moon hoax information index.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 25, 2016, 04:55:43 AM

^^^^^says the man who has literally made up the worst model ever for the structure of matter.

It's only the worst model to you because you've been brainwashed into accepting a mainstream tailor made model. That's your prerogative, by the way but you are only clued up on parroting some of it rather than  actually understanding it.

Hey sceptimatic,
Maybe you should have evoked the magical, hypothetical, unobservable, invisible and unknown properties of dark matter and dark energy.

I imagine that MF would have being cooing and pulling his pud.

Strange isn't it.

the glaring plot holes in the accepted establishment science religion require magical unknown space hats, and that's just fine.

Good on ya mate,
keep questioning the zealots cannon.

Fifth page now,

Is running dancing rayzor still running and dancing ?
yup.

Is running rayzor still running ?

Quote from: feuk on February 24, 2016, 05:35:28 AM

FAO running dancing rayzor

Oh Jesus *face palm*,
ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha.....

You got a direct response,,
Seems I will have to repeat myself veeeery slowly.

sound of hammering clearly audible because why ?
You claim the sound is travelling through his hand (clearly exclaimed in your post)

My response was how is sound travelling without direct contact on the Apollo excursions ?
clattering moon buggy compartment lids was one example,
Remember, you decided reptilian moon bases and a heavily choreographed dance number was the best response.

Added to this I also asked why sound does not travel through the hands of ISS manual labourers working in the vacuum,
(the post you are ignoring whilst claiming you answered it a week ago  )

And how sound does not propagate through solid hand held tools or the solid ISS whilst the observer is in the vacuum,
remember,
you gave examples of the observer being inside the air filled ISS,
Which is obviously unrelated to the subject.

Then you started your trip down memory lane pretending you elaborated on this obvious problem a week ago.

Let's try again....
I'm afraid your rather nasty insults, expletives, dance numbers and long distance running is only damaging your extremely tenuous logic and understanding.

(btw plagiarising phrases to repeat back to the original poster and the constant  repetition makes you sound like a bot,
let me guess, "beep, does not compute, beep"   )

Anyway, response please.

Quote from: feuk on February 24, 2016, 02:30:36 AM

Any chance of a response to the below ?
Or is more trolling,
more running,
more dancing your preferred debating style ?

Quote from: feuk on February 23, 2016, 06:41:14 AM

back for more my running dancing friend ?
Still proving you are full of it ?
Still struggling with the very basic science which you claim needs to be "dumbed down" for me ? 

Let me highlight your most obvious comprehension fails, and why your claims of understanding your own argument are hilarious internet slap stick   

firstly you claimed to be proving sound travels through the vacuum of space with your first link,
Which states
" Finally, inside the ISS there indeed is a very high level of noise pollution."
The word "inside" is what you appear to be misunderstanding.
unless you are claiming that it's a vacuum "inside" the ISS then that's an epic face plant.

Secondly you link to an article I have being quoting for over a week 
Which states,
" As an EVA is in progress, you can hear the spacewalkers bumping and clanging along as your crewmates translate on the exterior of your module."
The word you are misunderstanding here is "exterior", he is describing sound from inside the ISS,
unless you are claiming that it's a vacuum "inside" the ISS.

EVEN YOUR LINK (that I posted a week ago) DEBUNKS YOUR OWN ARGUMENT,
 
" It is true, however, that sound cannot travel in a vacuum so you do not hear things outside.  When you drive a bolt or tap a piece of equipment with a tool, you don't hear a thing.  "

OUTSIDE THE ISS running dancing rayzor, OUTSIDE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

your (originally mine) link continues to demolish your false sense of understanding with,
" One interesting thing that happens is that when you put your crewmates in the airlock to perform an EVA and then shut the hatch, at first you can hear a bunch of clanging as their metal tools softly strike the other equipment, handrails, or the hull of the small airlock.  Then as you depress the airlock it still looks exactly the same through the hatch window.  But now the clanging sound is gone.  You can see their equipment bumping into stuff as before, but now it is silent."

I think the word you are struggling with here is "silent", even when the observer is inside the ISS.

there we have it,
Your inflated self image is in fact delusional idiocy,

That might sound harsh but I can only go on what you are posting,
Which clearly shows you are attempting to prove sound travels in a vacuum by quoting links that show sound travels through air.
sounds like internet slap stick idiocy to me.

I think this is where you claim to be "dumbing down" your misunderstanding of basic science and obvious struggles with the English language.

my spidey sense tells me you will begin an elaborate dance routine before running away shouting infantile insults over your shoulder,

all I ask is that you actually read and understand the links you are quoting, analyse the data and form a coherent factual explanation,
Please
 

[/quote]

Quote from: Mainframes on February 25, 2016, 04:55:43 AM

^^^^^says the man who has literally made up the worst model ever for the structure of matter.

It's only the worst model to you because you've been brainwashed into accepting a mainstream tailor made model. That's your prerogative, by the way but you are only clued up on parroting some of it rather than  actually understanding it.

Your model can't explain basics like Brownian motion and reaction kinetics.

Neither can you, copy-pasta kid.

Rapidly turning pages will not save you rayzor.
Got my money ?

Quote from: Runningdancingsoilednappywearingbottlerayzor on February 25, 2016, 03:31:03 AM

Just what "in your tiny mind"  constitutes "running away",  I'm still here, and you still look like a plonker.

Actively running away from your embarrassing scientific face plant fails ya bottler.

actively running away from your ridiculous statements.
I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP YOUR EMOTIONAL MELTDOWN TO THE TUNE OF A £1000 ENGLISH POUNDS,
CHECK  IPs AND IF PL AND MYSELF ARE INDEED THE SAME PERSON (EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY) I WILL GIVE YOU A GRAND.
IF YOUR DRIVEL TURNS OUT TO BE PARANOID RANTING YOU WILL GIVE ME A GRAND.
GET THE MODS TO OVERSEE AND PAY MY MONEY INTO A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.

SIMPLE.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE WAGER,
PROVE YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOTIC COMEDY INTERNET MOUTH PIECE.

NOPE DIDN'T THINK SO.
you have probably never seen a grand,
will just shit yourself,
continue the delusional posturing,
And........yup.....bottle it and run away 

it's actually quite sad to witness.

(do I really have to repost the obvious and embarrassing post that you claim you can't be bothered with ?
Bottler)

I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP YOUR EMOTIONAL MELTDOWN TO THE TUNE OF A £1000 ENGLISH POUNDS,
CHECK  IPs AND IF PL AND MYSELF ARE INDEED THE SAME PERSON (EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY) I WILL GIVE YOU A GRAND.
IF YOUR DRIVEL TURNS OUT TO BE PARANOID RANTING YOU WILL GIVE ME A GRAND.
GET THE MODS TO OVERSEE AND PAY MY MONEY INTO A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.

SIMPLE.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE WAGER,
PROVE YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOTIC COMEDY INTERNET MOUTH PIECE.

NOPE DIDN'T THINK SO.

Stand back and have a look at yourself,  do you know that you are on a flat earth forum,  throwing a tantrum about IP feucking addresses as if no-one ever heard of proxies. 

You no longer look like a plonker,  you are a feucking plonker.   Park your fragile ego somewhere safe and take a break.

Neither can you, copy-pasta kid.

Hey PL.

YES, I remember the running dancing one pretending he was partying with drunken  physicists 

so much so that he had his eyes closed for the entire trip 

Wasn't that thread closed ?
Or am I thinking of another ?

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 06:28:23 AM

I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP YOUR EMOTIONAL MELTDOWN TO THE TUNE OF A £1000 ENGLISH POUNDS,
CHECK  IPs AND IF PL AND MYSELF ARE INDEED THE SAME PERSON (EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY) I WILL GIVE YOU A GRAND.
IF YOUR DRIVEL TURNS OUT TO BE PARANOID RANTING YOU WILL GIVE ME A GRAND.
GET THE MODS TO OVERSEE AND PAY MY MONEY INTO A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.

SIMPLE.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE WAGER,
PROVE YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOTIC COMEDY INTERNET MOUTH PIECE.

NOPE DIDN'T THINK SO.

Stand back and have a look at yourself,  do you know that you are on a flat earth forum,  throwing a tantrum about IP feucking addresses as if no-one ever heard of proxies. 

You no longer look like a plonker,  you are a feucking plonker.   Park your fragile ego somewhere safe and take a break. 
     
     

BOTTLED IT ?

suddenly I'm a technological wizard bouncing my IP across the earth like I'm head of anonymous   

Thought I was a plonker ?

But then you do change your position as often as a circus contortionist.

Decided whether sound travels in a vacuum yet 

Keep running,
Keep dancing,
Keep bottling it,
 
 

   

bottler.

BOTTLED IT ?
suddenly I'm a technological wizard bouncing my IP across the earth like I'm head of anonymous   

No,  technological wizard you ain't.  You don't handle criticism very well either do you?   How does that play out in your personal life?

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 07:15:10 AM

BOTTLED IT ?
suddenly I'm a technological wizard bouncing my IP across the earth like I'm head of anonymous   

No,  technological wizard you ain't.  You don't handle criticism very well either do you?   How does that play out in your personal life?

really well thanks my running dancing bottling buddy.
in fact I have a spare grand here for you if you can back up your meltdown rants,

But you won't,
Will you.

Bottled it.
Shame, you sounded so confident back before you soiled yourself. 






Bottler.
(btw. Any chance of replying to the post that challenged your stunted understanding of basic science and your complete logic failure ?
No ?

Oh well.
Keep dancing,
Keep running,
Keep bottling it.








Bottler )

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2016, 06:09:18 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on February 25, 2016, 04:55:43 AM

^^^^^says the man who has literally made up the worst model ever for the structure of matter.

It's only the worst model to you because you've been brainwashed into accepting a mainstream tailor made model. That's your prerogative, by the way but you are only clued up on parroting some of it rather than  actually understanding it.

Hey sceptimatic,
Maybe you should have evoked the magical, hypothetical, unobservable, invisible and unknown properties of dark matter and dark energy.

I imagine that MF would have being cooing and pulling his pud.

Strange isn't it.

the glaring plot holes in the accepted establishment science religion require magical unknown space hats, and that's just fine.

Good on ya mate,
keep questioning the zealots cannon.

Yeah you're right, it is strange, but the truth is (as we know) is that they simply adhere to a mainstream model because that's where their comfort blanket is. They have no clue about it all, except to read and parrot or copy and paste.

Absolutely amazing how they can sit like wide eyed little kids going goo goo over a load of old bullshit like gravity waves being found due to a frigging 'chirp' billions of LIGHT YEARS away. Oh for eff's sake. It's downright cringe-worthy.

And then they have the face to say my model's the worst. 
There's very few of them that can understand my model. Not because it's crazy but because it's too basic for them to understand. My basic becomes their complicated by refusal to dare to step outside of that circle they were told to stand in.

Anyway I've strayed off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2016, 07:22:51 AM

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 07:15:10 AM

BOTTLED IT ?
suddenly I'm a technological wizard bouncing my IP across the earth like I'm head of anonymous   

No,  technological wizard you ain't.  You don't handle criticism very well either do you?   How does that play out in your personal life?

really well thanks my running dancing bottling buddy.
in fact I have a spare grand here for you if you can back up your meltdown rants,

But you won't,
Will you.

Bottled it.
Shame, you sounded so confident back before you soiled yourself. 






Bottler.
(btw. Any chance of replying to the post that challenged your stunted understanding of basic science and your complete logic failure ?
No ?

Oh well.
Keep dancing,
Keep running,
Keep bottling it.








Bottler )

So, in this argument, Moon hoax believers have one tiny little point that makes me go 'hmm', not even 'hmmm'. On the other side of the debate there is nearly endless amounts of information backing up the expedition to the moon as something that actually happened. I think I'm going to choose the side with more supporting evidence, since I can only speculate on the matter.

So, in this argument, Moon hoax believers have one tiny little point that makes me go 'hmm', not even 'hmmm'. On the other side of the debate there is nearly endless amounts of information backing up the expedition to the moon as something that actually happened. I think I'm going to choose the side with more supporting evidence, since I can only speculate on the matter.

Not really,
Let me explain.

If one image is suspect they all lose credibility.
If one video segment is suspect then all video loses credibility.
If one fact is suspect then all facts lose credibility.

Let's look at this thread,
some very simple and straight forward issues have being raised,
We are currently stuck on just one very simple issue because someone who shall remain nameless cannot admit, with honesty, that there is an issue.

So the "debate" descends into a twenty page meltdown by someone who simply cannot answer a very simple question.

It's the new modern age of internet enlightenment.

multiple parallel running subjects would be pointless.

So let's see if the official narrative can jump the first fence,
it's not looking good so far.

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 25, 2016, 08:50:22 AM

So, in this argument, Moon hoax believers have one tiny little point that makes me go 'hmm', not even 'hmmm'. On the other side of the debate there is nearly endless amounts of information backing up the expedition to the moon as something that actually happened. I think I'm going to choose the side with more supporting evidence, since I can only speculate on the matter.

Not really,
Let me explain.

If one image is suspect they all lose credibility.
If one video segment is suspect then all video loses credibility.
If one fact is suspect then all facts lose credibility.

Let's look at this thread,
some very simple and straight forward issues have being raised,
We are currently stuck on just one very simple issue because someone who shall remain nameless cannot admit, with honesty, that there is an issue.

So the "debate" descends into a twenty page meltdown by someone who simply cannot answer a very simple question.

It's the new modern age of internet enlightenment.

multiple parallel running subjects would be pointless.

So let's see if the official narrative can jump the first fence,
it's not looking good so far.

These statments are a result of paranoia, not backed experimentation. It's like in the U.S. court system: A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's how my brain works.

These statments are a result of paranoia, not backed experimentation

LOL!!!

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, jackass...

Gonna post this on every page to keep them Clowns Capering...

Normal people will see a shitty stage-prop sitting under studio lights...

Clown Derfers will see a REELY REEL shpayze-shipp sitting on teh REELY REEL munn 40+ years ago.




Go on; start your little Clown-Routine again; give us all a laugh...

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 25, 2016, 09:59:53 AM

These statments are a result of paranoia, not backed experimentation

LOL!!!

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, jackass...

Gonna post this on every page to keep them Clowns Capering...

Normal people will see a shitty stage-prop sitting under studio lights...

Clown Derfers will see a REELY REEL shpayze-shipp sitting on teh REELY REEL munn 40+ years ago.




Go on; start your little Clown-Routine again; give us all a laugh...

You aren't really worth replying to anymore.

These statments are a result of paranoia, not backed experimentation. It's like in the U.S. court system: A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's how my brain works.

"paranoia" 

Let's use your "U.S. court system" analogy.

If you are a suspected of a crime,
both sides offer an argument,
and a decision is made.

If you are suspected of committing a crime you are called the "suspect".

in reality you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence.

So you used a bad analogy,
Unless the whole judicial system runs off institutionalised paranoia.
(some would argue the judicial system is one huge corporate stitch up that enforces the law when it suits them and protect the rich and powerful, but that's another thread)

What would happen if the "suspect" refused to offer any evidence of innocence ?
Or refused to cooporate and became aggressive ?

they would be found guilty, no question.

Now relate that to this thread,
why is it so difficult to put both sides of evidence for comparison without those defending the "suspect" doing all they can to prevent investigation.

Speaks for itself really.

You aren't really worth replying to anymore.

Yup; falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

That shut you up sharpish...

Run, rabbit, run!

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on February 25, 2016, 09:59:53 AM

These statments are a result of paranoia, not backed experimentation. It's like in the U.S. court system: A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's how my brain works.

"paranoia" 

Let's use your "U.S. court system" analogy.

If you are a suspected of a crime,
both sides offer an argument,
and a decision is made.

If you are suspected of committing a crime you are called the "suspect".

in reality you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence.

So you used a bad analogy,
Unless the whole judicial system runs off institutionalised paranoia.
(some would argue the judicial system is one huge corporate stitch up that enforces the law when it suits them and protect the rich and powerful, but that's another thread)

What would happen if the "suspect" refused to offer any evidence of innocence ?
Or refused to cooporate and became aggressive ?

they would be found guilty, no question.

Now relate that to this thread,
why is it so difficult to put both sides of evidence for comparison without those defending the "suspect" doing all they can to prevent investigation.

Speaks for itself really.

The defendants (in this case) have promoted investigation!! Haha! We have asked multiple times for proofs that the moon expedition was a hoax. Not speculative jibber-jabber. 'I think this should do that, or that should be doing this, but I have nothing to confirm these suspicions'

What happens when the prosecutor doesn't have any concrete evidence of the 'crime'?
The prosecution is dismissed. If the suspect is still convicted, then the system is corrupt.

The defendants (in this case) have promoted investigation!! Haha! We have asked multiple times for proofs that the moon expedition was a hoax. Not speculative jibber-jabber. 'I think this should do that, or that should be doing this, but I have nothing to confirm these suspicions'

What happens when the prosecutor doesn't have any concrete evidence of the 'crime'?
The prosecution is dismissed. If the suspect is still convicted, then the system is corrupt.

Maybe you could explain how outside sounds are recorded on the audio of Apollo movies in the vacuum of space,
We have already had the idea sound vibrated through the contact hand with tools and this is transferred onto the recording,
Bit of a stretch and has never being recorded on any post Apollo space movie.

But more than this sound is recorded travelling through the vacuum of space when no physical direct contact is evident (discounting the flimsy "drum skin" excuse),
Tiny little metallic rattles, subtle and soft noise, even crunching regolith.
The example given was slamming compartment lids on the lunar buggy with no direct physical contact with the suit,

Sound travelling through solids was offered but is obviously not relevant to the situation, and has not being recorded in a vacuum since.

Any reasoning should be universal,
We do not see this with modern ISS excursions,     
eye witness testimony confirms hand held tools transfer  no sound in the vacuum of space inside the suit,
nor has it being recorded.

how is this possible ?
How can one set of evidence contradict the other ?

Already established facts -
Lunar atmosphere is the same as that surrounding the ISS according to the defendant, a vacuum.
both suits have the same design, a layered skin filled with air,
Tools are made from the same materials,
vehicles are made with the same material,
modern audio is better quality.

Go.....

Gonna post this on every page to keep them Clowns Capering...

Normal people will see a shitty stage-prop sitting under studio lights...

Clown Derfers will see a REELY REEL shpayze-shipp sitting on teh REELY REEL munn 40+ years ago.




Go on; start your little Clown-Routine again; give us all a laugh...

Sixth page 

Fifth page now,

Is running dancing rayzor still running and dancing ?
yup.

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 02:36:02 AM

Is running rayzor still running ?

Quote from: feuk on February 24, 2016, 05:35:28 AM

FAO running dancing rayzor

Oh Jesus *face palm*,
ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha.....

You got a direct response,,
Seems I will have to repeat myself veeeery slowly.

sound of hammering clearly audible because why ?
You claim the sound is travelling through his hand (clearly exclaimed in your post)

My response was how is sound travelling without direct contact on the Apollo excursions ?
clattering moon buggy compartment lids was one example,
Remember, you decided reptilian moon bases and a heavily choreographed dance number was the best response.

Added to this I also asked why sound does not travel through the hands of ISS manual labourers working in the vacuum,
(the post you are ignoring whilst claiming you answered it a week ago  )

And how sound does not propagate through solid hand held tools or the solid ISS whilst the observer is in the vacuum,
remember,
you gave examples of the observer being inside the air filled ISS,
Which is obviously unrelated to the subject.

Then you started your trip down memory lane pretending you elaborated on this obvious problem a week ago.

Let's try again....
I'm afraid your rather nasty insults, expletives, dance numbers and long distance running is only damaging your extremely tenuous logic and understanding.

(btw plagiarising phrases to repeat back to the original poster and the constant  repetition makes you sound like a bot,
let me guess, "beep, does not compute, beep"   )

Anyway, response please.

Quote from: feuk on February 24, 2016, 02:30:36 AM

Any chance of a response to the below ?
Or is more trolling,
more running,
more dancing your preferred debating style ?

Quote from: feuk on February 23, 2016, 06:41:14 AM

back for more my running dancing friend ?
Still proving you are full of it ?
Still struggling with the very basic science which you claim needs to be "dumbed down" for me ? 

Let me highlight your most obvious comprehension fails, and why your claims of understanding your own argument are hilarious internet slap stick   

firstly you claimed to be proving sound travels through the vacuum of space with your first link,
Which states
" Finally, inside the ISS there indeed is a very high level of noise pollution."
The word "inside" is what you appear to be misunderstanding.
unless you are claiming that it's a vacuum "inside" the ISS then that's an epic face plant.

Secondly you link to an article I have being quoting for over a week 
Which states,
" As an EVA is in progress, you can hear the spacewalkers bumping and clanging along as your crewmates translate on the exterior of your module."
The word you are misunderstanding here is "exterior", he is describing sound from inside the ISS,
unless you are claiming that it's a vacuum "inside" the ISS.

EVEN YOUR LINK (that I posted a week ago) DEBUNKS YOUR OWN ARGUMENT,
 
" It is true, however, that sound cannot travel in a vacuum so you do not hear things outside.  When you drive a bolt or tap a piece of equipment with a tool, you don't hear a thing.  "

OUTSIDE THE ISS running dancing rayzor, OUTSIDE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

your (originally mine) link continues to demolish your false sense of understanding with,
" One interesting thing that happens is that when you put your crewmates in the airlock to perform an EVA and then shut the hatch, at first you can hear a bunch of clanging as their metal tools softly strike the other equipment, handrails, or the hull of the small airlock.  Then as you depress the airlock it still looks exactly the same through the hatch window.  But now the clanging sound is gone.  You can see their equipment bumping into stuff as before, but now it is silent."

I think the word you are struggling with here is "silent", even when the observer is inside the ISS.

there we have it,
Your inflated self image is in fact delusional idiocy,

That might sound harsh but I can only go on what you are posting,
Which clearly shows you are attempting to prove sound travels in a vacuum by quoting links that show sound travels through air.
sounds like internet slap stick idiocy to me.

I think this is where you claim to be "dumbing down" your misunderstanding of basic science and obvious struggles with the English language.

my spidey sense tells me you will begin an elaborate dance routine before running away shouting infantile insults over your shoulder,

all I ask is that you actually read and understand the links you are quoting, analyse the data and form a coherent factual explanation,
Please
 

[/quote]

Papa managed to get himself banned for that one,  it was a classic.   He squealed and whined like a stuck pig.

Just wanna point this bullshit out.

How, exactly, could I squeal like a stuck pig when I'm banned, retard?

If I was banned then I couldn't post, could I?

But, in the miraculous instance that I somehow could post whilst banned, I'm sure Homie Rayzor can show these miracle-posts where I 'squealed like a stuck pig'?

Another Challenge for Homie Retard Rayzor to bottle...

Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2016, 03:29:37 AM

Papa managed to get himself banned for that one,  it was a classic.   He squealed and whined like a stuck pig.

Just wanna point this bullshit out.

How, exactly, could I squeal like a stuck pig when I'm banned, retard?

If I was banned then I couldn't post, could I?

But, in the miraculous instance that I somehow could post whilst banned, I'm sure Homie Rayzor can show these miracle-posts where I 'squealed like a stuck pig'?

Another Challenge for Homie Retard Rayzor to bottle...

Give me a reason why I should care?   If you want us to relive your past failures,  go to CN there's plenty to choose from.

Give me a reason why I should care?

So you don't care when you're revealed to be a compulsive liar?

More genuinely psychopathic behaviour.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2016, 04:36:24 PM

Give me a reason why I should care?

So you don't care when you're revealed to be a compulsive liar?

More genuinely psychopathic behaviour.

We are talking about you squealing and whining?   You get even worse when everyone ignores you.  Or have you forgotten those times as well?

And you are correct,  I'm not fussed about what a troll thinks.

Another repost
I see the one calling himself rayzor is still running about throwing psychological slurs around,
Even after it had being shown he does not understand the words being used.

Which I find strange because he displays ALL behaviours he accuses others of displaying,

Got my money rayzor ?
What about a reply that I have being waiting 6 pages for ?
No ?
Running ?

Bottled it ?

Rapidly turning pages will not save you rayzor.
Got my money ?

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 06:28:23 AM

Quote from: Runningdancingsoilednappywearingbottlerayzor on February 25, 2016, 03:31:03 AM

Just what "in your tiny mind"  constitutes "running away",  I'm still here, and you still look like a plonker.

Actively running away from your embarrassing scientific face plant fails ya bottler.

actively running away from your ridiculous statements.
I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP YOUR EMOTIONAL MELTDOWN TO THE TUNE OF A £1000 ENGLISH POUNDS,
CHECK  IPs AND IF PL AND MYSELF ARE INDEED THE SAME PERSON (EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY) I WILL GIVE YOU A GRAND.
IF YOUR DRIVEL TURNS OUT TO BE PARANOID RANTING YOU WILL GIVE ME A GRAND.
GET THE MODS TO OVERSEE AND PAY MY MONEY INTO A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.

SIMPLE.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE WAGER,
PROVE YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOTIC COMEDY INTERNET MOUTH PIECE.

NOPE DIDN'T THINK SO.
you have probably never seen a grand,
will just shit yourself,
continue the delusional posturing,
And........yup.....bottle it and run away 

it's actually quite sad to witness.

(do I really have to repost the obvious and embarrassing post that you claim you can't be bothered with ?
Bottler)

Just placing this here so globedebunker can find it easier.

Quote from: GlobeDebunker link=topic=65666.msg1762244#msg1762244 date=1456429022

The defendants (in this case) have promoted investigation!! Haha! We have asked multiple times for proofs that the moon expedition was a hoax. Not speculative jibber-jabber. 'I think this should do that, or that should be doing this, but I have nothing to confirm these suspicions'

What happens when the prosecutor doesn't have any concrete evidence of the 'crime'?
The prosecution is dismissed. If the suspect is still convicted, then the system is corrupt.

Maybe you could explain how outside sounds are recorded on the audio of Apollo movies in the vacuum of space,
We have already had the idea sound vibrated through the contact hand with tools and this is transferred onto the recording,
Bit of a stretch and has never being recorded on any post Apollo space movie.

But more than this sound is recorded travelling through the vacuum of space when no physical direct contact is evident (discounting the flimsy "drum skin" excuse),
Tiny little metallic rattles, subtle and soft noise, even crunching regolith.
The example given was slamming compartment lids on the lunar buggy with no direct physical contact with the suit,

Sound travelling through solids was offered but is obviously not relevant to the situation, and has not being recorded in a vacuum since.

Any reasoning should be universal,
We do not see this with modern ISS excursions,     
eye witness testimony confirms hand held tools transfer  no sound in the vacuum of space inside the suit,
nor has it being recorded.

how is this possible ?
How can one set of evidence contradict the other ?

Already established facts -
Lunar atmosphere is the same as that surrounding the ISS according to the defendant, a vacuum.
both suits have the same design, a layered skin filled with air,
Tools are made from the same materials,
vehicles are made with the same material,
modern audio is better quality.

Go.....

Another repost
I see the one calling himself rayzor is still running about throwing psychological slurs around,
Even after it had being shown he does not understand the words being used.

Which I find strange because he displays ALL behaviours he accuses others of displaying,

Got my money rayzor ?
What about a reply that I have being waiting 6 pages for ?
No ?
Running ?

Bottled it ?

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 06:56:23 AM

Rapidly turning pages will not save you rayzor.
Got my money ?

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 06:28:23 AM

Quote from: Runningdancingsoilednappywearingbottlerayzor on February 25, 2016, 03:31:03 AM

Just what "in your tiny mind"  constitutes "running away",  I'm still here, and you still look like a plonker.

Actively running away from your embarrassing scientific face plant fails ya bottler.

actively running away from your ridiculous statements.
I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP YOUR EMOTIONAL MELTDOWN TO THE TUNE OF A £1000 ENGLISH POUNDS,
CHECK  IPs AND IF PL AND MYSELF ARE INDEED THE SAME PERSON (EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY) I WILL GIVE YOU A GRAND.
IF YOUR DRIVEL TURNS OUT TO BE PARANOID RANTING YOU WILL GIVE ME A GRAND.
GET THE MODS TO OVERSEE AND PAY MY MONEY INTO A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.

SIMPLE.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE WAGER,
PROVE YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOTIC COMEDY INTERNET MOUTH PIECE.

NOPE DIDN'T THINK SO.
you have probably never seen a grand,
will just shit yourself,
continue the delusional posturing,
And........yup.....bottle it and run away 

it's actually quite sad to witness.

(do I really have to repost the obvious and embarrassing post that you claim you can't be bothered with ?
Bottler)

You still trying for plonker of the week award?     You got my vote days ago.   

Interesting side note,
anyone using a search engine looking for lunar sound in a vacuum will find this thread quite easily 

Anyway, was sent a link to one of the many ridiculous online strawmanathons about the lunar fable,

" 12. The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio transmission, but there is no sound heard, not even at touchdown. 

Reply: This one is pretty easy. sound transmission requires a medium. On earth, the engines would surely make alot of noise but in the vacuum atmosphere of the moon, with no air to act as a medium, sound should not be heard."

I could be wrong but pretty sure the official narrative states the descent engine was connected to the LM,
"sound propagation 101" ? 
Oops,
I sense trouble in paradise 

@ rayzor

Muttering under your breath is not impressing anyone.
You gave it the biggun and got slapped about,
Deal with it or man up and defend your position.

Bottler