  Just angled and distorted some because another print is on top of it.

Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM »
Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.

Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.

In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.

My evidence that the Apollo missions were real is that millions of people worked on the project including tens of thousands of contractors including Boeing which has it's own contractors.  Either all these people are in on the conspiracy, they built a real functional rocket and didn't go to the Moon, or they built a real functional rocket and went to the Moon.

2001: A Space Odyssy was made about the same time as the Apollo missions and yet the footage from Apollo looks better then video faking technology today.  If anyone has seen 2001: A Space Odyssy, you would know that it's graphics are pretty bad by today's standards and it looks nothing like the Apollo images and videos.

If I believed that the Moon landings were fake then this would certainly get me to scratch my head and wonder.

I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

Exhibit A.
Another pic without tire tracks.


Mikey mentioned that they simply switched cameras during these shots. Yet here is Irwin with his camera. Why would he have to use Scott's camera?


I'm not going to bother with the third picture. I no one can see a sneaker print, then there is no sense discussing it.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
*

Mainframes

  • 2088
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2016, 12:46:51 PM »
Exhibit A - there is a tyre track to the left of the tyre.
Logged
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2016, 01:07:32 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.

Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.

In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.

My evidence that the Apollo missions were real is that millions of people worked on the project including tens of thousands of contractors including Boeing which has it's own contractors.  Either all these people are in on the conspiracy, they built a real functional rocket and didn't go to the Moon, or they built a real functional rocket and went to the Moon.

2001: A Space Odyssy was made about the same time as the Apollo missions and yet the footage from Apollo looks better then video faking technology today.  If anyone has seen 2001: A Space Odyssy, you would know that it's graphics are pretty bad by today's standards and it looks nothing like the Apollo images and videos.

If I believed that the Moon landings were fake then this would certainly get me to scratch my head and wonder.

I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

Exhibit A.
Another pic without tire tracks.

Same answer as before.  But I'm curious, what do you think happened?

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Mikey mentioned that they simply switched cameras during these shots. Yet here is Irwin with his camera. Why would he have to use Scott's camera?
No, he didn't say they switched cameras.  He said the cameras were removable so it doesn't have to be there.  I'd think the mission transcript likely addresses it.  Have you checked it for the time frame of the picture?  Why not?

Logged
*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2016, 01:14:08 PM »
 ??? Did my picture of the tripod mounted camera they had go un-noticed, or just conveniently ignored ???
Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2016, 01:39:38 PM »
Quote from: frenat on February 01, 2016, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.

Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.

In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.

My evidence that the Apollo missions were real is that millions of people worked on the project including tens of thousands of contractors including Boeing which has it's own contractors.  Either all these people are in on the conspiracy, they built a real functional rocket and didn't go to the Moon, or they built a real functional rocket and went to the Moon.

2001: A Space Odyssy was made about the same time as the Apollo missions and yet the footage from Apollo looks better then video faking technology today.  If anyone has seen 2001: A Space Odyssy, you would know that it's graphics are pretty bad by today's standards and it looks nothing like the Apollo images and videos.

If I believed that the Moon landings were fake then this would certainly get me to scratch my head and wonder.

I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

Exhibit A.
Another pic without tire tracks.

Same answer as before.  But I'm curious, what do you think happened?

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Mikey mentioned that they simply switched cameras during these shots. Yet here is Irwin with his camera. Why would he have to use Scott's camera?
No, he didn't say they switched cameras.  He said the cameras were removable so it doesn't have to be there.  I'd think the mission transcript likely addresses it.  Have you checked it for the time frame of the picture?  Why not?

I'm sorry frenat, I didn't see your question before. I believe these pictures of the rover were shot inside the studio and that rover didn't actually run and was lowered in place with a crane for the photos. I believe the also shot outside and that rove could run.

It's true, I guess the cameras were easily removed, although I could find no evidence of that. So, you guys think Irwin simply took his camera off and laid it down somewhere just to have his picture shot? Why do you all suppose he would have done that?

And mainframe, if you can see tire prints in that photo, you have far better vision than me, because I don't see them. 
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2016, 02:47:20 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: frenat on February 01, 2016, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
In response to Yendor:

Exhibit A is possible because of all the footprints you can see in front of the wheel.  The rover drove backwards to park there and then the astronauts got out and the footprints covered the track.

Exhibit B is possible because the cameras are removable.  Note the mount on the suit where the camera should be.  Also, I don't think that's an antenna.  If I had to guess, I would say that it might be a steam jet coming out of the suit.  The Apollo space suits used water to cool down and they got rid of excess heat by shooting steam out if the top of the pack occasionally.  That could be what it is.

In exhibit C I don't see any sneaker prints, only a footprint that looks just like the ones made by the space suit boots.

My evidence that the Apollo missions were real is that millions of people worked on the project including tens of thousands of contractors including Boeing which has it's own contractors.  Either all these people are in on the conspiracy, they built a real functional rocket and didn't go to the Moon, or they built a real functional rocket and went to the Moon.

2001: A Space Odyssy was made about the same time as the Apollo missions and yet the footage from Apollo looks better then video faking technology today.  If anyone has seen 2001: A Space Odyssy, you would know that it's graphics are pretty bad by today's standards and it looks nothing like the Apollo images and videos.

If I believed that the Moon landings were fake then this would certainly get me to scratch my head and wonder.

I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

Exhibit A.
Another pic without tire tracks.

Same answer as before.  But I'm curious, what do you think happened?

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Mikey mentioned that they simply switched cameras during these shots. Yet here is Irwin with his camera. Why would he have to use Scott's camera?
No, he didn't say they switched cameras.  He said the cameras were removable so it doesn't have to be there.  I'd think the mission transcript likely addresses it.  Have you checked it for the time frame of the picture?  Why not?

I'm sorry frenat, I didn't see your question before. I believe these pictures of the rover were shot inside the studio and that rover didn't actually run and was lowered in place with a crane for the photos. I believe the also shot outside and that rove could run.
Who in their right mind would lower a wheeled vehicle that can move under its own power or at the very least be pushed, with a crane?  It doesn't make sense.  It also doesn't make sense to have some stuff outside and some inside when the video is continuous and the pictures are identified on the transcript.  One can track every event.  Making a studio means you have to duplicate every crater seen outside and for what?  You're making everything needlessly complicated.

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
It's true, I guess the cameras were easily removed, although I could find no evidence of that. So, you guys think Irwin simply took his camera off and laid it down somewhere just to have his picture shot? Why do you all suppose he would have done that?
Did you bother to check the mission logs or transcripts?
Logged
?

Ecthelion

  • 238
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2016, 09:49:24 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

But are your here to think and learn, or do you just want your pre-conceived beliefs to be supported?

I did put some effort into my post in order to explain some methodology, and I must confess I am a bit disappointed that I was apprently completely ignored. You can try to apply proper rational thinking to the problem, or you can go on posting pictures with random questions until you feel you can declare victory and keep on believing what you wanted to believe anyways. So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?
Logged
*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2016, 10:53:15 PM »
Quote from: frenat on February 01, 2016, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
I'm sorry frenat, I didn't see your question before. I believe these pictures of the rover were shot inside the studio and that rover didn't actually run and was lowered in place with a crane for the photos. I believe the also shot outside and that rove could run.
Who in their right mind would lower a wheeled vehicle that can move under its own power or at the very least be pushed, with a crane?  It doesn't make sense.  It also doesn't make sense to have some stuff outside and some inside when the video is continuous and the pictures are identified on the transcript.  One can track every event.  Making a studio means you have to duplicate every crater seen outside and for what?  You're making everything needlessly complicated.

Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
It's true, I guess the cameras were easily removed, although I could find no evidence of that. So, you guys think Irwin simply took his camera off and laid it down somewhere just to have his picture shot? Why do you all suppose he would have done that?
Did you bother to check the mission logs or transcripts?

frenat laying down the heat!

But seriously I see this a lot when arguing over pictures (usually lunar in nature):

"Look at the way this behaves!"
Should it behave....... a different way?

"This happened. Explain it."
Are you sure it happened? Have you checked your sources or are you relying on captions from an Apollo-denier website?

"Look at this! Look at X!"
Okay I'm looking at it. It has zero significance, but I'm looking at it.
Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2016, 06:11:57 AM »
Quote from: getrealzommb on February 01, 2016, 01:14:08 PM
??? Did my picture of the tripod mounted camera they had go un-noticed, or just conveniently ignored ???

Did I miss you, I'm sorry? I saw your cameras mounted on a tripod. But what does that have to do with the missing camera on Irwin? I just don't see why he would take his camera off.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM »
Quote from: Ecthelion on February 01, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

But are your here to think and learn, or do you just want your pre-conceived beliefs to be supported?

I did put some effort into my post in order to explain some methodology, and I must confess I am a bit disappointed that I was apprently completely ignored. You can try to apply proper rational thinking to the problem, or you can go on posting pictures with random questions until you feel you can declare victory and keep on believing what you wanted to believe anyways. So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?

Ecthelion,
I'm I here to think and learn...I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to. I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates. You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.
You raised the question, "So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?". Where would you suggest I find this science that depicts the truth whether we went to the moon or not. Because there are big and powerful groups out there that has spent a ton of money keeping people like myself from finding out the real truth. All we have are thing to go by that NASA missed or they left for us to find so people like you can ridicule us when we point them out. So, I ask you where is your science showing we actually went to the moon. Where is your facts that show the Van Allen radiation belt is no problem, but yet for the Orion deep space mission, "Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dummy craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment." Why don't we just use 1969 technology? Do you not find this a little odd? By you choosing the, we went to the moon side, you are going on blind faith  because you have no evidence other than what NASA has spoon fed you and you choose to lap it up because you are afraid your peers will call you crazy for not believing we went to the moon. People like me are not afraid of that and no, people don't retreat because they lost a battle, they retreat because they get tired beating a dead horse. So, you can call me crazy or whatever, but when I see or hear something I feel is wrong I will probably point it out.There are no victories to be won here. The most that will happen is there may be those that may start paying more attention and open their eyes a little wider. If someone changes sides, I'm sure they won't tell you that. I apologize for taking so long to get back with you.

Van Allan radiation belt reference:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/14/video-nasas-orion-engineer-admits-they-cant-get-past-van-allen-radiation-belts/
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
Quote from: Ecthelion on February 01, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

But are your here to think and learn, or do you just want your pre-conceived beliefs to be supported?

I did put some effort into my post in order to explain some methodology, and I must confess I am a bit disappointed that I was apprently completely ignored. You can try to apply proper rational thinking to the problem, or you can go on posting pictures with random questions until you feel you can declare victory and keep on believing what you wanted to believe anyways. So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?

Ecthelion,
I'm I here to think and learn...I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to. I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates. You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.
You raised the question, "So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?". Where would you suggest I find this science that depicts the truth whether we went to the moon or not. Because there are big and powerful groups out there that has spent a ton of money keeping people like myself from finding out the real truth. All we have are thing to go by that NASA missed or they left for us to find so people like you can ridicule us when we point them out. So, I ask you where is your science showing we actually went to the moon. Where is your facts that show the Van Allen radiation belt is no problem, but yet for the Orion deep space mission, "Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dummy craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment." Why don't we just use 1969 technology? Do you not find this a little odd? By you choosing the, we went to the moon side, you are going on blind faith  because you have no evidence other than what NASA has spoon fed you and you choose to lap it up because you are afraid your peers will call you crazy for not believing we went to the moon. People like me are not afraid of that and no, people don't retreat because they lost a battle, they retreat because they get tired beating a dead horse. So, you can call me crazy or whatever, but when I see or hear something I feel is wrong I will probably point it out.There are no victories to be won here. The most that will happen is there may be those that may start paying more attention and open their eyes a little wider. If someone changes sides, I'm sure they won't tell you that. I apologize for taking so long to get back with you.

Van Allan radiation belt reference:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/14/video-nasas-orion-engineer-admits-they-cant-get-past-van-allen-radiation-belts/
A few things.  First, they are talking about testing the electronics.  Second, Apollo took a trajectory around the majority of the belts through the thinner outer edges.  This trajectory is not available at all times due to the angle of the Moon's orbit and the angle of the Earth's magnetic field.  If they want to go more often and at will then they need the option to go through the thicker parts when necessary.  Third, the Orion craft is also planned to be used for longer trips and will have to deal with a higher chance of getting hit by a solar flare as well as the cumulative effect of interplanetary radiation beyond the belts.

As for testing of the belts and exposure, there were many unmanned probes into the belts and to the Moon before Apollo.  A few of the Gemini missions also entered the belts.

Logged
?

Ecthelion

  • 238
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2016, 10:24:12 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to.

I want you to buy into rationality, which isn't a belief. As you have correctly stated, my approach is philosophical - so my preconceived beliefs about the moon landing specifically aren't relevant if my philosophy is sound. I don't have any personal stake in what conclusion you come to regarding the moon landings, but I'd be very happy if I could help you towards a better understanding of science and knowledge.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates.

It doesn't seem to me like you are really debating though. You don't engage with the points raised, at least not seriously. You just bring up the next thing.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.

What the... what? Ok maybe what I said came over as insulting, in which case I am sorry. I got carried away a bit with trying to get a reply. But I am not somehow working to undermine you - I am telling you what I genuinely believe to be principles of rationality. And if rationality actually undermined your position, that can only mean that your position is irrational.

If you'd like me to explain my philosophical approach, or even debate me on it, I am totally up for that. But if you don't disagree that what I am proposing is perfectly rational, but still feel it undermines you, then, well, that is something to think about, isn't it?

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
"So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?". Where would you suggest I find this science that depicts the truth whether we went to the moon or not.

Do science, not find science. Science is a method. It's about finding out what you can know and how you can know it. I don't want to debate the result, I want to talk about the method.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
By you choosing the, we went to the moon side, you are going on blind faith  because you have no evidence other than what NASA has spoon fed you and you choose to lap it up because you are afraid your peers will call you crazy for not believing we went to the moon.

Bullshit. I am sorry for being so harsh but there is really not much else to reply to this. My position has nothing to do with faith, let alone blind faith. It's based on looking at all the information I have available - including some of the videos that explain the "moon hoax". You're either assuming I haven't really looked into the matter - in which case you're wrong; Or you are assuming that everything I looked at has been faked, in which case it is you who is assuming things on blind faith alone.

[/quote]
The most that will happen is there may be those that may start paying more attention and open their eyes a little wider.
[/quote]

That's good enough, in my book.
Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM »
Quote from: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
Quote from: Ecthelion on February 01, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

But are your here to think and learn, or do you just want your pre-conceived beliefs to be supported?

I did put some effort into my post in order to explain some methodology, and I must confess I am a bit disappointed that I was apprently completely ignored. You can try to apply proper rational thinking to the problem, or you can go on posting pictures with random questions until you feel you can declare victory and keep on believing what you wanted to believe anyways. So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?

Ecthelion,
I'm I here to think and learn...I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to. I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates. You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.
You raised the question, "So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?". Where would you suggest I find this science that depicts the truth whether we went to the moon or not. Because there are big and powerful groups out there that has spent a ton of money keeping people like myself from finding out the real truth. All we have are thing to go by that NASA missed or they left for us to find so people like you can ridicule us when we point them out. So, I ask you where is your science showing we actually went to the moon. Where is your facts that show the Van Allen radiation belt is no problem, but yet for the Orion deep space mission, "Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dummy craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment." Why don't we just use 1969 technology? Do you not find this a little odd? By you choosing the, we went to the moon side, you are going on blind faith  because you have no evidence other than what NASA has spoon fed you and you choose to lap it up because you are afraid your peers will call you crazy for not believing we went to the moon. People like me are not afraid of that and no, people don't retreat because they lost a battle, they retreat because they get tired beating a dead horse. So, you can call me crazy or whatever, but when I see or hear something I feel is wrong I will probably point it out.There are no victories to be won here. The most that will happen is there may be those that may start paying more attention and open their eyes a little wider. If someone changes sides, I'm sure they won't tell you that. I apologize for taking so long to get back with you.

Van Allan radiation belt reference:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/14/video-nasas-orion-engineer-admits-they-cant-get-past-van-allen-radiation-belts/

A few things.

 First, they are talking about testing the electronics.

Okay, testing the electronics. NASA has said we have sent tons of satellites into far distances of space. We have sent crafts to mars even. How about the electronics on those crafts? Where we not concerned about getting hit by a solar flare as well as the cumulative effect of interplanetary radiation beyond the belts for those crafts?

Second, Apollo took a trajectory around the majority of the belts through the thinner outer edges.  This trajectory is not available at all times due to the angle of the Moon's orbit and the angle of the Earth's magnetic field.  If they want to go more often and at will then they need the option to go through the thicker parts when necessary.

Was this source of info from NASA? I have no way to disproving it.

 Third, the Orion craft is also planned to be used for longer trips and will have to deal with a higher chance of getting hit by a solar flare as well as the cumulative effect of interplanetary radiation beyond the belts.

That is probably true.

As for testing of the belts and exposure, there were many unmanned probes into the belts and to the Moon before Apollo.  A few of the Gemini missions also entered the belts.

How do you know that? Would their electronic devices not be at risk?

All I'm saying is I believe they knew about the Van Allen belt before 1969. Van Allen filed a report in 1958 that basically said humans would not survive passing through the belt. Later on he changed his story. I believe they did project Argus to try and blow through the radiation belt to make a path so they could go safely through it. I've not read they were successful, so I don't  know that they did. If I believed like you that we went to the moon, I too could find plenty of information backing me up. However, I don't believe we went to the moon and my only evidence is that if we could go to the moon from 1969 to 1972, ( I Believe 1972 ), with technology of that day, we shouldn't have to send out dummy probes now 44 years later. That is like the X-15. We could go in space, 60 miles up, in 1957 but we have problems with Virgin Galactic. We should have no problems getting into space this late in the game. Maybe I'm all wrong as you may be. but it is hard finding real facts when the deck is stacked against you.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2016, 11:39:00 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM
Quote from: Ecthelion on February 01, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 01, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
I'm not here to argue. I'm just presenting a few things I find odd. If you all don't, that's fine.

But are your here to think and learn, or do you just want your pre-conceived beliefs to be supported?

I did put some effort into my post in order to explain some methodology, and I must confess I am a bit disappointed that I was apprently completely ignored. You can try to apply proper rational thinking to the problem, or you can go on posting pictures with random questions until you feel you can declare victory and keep on believing what you wanted to believe anyways. So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?

Ecthelion,
I'm I here to think and learn...I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to. I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates. You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.
You raised the question, "So will you do what you know is the correct way to do science and dare use your rationality, or will you retreat to the safety of your own world?". Where would you suggest I find this science that depicts the truth whether we went to the moon or not. Because there are big and powerful groups out there that has spent a ton of money keeping people like myself from finding out the real truth. All we have are thing to go by that NASA missed or they left for us to find so people like you can ridicule us when we point them out. So, I ask you where is your science showing we actually went to the moon. Where is your facts that show the Van Allen radiation belt is no problem, but yet for the Orion deep space mission, "Such is the prospective danger in fact, that NASA will have to send a dummy craft first in order to ‘test out’ what the potential radiation effects will be on future human crews, as well as on the ship’s delicate sensors and equipment." Why don't we just use 1969 technology? Do you not find this a little odd? By you choosing the, we went to the moon side, you are going on blind faith  because you have no evidence other than what NASA has spoon fed you and you choose to lap it up because you are afraid your peers will call you crazy for not believing we went to the moon. People like me are not afraid of that and no, people don't retreat because they lost a battle, they retreat because they get tired beating a dead horse. So, you can call me crazy or whatever, but when I see or hear something I feel is wrong I will probably point it out.There are no victories to be won here. The most that will happen is there may be those that may start paying more attention and open their eyes a little wider. If someone changes sides, I'm sure they won't tell you that. I apologize for taking so long to get back with you.

Van Allan radiation belt reference:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/14/video-nasas-orion-engineer-admits-they-cant-get-past-van-allen-radiation-belts/

A few things.

 First, they are talking about testing the electronics.

Okay, testing the electronics. NASA has said we have sent tons of satellites into far distances of space. We have sent crafts to mars even. How about the electronics on those crafts? Where we not concerned about getting hit by a solar flare as well as the cumulative effect of interplanetary radiation beyond the belts for those crafts?
Are all electronics the same?  This is a new system.  Should they not test it?

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
Second, Apollo took a trajectory around the majority of the belts through the thinner outer edges.  This trajectory is not available at all times due to the angle of the Moon's orbit and the angle of the Earth's magnetic field.  If they want to go more often and at will then they need the option to go through the thicker parts when necessary.

Was this source of info from NASA? I have no way to disproving it.
published info on their trajectory and makes sense based on the orbit inclination they had when conducting the trans-lunar injection burn.
Visual depiction here
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
Third, the Orion craft is also planned to be used for longer trips and will have to deal with a higher chance of getting hit by a solar flare as well as the cumulative effect of interplanetary radiation beyond the belts.

That is probably true.
not just probably

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
As for testing of the belts and exposure, there were many unmanned probes into the belts and to the Moon before Apollo.  A few of the Gemini missions also entered the belts.

How do you know that? Would their electronic devices not be at risk?
how do I know that?  History.  People tend to write things down.
As for the electronics, again different systems, different purposes.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM

All I'm saying is I believe they knew about the Van Allen belt before 1969. Van Allen filed a report in 1958 that basically said humans would not survive passing through the belt. Later on he changed his story.
Taken out of context.  His report mentioned without adequate shielding.  They used both shielding and minimized their exposure with speed and trajectory.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
I believe they did project Argus to try and blow through the radiation belt to make a path so they could go safely through it. I've not read they were successful, so I don't  know that they did.
that wasn't the purpose of Operation Argus.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
If I believed like you that we went to the moon, I too could find plenty of information backing me up. However, I don't believe we went to the moon and my only evidence is that if we could go to the moon from 1969 to 1972, ( I Believe 1972 ), with technology of that day, we shouldn't have to send out dummy probes now 44 years later.
Who has wanted to pay for it?  It isn't that they have to send out probes, it is that Congress is only barely funding that and not much else.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
That is like the X-15. We could go in space, 60 miles up, in 1957 but we have problems with Virgin Galactic.
A one off military prototype is in no way comparable to a civilian reusable craft.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
We should have no problems getting into space this late in the game. Maybe I'm all wrong as you may be. but it is hard finding real facts when the deck is stacked against you.
Maybe actually starting with the facts would be a good idea.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 11:44:28 AM by frenat »
Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM »
They should have enough data to test the electronics on earth.

Well, your videos are perfect. What are the people working on Orion worrying about. We just follow the same trajectory in and out of earth the way Apollo did. No problem.

I meant operation fishbowl.

Why should anyone pay for it, what purpose does it serve? Why not just go back to the moon and set up a base there. We may find something useful there. At least we were supposed to have done that.

So we can't start with the X-15 and build from there. we aren't getting very far the way we are going now. We went through the Concord phase and it was scrapped. Why would we think a space plane would do any better?

your facts are NASA's facts, so I'd call them biased opinions.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2016, 01:19:44 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
They should have enough data to test the electronics on earth.
I see.  So you're an expert on testing now.   ::)

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
Well, your videos are perfect. What are the people working on Orion worrying about. We just follow the same trajectory in and out of earth the way Apollo did. No problem.
And thank you for proving you didn't read when I posted that those tracjectories are not always available due to the angle of the Moon's orbit and the angle of the magnetic field.  If they want to go more often and at will, and they do, then they need the option to go through the center thicker pats of the belts if necessary.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
I meant operation fishbowl.
Wasn't the purpose of that either.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
Why should anyone pay for it, what purpose does it serve? Why not just go back to the moon and set up a base there. We may find something useful there. At least we were supposed to have done that.
Why should anyone pay for it?  Huh?  You think rockets are free?
I agree that they should go back to the Moon.  I think they should have kept going.  Congress, who pays the bills, disagreed and cancelled the last three missions of the program and slashed the space budget for years afterward.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
So we can't start with the X-15 and build from there. we aren't getting very far the way we are going now. We went through the Concord phase and it was scrapped. Why would we think a space plane would do any better?
Not even sure where you're going with this.  You were trying to compare a one-off military prototype rocket aircraft with a civilian reusable spacecraft.  Now you're mentioning a commercial aircraft and trying to compare it to a space plane.  You seem all over the map here.


Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
your facts are NASA's facts, so I'd call them biased opinions.
they are backed up with verifiable info.  Your "facts" sound like you took them off a hoaxie site. 
Logged
*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM »
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 01:34:05 PM by legion »
Logged
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".
*

Rayzor

  • 12193
  • Looking for Occam
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2016, 02:31:24 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 07:40:28 AM

I'm I here to think and learn...I'm here, on this thread, because I was challenged by Rayzor to bring forth some evidence against the moon landings. I'm not here to learn from you, because like me you too have a preconceived beliefs that you want me to buy in to. I just presented three small bits of information I find unusual. It is simply meant to open the door for debates. You, on the other hand, want to bring forth a philosophical approach and try to undermine me.

I didn't have to do anything to debunk those 3 pictures,   I'll cast the net a bit wider,   since you can't find any evidence that the moon landings weren't real,  can you offer ANY evidence of ANY faked space mission,  by ANY country.   

If all space travel is faked,  then there should be plenty of examples. 



Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

GlobeDebunker

  • 279
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2016, 02:48:58 PM »
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. There is not any proof that the "alleged" moon landings are fake. While, on the other hand, there have been several photos posted of people standing on the moon. Are we reading the same thread?
Logged

To fall into the belief of a flat Earth is to deny YOUR OWN cognizance.
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2016, 03:00:47 PM »
Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 02, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. There is not any proof that the "alleged" moon landings are fake. While, on the other hand, there have been several photos posted of people standing on the moon. Are we reading the same thread?

Because you see photos of men standing on the supposedly moon, is all it take to convince you we went there? If I showed you a picture of a unicorn standing next to one of those men, would you believe that unicorns must live there if NASA told you so?
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2016, 03:03:26 PM »
I just want everyone to know I'm not retreating, I'm just going to eat dinner. We can continue this tomorrow. So gather all your NASA references together.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

Göebbels

  • 186
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2016, 03:05:00 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 02, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. There is not any proof that the "alleged" moon landings are fake. While, on the other hand, there have been several photos posted of people standing on the moon. Are we reading the same thread?

Because you see photos of men standing on the supposedly moon, is all it take to convince you we went there? If I showed you a picture of a unicorn standing next to one of those men, would you believe that unicorns must live there if NASA told you so?

False analogy. We know there is space. We know the moon exists. We know spave travel is possible. We have evidence we sent men to the moon.
Unicorns = nothing.
Logged
*

GlobeDebunker

  • 279
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2016, 03:59:42 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 02, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. There is not any proof that the "alleged" moon landings are fake. While, on the other hand, there have been several photos posted of people standing on the moon. Are we reading the same thread?

Because you see photos of men standing on the supposedly moon, is all it take to convince you we went there? If I showed you a picture of a unicorn standing next to one of those men, would you believe that unicorns must live there if NASA told you so?
Edit: This part of the text wasn't supposed to be in the quoted section:

Yeah, if there was a real picture of a real unicorn standing next to one of those men on the moon, I would definitely believe it.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 08:27:47 AM by GlobeDebunker »
Logged

To fall into the belief of a flat Earth is to deny YOUR OWN cognizance.
?

Ecthelion

  • 238
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2016, 10:11:51 PM »
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Why do you think anyone here should use up lots of their time just to compile a bunch of pictures and videos that you could just as easily have found yourself? You have the same access to the internet as the rest of us, and thus the same access to pieces of evidence, unless someone here has some pictures that aren't widely available. And if you cannot be bothered to spend time searching, why should we?

If you have a good theory that explain all the observations, we'll be happy to hear it.

Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
Because you see photos of men standing on the supposedly moon, is all it take to convince you we went there? If I showed you a picture of a unicorn standing next to one of those men, would you believe that unicorns must live there if NASA told you so?

If you showed me a picture? No.

I do, however, believe lots of animals exist that I have never personally seen and only know from pictures and videos. I am willing to bet no-one here has ever seen a blue whale personally. Do you consequently believe that it is a fantasy animal?

Yet we also have seen pictures of dragons and don't believe they exist, why? Could it be because it is not the single picture that makes the theory sound, but an amount of different datapoints that, taken together, provide a compelling theory? For example, in order to believe an animal exists, in addition to seeing pictures or even videos, you would also have to gauge: the likelyhood of exactly these, and not other, pictures/videos having been taken; whether the anatomy of the animal makes sense; Whether you can figure out an ecological niche which it might inhabit; whether there are other, similar animals that you have secure knowledge of.

What kind of questions do you think we should ask ourselves when looking at pictures of men on the moon?
Logged
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2016, 06:40:11 AM »
Quote from: Göebbels on February 02, 2016, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: Yendor on February 02, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 02, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: legion on February 02, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Is it just me, or is this thread a "bit thin on the ground" by way of proof for the (alleged) moon landings?

Thought so.

Edit: apart from the tired assertions (not evidence) from the likes of mikeboy: "but, but, meeeeeeeelions of people would have been in on the conspiracy" tripe.

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. There is not any proof that the "alleged" moon landings are fake. While, on the other hand, there have been several photos posted of people standing on the moon. Are we reading the same thread?

Because you see photos of men standing on the supposedly moon, is all it take to convince you we went there? If I showed you a picture of a unicorn standing next to one of those men, would you believe that unicorns must live there if NASA told you so?

False analogy. We know there is space. We know the moon exists. We know spave travel is possible. We have evidence we sent men to the moon.
Unicorns = nothing.

I think my analogy is a good one. I agree there is something in the sky we call the moon. As far as space travel and whether we sent people to the moon is pure conjecture based on one single fact, NASA says so. If NASA shows us pictures of unicorns and say they live on the moon and these pictures prove it, Why would you NOT believe them? You believe everything else they say.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
?

Ecthelion

  • 238
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2016, 08:23:13 AM »
Quote from: Yendor on February 03, 2016, 06:40:11 AM
As far as space travel and whether we sent people to the moon is pure conjecture based on one single fact, NASA says so.

NASA, and all the other space agencies, and every rocket scientist, and anyone with an education in a related field. And all the people who claim to have actually been to space. And all the engineers that worked on it. Oh and all the pictures and videos and design documents are there if you don't want to listen to people.

Also, I say so, and i am not NASA.

Oh, and by the way, this:

Quote from: Yendor on February 03, 2016, 06:40:11 AM
If NASA shows us pictures of unicorns and say they live on the moon and these pictures prove it, Why would you NOT believe them? You believe everything else they say.

is a personal attack. Do you know what kind of people use personal attacks in debates?
Logged
*

GlobeDebunker

  • 279
Re: moon hoax information index.
« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2016, 08:32:00 AM »
Quote from: Ecthelion on February 03, 2016, 08:23:13 AM

Oh, and by the way, this:

Quote from: Yendor on February 03, 2016, 06:40:11 AM
If NASA shows us pictures of unicorns and say they live on the moon and these pictures prove it, Why would you NOT believe them? You believe everything else they say.

is a personal attack. Do you know what kind of people use personal attacks in debates?

Psychopaths
Logged

To fall into the belief of a flat Earth is to deny YOUR OWN cognizance.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39   Go Up
« previous next »