moon hoax information index.

Phew....finally it appears observable controlled experiments, eye witness testimony, audio/video evidence, science and logic has triumphed.

More false claims from the villiage idiot.  Fails to understand sound propagation, ( after being explained dozens of times) so the pigeons conclude that moon landings must be faked.   

What a retard.

Wow. The indoctrinated are unbelievable. I suppose that when you are invested in a false truth, you must defend it with all your (puny) might.

As usual though, they lost on page one. It's become embarrassing.

HAHAHAHAHAhaha Oh no! You too? Really, I wonder more about your quality of life now than why you guys do this. Like, do you live a 'regular' life where you go out and have fun with your friends on Friday nights? Do you have friends? If so, what do they think of what you're doing on this forum? Do they even know about what you're doing here? I think the funniest part is that you apparently think that some sizable amount of the population is going to come here to learn. I know legba is from the UK so, it would be pretty easy to blame his situation on inbreeding... Really, I'd like to hear your 'true story', though I don't think i'd ever believe you even if it were true...

^Sock-puppet shill.

^Bullshit ignored.

I know legba is from the UK so, it would be pretty easy to blame his situation on inbreeding...

Not only inbred,  but they generally smell pretty bad.    Stand upwind during conversations with Papa.

Hey legion.

Me & feuk alluded to it briefly, but have you noticed this weird mimicking/mirroring thing all the sock/shills been doing recently too?

They started in late December, as if it was a plan.

Feuk thinks it may be a bot thing, but I'm more on the side of it being a blackmailed slave thing...

Operation Ore netted a LOT of useful idiots, I know this for a fact.

Whatever, we both noticed it; you got an opinion?

I sure have noticed buddy. No idea what they think they're up to though. No care either to be honest. Best to just ignore them and not let them get under your skin. globfunk seems close to the breakdown I predicted. It's probably a matter of days now.

I take it we still haven't any evidence or rational arguments put forward to defend the "moon landings"?

That's the indoctrinated for you. They'll cry, shout, scream and stomp about leaving the truth plain to see for the thinkers. 

I sure have noticed buddy. No idea what they think they're up to though.

My guess is they're just trying to make this place as toxic an environment as possible, whilst making up for the fact they have no sense of humour of their own by stealing other people's jokes.

Did you check out the JREF forum I mentioned btw?

If so, you'll notice the posters methods are EXACTLY the same as the clown derfers here; it's a well-spring of shillery for the entire internet.

It's the hub of the pseudo-skeptic movement & was started mainly to fight on behalf of big pharma against holistic medicine.

What is interesting is how the shills here are also anti-holistic inasmuch as they refuse to see things as a whole & strive to divide everything into an ultimately meaningless reductio ad absurdum...

Like, a rocket is not ONE object, it is 2, or 20, or 200 or 2000; or a gas does not behave as a whole but as individual clinking-clanking billiard-ball molecules...

The same could be said for their entire rickety clockwork cosmology in fact.

I believe this movement to be led by a few very cynical Shill leaders (hi markjo!), with a horde of Aspergers-affected Saps (hi sokarul & mikeman!) following their orders.

Then there's the blackmailed paedophiles Military Intelligence loves to employ to chuck in the mix too (hi Rayzor!); seems they've all decided to work together against myself for now...

Lulzy!

These entities all deliberately set out to target, infiltrate & take over any website or forum that stands against their sick agenda...

And they have clearly succeeded here.

It's a filthy, rotten business, as sordid as anything you could imagine...

But it's a Job, I guess?

Albeit one fit only for psychopaths.

Quote from: legion on March 12, 2016, 07:11:20 AM

I sure have noticed buddy. No idea what they think they're up to though.

My guess is they're just trying to make this place as toxic an environment as possible, whilst making up for the fact they have no sense of humour of their own by stealing other people's jokes.

Did you check out the JREF forum I mentioned btw?

If so, you'll notice the posters methods are EXACTLY the same as the clown derfers here; it's a well-spring of shillery for the entire internet.

It's the hub of the pseudo-skeptic movement & was started mainly to fight on behalf of big pharma against holistic medicine.

What is interesting is how the shills here are also anti-holistic inasmuch as they refuse to see things as a whole & strive to divide everything into an ultimately meaningless reductio ad absurdum...

Like, a rocket is not ONE object, it is 2, or 20, or 200 or 2000; or a gas does not behave as a whole but as individual clinking-clanking billiard-ball molecules...

The same could be said for their entire rickety clockwork cosmology in fact.

I believe this movement to be led by a few very cynical Shill leaders (hi markjo!), with a horde of Aspergers-affected Saps (hi sokarul & mikeman!) following their orders.

Then there's the blackmailed paedophiles Military Intelligence loves to employ to chuck in the mix too (hi Rayzor!); seems they've all decided to work together against myself for now...

Lulzy!

These entities all deliberately set out to target, infiltrate & take over any website or forum that stands against their sick agenda...

And they have clearly succeeded here.

It's a filthy, rotten business, as sordid as anything you could imagine...

But it's a Job, I guess?

Albeit one fit only for psychopaths.

I generally put it down to the amount of stupid people who wrongly believe themselves to be clever. We've got loads of them here. I believe they flock around markjo because they are impressed by his post count. The indoctrinated are easily impressed. But, you may be right and the trolls are paying a debt to their masters by disrupting our discussions here. Because that is all they do. Disrupt.

Yep, I looked at that forum (briefly). It's not for me, that's for sure.

I don't think you appreciate how easy it is for a small amount of people using multiple accounts, simple software & basic psychological gambits to create the impression of a vast horde.

For example, the total number of paid NASA shills we are up against probably does not exceed 30.

It is a VERY small group responsible for all the shite; this is VERY important to note.

Google 'wikipediawehaveaproblem' for the first step on the journey into this extraordinary method of spreading false consensus & propaganda.

Another useful resource on the whole pseudo-skeptic/JREF shill movement is the youtube channel 'Steve Trueblue'.

While I neither endorse nor condemn the man's religious beliefs, he has amassed a lot of good info on who is behind the pseudoskeptic cult & how they operate.

One relevant observation he makes is that, after being online harassed & stalked by a seemingly endless stream of the scum, he went to a Sydney meeting of their Skeptic organisation & found only 12 attendees.

Yup; 12 of em in a city of 4 million.

Told you; we outnumber these madmen.

And their entire raison d'etre & modus operandi is designed to give us the impression we DON'T.

Sad, sad, sad little fellas they are...

Worth a lol?

Hell yes - worth a LMFAO in fact!!!

Anyone checked out the youtube channel 'Steve Trueblue' yet?

You should; lotta good info on Randi, JREF & the pseudoskeptic movement that spawned all the Clown Derf shills here.

The comment sections are enlightening too.

Might wanna look at Christopher Bollyn's expose of the slimeballs behind it all as well...

Funded by the Military, apparently.

Which is what I been saying all along.

Worth a look, readers!

Quote from: feuk on March 11, 2016, 06:45:11 AM

Phew....finally it appears observable controlled experiments, eye witness testimony, audio/video evidence, science and logic has triumphed.

More false claims from the villiage idiot.  Fails to understand sound propagation, ( after being explained dozens of times) so the pigeons conclude that moon landings must be faked.   

What a retard.

Dry your eyes Dame Edna,

You are starting to sound like a bad loser,
which is strange considering your claims.

Your xenophobic blistered off topic meltdown only reinforces the fact you have offered nothing that does not debunk itself.

hilarious that the science involved had you panicked and reduced your argument to refusing to engage and relying on evasion, strawman arguments and childish name calling.
 
I know that the deep hatred you display is not for me,
rather it's self hatred because you feel duped by your own belief system.
not being able to scientifically prove the point you are obviously emotionally invested in is going to hurt,
Don't be too hard on yourself,
eventually the information will settle in, you will forgive yourself, and start to question exactly how that happened.

We have all been there,

I hope you find a painless head space sooner rather than later.

(I thought maybe you have answered the post that you left hanging unanswered for 21 pages,
am I to assume you flat refuse to discuss the science ?)

Face it,  you lost the debate,  big time,  now you are just flapping your wings.   Dumbass  pigeon.

What 'debate'?

You mean the one you ran away from all thread?

Kinda think feuk schooled you on that one, Evil Edna...

Nobody went to teh munn in a 1960s flying trashcan, Edna; only retards still believe that.

Feel free to hop in a sock-poopet & say 'NO U!!!' though...

Cos no-one notices that's all you do here.

LOL!!!

Yes they do, Slave!

Face it,  you lost the debate,  big time,  now you are just flapping your wings.   Dumbass  pigeon.

Got a link 

no ?

Strange that.

 

here's your quote 

Any chance of a direct on topic reply from a few pages back ?
you seem to have missed it (again),
I will requote it 

(btw I CANNOT POST VIDEO OR IMAGES, reasons unknown but it is mentioned numerous times on this very thread, you must be confused  )

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on March 10, 2016, 09:03:45 AM

Quote from: feuk on March 09, 2016, 12:46:25 AM

@ the non debunking debunker.

Post your most compelling evidence that men went to the moon,

[paraphrase] "no because I'm scared and haven't really looked into it"

See above for controlled experiment,
Response ?
Didn't think so.

any response to my post a few pages back ?
No ?
Didn't think so.

yup IM the troll 

you are probably just sore that the few times you offered anything on this thread you got shown up 
Would you like the links ?

keep running 

You don't have anything close to a controlled experiment (but feel free to post your links again for the 90th time!). I don't care to look into it because the factuality of the moon expedition has no impact on my life (I'm sure you will not understand my pathology here). I know it is possible (rockets CAN work in space...). Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant at this point. However, I am not insinuating that I believe for a second that it did not happen. You still don't get it (Or you do, and yes, YOU are the troll). You have one example that you cannot explain. And I'm paraphrasing here but; "I can't explain it, so the whole thing was a hoax!"

I find it funny that you never quote me. I think it's because you are afraid of my superior reasoning. I know you hate it when I call you out, because you never address my points directly. You post an unreasonable amount of video etc. to indirectly discourage the reader to actually look into it. Proving or disproving something should be as easy as providing one or two examples for each instance, not "Here's 90 pages of me rambling, then if you can't see the impossibilities- you're an idiot". I'll say it again, I thought this was the moon hoax information index. You want to know what I think is the most convincing piece of information about the moon expedition? ALL OF IT

This is still from page 26 

From page 26 
The blistered bumbling bottler is still to give a response,

Please look out for the eye witness testimony regarding "sound propagation" in the vacuum of space,
 " 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.  "

Of course the plea is there needs to be "sufficient contact", I think a hand held metal tool hit on metal qualifies as "sufficient contact", but "you don't hear a thing",
and of course not to forget sound was recorded on the Apollo audio with NO contact, which I suggest is debunking the "sufficient contact" plea.

ask why rayzors feet are blistered to buggery due to running away from this post,
obvious isn't it ?

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 from: feuk on March 03, 2016, 11:50:17 AM

Here you go (again) 
Running away ?

Quote from: feuk on March 03, 2016, 02:50:31 AM

Here you go,
You must have missed it over the last four pages 
 

Quote from: feuk on March 02, 2016, 06:15:21 AM

Guys ? 

Quote from: feuk on March 01, 2016, 08:10:19 AM

Guys ? 
bottling it ?
Is this evasive behaviour compulsory to be a member of the moon landing congregation ?

Quote from: feuk on February 28, 2016, 01:05:56 AM

Guys ?
 

Quote from: feuk on February 26, 2016, 09:42:52 AM

Don't do a rayzor guys,
At least attempt to counter the evidence,
If you can.

Quote from: feuk on February 26, 2016, 06:47:26 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 26, 2016, 06:33:58 AM

Everyone who knows people have walked on the moon?

Cool.....

Heeey have you seen the Apollo movies where sound is recorded during  excursions into the lunar vacuum ?

I heard the sound travelled inside the suits from the vacuum outside,
Or travelling through solids then travelling through the suits.
Trouble is sound is recorded in the vacuum where no physical contact occurs,
and the deafening noise of the engines never travelled through the LM onto the audio.

The plot thickens when we realise non of these phenomena happen in the vacuum around the ISS according to the audio record and eye witness testimony.

can that be true ?

Quote from: feuk on February 26, 2016, 05:59:29 AM

Quote from: feuk on February 26, 2016, 05:18:34 AM

Quote from: feuk on February 26, 2016, 02:08:41 AM

Just placing this here so globedebunker can find it easier.

Quote from: feuk on February 25, 2016, 12:14:29 PM

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.....

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 01:54:08 PM

Hey legion.

Me & feuk alluded to it briefly, but have you noticed this weird mimicking/mirroring thing all the sock/shills been doing recently too?

They started in late December, as if it was a plan.

Feuk thinks it may be a bot thing, but I'm more on the side of it being a blackmailed slave thing...

Operation Ore netted a LOT of useful idiots, I know this for a fact.

Whatever, we both noticed it; you got an opinion?

I sure have noticed buddy. No idea what they think they're up to though. No care either to be honest. Best to just ignore them and not let them get under your skin. globfunk seems close to the breakdown I predicted. It's probably a matter of days now.

I take it we still haven't any evidence or rational arguments put forward to defend the "moon landings"?

That's the indoctrinated for you. They'll cry, shout, scream and stomp about leaving the truth plain to see for the thinkers.

Haha! You guys truly are comical. You, legba, and feuk are like the three stooges. Always running into each other and poking each others' eyes out and then slapping yourselves unknowingly. I am as eager as you to see this professed breakdown of mine.

I know you guys don't really know that I know this, so I'll spell it out for you:
1. This forum is not a place where people come to learn and if they are; they probably deserve to be mislead by you. Some people come here to keep retards, such as yourselves, from spreading lies, but they know enough to know that just about everything you post is utter nonsense. It's just that most of them can't see that you know you're an idiot just as much as they know you're an idiot.
2. You do not believe the crap that you post anymore than I do. (Or maybe you do, and I'm just giving you wayyy too much credit.)
3. The type of people that you prey on are the people mentioned in point #1.
4. I am the type mentioned in point #1, BUT I can tell when losers like you are BSing. I'm a ginger and a Texan, so my BS-detector is quite well attune to your 'style', and I've seen it done much better; trust me.
5. Every time you decide to post, you're breaking a little bit more into my game. It's kind of a shame though. I thought you guys would have been at least a little bit better prepared. At least legba is smart enough to just claim I'm an idiot/shill/sock-puppet, so: "ignore".

Feuk we already explained it to you. No need to post your previous posts and pretend we never answered them.

Feuk we already explained it to you. No need to post your previous posts and pretend we never answered them.

The chess playing analogy fits this feucker perfectly,  he just shat all over his own thread,  yet again.   Wait for a bit and he'll be back flapping his wings telling us he thinks he won.

PS.  Moon landings were real,  get over it.

Feuk we already explained it to you. No need to post your previous posts and pretend we never answered them.

Ah, yes, of course.
below is your explanation.
Strange that your explanation states no propagation through a solid is "expected",
and share the revelation sound travels through air.

Look carefully below,
Did you answer the issues directly ?

the answer is nope,
Just more contradictory nonsense and evasion.

Quote from: sokarul on March 10, 2016, 04:00:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 09, 2016, 04:20:23 PM

Nothing you posted goes against anything we said. Do you want me to tell you what you are missing or are you going to figure it out?

Alright here is what you can't comprehend.

In the airlock, the sound goes away for a person standing at window. It's right in your quote. This is 100 percent expected.

When astronauts are working outside and bang on the outside of the ISS, the sound travels inside to where there is air. Thus sound can be heard inside the ISS. This is 100 percent expected.

And then the hammering is self explanatory.
   

sweet Jesus.......was that the big reveal ?

Sound travels through air and not through a vacuum ?

Your "we" have being insisting sound travels through solids in the vacuum then it can be heard once the sound reaches air,
All well and good in theory,
But now you are saying the sound disappears with the air, even when travelling through solids and back into an air filled environment where the observer is standing, and this is "to be expected" .

The small air lock is solid,
The attached air filled ISS is solid,
The distance for travel is small,
the sound was heard when air was present,
now in a vacuum no sound is heard by the observer in air looking through the window into the air lock  that is now a vacuum,

you say "this is to be expected" at the same time as we should expect sound propagation through solids and back into  air.
     
no one said sound can't travel through air in the ISS,     
It was used by the "we" as evidence sound travels through a vacuum 
   
 
The issue you accidentally forgot to comprehend was where is the"drum skin" phenomena for the astronaut, who is banging on the outside of the ISS, and it is silent.

seems to me you have tied yourself up into knots,
needing to avoid some issues whilst at the same time claiming both contradictory expectations are accurate 

Contradiction amongst the "we",
Strawman arguments,
and evasion.

why am I not surprised.

The chess playing analogy fits this feucker perfectly,  he just shat all over his own thread,  yet again.   Wait for a bit and he'll be back flapping his wings telling us he thinks he won.

PS.  Moon landings were real,  get over it.

 
Still waiting for the blistered bottler to reply to a post that's celebrating it's 21st anniversary.

Guess what,
You bottled it and are simply trying to wait it out desperately praying it gets buried,

bottler.

PS. The moon landings were complete bollocks, get over it.

(sound travelling through the vacuum  )

Can you provide the footage where sound is propagating through a vacuum?

Quote from: sokarul on March 14, 2016, 03:18:12 PM

Feuk we already explained it to you. No need to post your previous posts and pretend we never answered them.

Ah, yes, of course.
below is your explanation.
Strange that your explanation states no propagation through a solid is "expected",
and share the revelation sound travels through air.

Look carefully below,
Did you answer the issues directly ?

the answer is nope,
Just more contradictory nonsense and evasion.

Quote from: feuk on March 11, 2016, 12:53:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 10, 2016, 04:00:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 09, 2016, 04:20:23 PM

Nothing you posted goes against anything we said. Do you want me to tell you what you are missing or are you going to figure it out?

Alright here is what you can't comprehend.

In the airlock, the sound goes away for a person standing at window. It's right in your quote. This is 100 percent expected.

When astronauts are working outside and bang on the outside of the ISS, the sound travels inside to where there is air. Thus sound can be heard inside the ISS. This is 100 percent expected.

And then the hammering is self explanatory.
   

sweet Jesus.......was that the big reveal ?

Sound travels through air and not through a vacuum ?

Your "we" have being insisting sound travels through solids in the vacuum then it can be heard once the sound reaches air,
All well and good in theory,
But now you are saying the sound disappears with the air, even when travelling through solids and back into an air filled environment where the observer is standing, and this is "to be expected" .

The small air lock is solid,
The attached air filled ISS is solid,
The distance for travel is small,
the sound was heard when air was present,
now in a vacuum no sound is heard by the observer in air looking through the window into the air lock  that is now a vacuum,

you say "this is to be expected" at the same time as we should expect sound propagation through solids and back into  air.
     
no one said sound can't travel through air in the ISS,     
It was used by the "we" as evidence sound travels through a vacuum 
   
 
The issue you accidentally forgot to comprehend was where is the"drum skin" phenomena for the astronaut, who is banging on the outside of the ISS, and it is silent.

seems to me you have tied yourself up into knots,
needing to avoid some issues whilst at the same time claiming both contradictory expectations are accurate 

Contradiction amongst the "we",
Strawman arguments,
and evasion.

why am I not surprised.

Back to your problem. You can't visualize two objects in 3d space in your mind. Banging on the wall and hearing it on the other side is not the same thing as banging on a wall and hearing it down the hallway. Two very different scenarios.

Understand yet?

Can you provide the footage where sound is propagating through a vacuum?

Have you not seen the excursion segments of the Apollo movies ?
sounds recorded from outside in the vacuum are ubiquitous.
movies in the public domain for nearly fifty years,
and, apparently, rigorously studied.

Shouldn't be hard for you to see/hear the evidence.
I suggest later missions with rattling moon buggy compartment lids because of the lack of suit contact and the subtlety of sound.

.
Back to your problem. You can't visualize two objects in 3d space in your mind. Banging on the wall and hearing it on the other side is not the same thing as banging on a wall and hearing it down the hallway. Two very different scenarios.

Understand yet?

I understand you are desperately avoiding the actual discussion.
"two objects in 3d space" 

Wall banging and hallways in air have nothing to do with the lack of sound propagation in the eye witness testimony from the ISS,

what's next, a horse eating an apple through a tennis racket ? 

the observer is not "down the hallway" in an air filled complex,
He is on the other side of an air lock door.
and states the sound of tools and equipment hitting the walls disappears with the air,
the walls, that happen to be solid and attached to the air lock doors,
and the attached solid walls and door happen to be in air on the observers side.

Further, according to the pro Apollo narrative someone hitting tools on the outside of the ISS would experience the "drum skin" phenomena, this does not happen, and has never being recorded,

Forget your ridiculous analogies, we are not discussing hypotheticals but actual testimony and evidence,
but maybe the actual evidence does not support your opposing argument.

Quote from: sokarul on March 15, 2016, 02:00:08 PM

.
Back to your problem. You can't visualize two objects in 3d space in your mind. Banging on the wall and hearing it on the other side is not the same thing as banging on a wall and hearing it down the hallway. Two very different scenarios.

Understand yet?

I understand you are desperately avoiding the actual discussion.
"two objects in 3d space" 

Not being able to picture objects in your mind is no laughing matter.

Wall banging and hallways in air have nothing to do with the lack of sound propagation in the eye witness testimony from the ISS,

Actually it's closer than you think. You can't seem to grasp that sound moving from one side of a wall to the other is different than sound traveling in air.

what's next, a horse eating an apple through a tennis racket ? 

Pretend fe'ers have come up with much worse.

the observer is not "down the hallway" in an air filled complex,
He is on the other side of an air lock door.

Yes, that is in no way on the other side of the wall with has physical contact being made to it. Understand?

and states the sound of tools and equipment hitting the walls disappears with the air,
the walls, that happen to be solid and attached to the air lock doors,
and the attached solid walls and door happen to be in air on the observers side.

So you think sound should act the same traveling along a wall appose to through it?

Further, according to the pro Apollo narrative someone hitting tools on the outside of the ISS would experience the "drum skin" phenomena, this does not happen, and has never being recorded,

Do you even know what is meant by "drum skin"? Sound is being created, not transferred.
I'm still waiting for the videos that supposedly show sound that shouldn't be present.

Forget your ridiculous analogies, we are not discussing hypotheticals but actual testimony and evidence,
but maybe the actual evidence does not support your opposing argument.

Everything posted support my claims.

1 -

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

They are near.

2-

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Moon is looking to wrong direction.

3-

http://i65.tinypic.com/5p1v9e.jpg

@ soko

"everything posted supports my claims" 

In reality you are now ditching the "sound propagation" corner stone of the last 20 + pages,
now claiming that somehow sound only travels "through" solids and not "along" them,
that Apollo space suits created their own sound and is not transferring external sounds,

And you still cannot address the direct testimony, evidence or science,
and are yet to offer one citation for any of you rapidly flip flopping positions on the subject.

Simply pretending I can't visualise " two objects in 3d space" is possibly the weakest argument on this thread (and considering rayzors contributions that is saying something).

In conclusion you debunk your own arguments without ever offering any citations along the way,
you are at odds to all the other claims made by the other Apollo huggers on this thread,
and even go against most internet Apollo huggers arguments.

So let's see some links, citations and evidence,
please.

(I also notice you want spoon feeding the Apollo evidence, the evidence from the public domain, that has allegedly being scrutinised for nearly 50 years. Simply go back and watch the excursion segments of the movies, examples have being given ad nauseam.
If you prefer anti science and wilful ignorance.....then.....well....fair play.
Good for you)

1 - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
They are near.
2- " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Moon is looking to wrong direction.
3-http://i65.tinypic.com/5p1v9e.jpg

Honestly I do not know what your problem is!
At the full moon the moon rises at the same time as sun sets and the moon sets at the same time as the sun rises.
During all the other phases of the moon there must be some time when both the sun and moon are in the sky together.
Finally, at the time of the new moon the moon is at almost the same location in the sky as the sun, but we cannot see it because of the glare of the sun and we are facing the dark side of the moon.

This is well known as has been known for millennia and fits exactly with the Globe Earth.  As I said, where is the problem?