Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

Once again you fail to provide any evidence of NASA lies.

Imagine a small group of biologists going to the most specialised zoo in existance.

Let me stop you right there.  Of the 12 astronauts who walked on the moon, only one (Harrison Schmitt) was actually a scientist (a geologist).  The other 11 were mostly military test pilots.

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

Once again you fail to provide any evidence of NASA lies.

After you, rabinoz and frenat try to answer my questions in detailed fashion....i will show you the lies.

Come on....why are you so afraid of a few questions ? I am not an evil teacher who hands out F's....

Or are you yelow ?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 06:58:36 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

Once again you fail to provide any evidence of NASA lies.

After you, rabinoz and frenat try to answer my questions in detailed fashion....i will show you the lies.

Come on....why are you so afraid of a few questions ? I am not an evil teacher who hands out F's....

Or are you yelow ?

I guess the question is, why are you trying to deflect?  You have been asked many times over several weeks but you keep trying to divert attention.
Again, you are the one presenting a model contrary to the accepted one, which is totally fine, but the burden of proof is on you.  You simply refuse to provide any.

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 09:08:37 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 06:58:36 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

Once again you fail to provide any evidence of NASA lies.

After you, rabinoz and frenat try to answer my questions in detailed fashion....i will show you the lies.

Come on....why are you so afraid of a few questions ? I am not an evil teacher who hands out F's....

Or are you yelow ?

I guess the question is, why are you trying to deflect?  You have been asked many times over several weeks but you keep trying to divert attention.
Again, you are the one presenting a model contrary to the accepted one, which is totally fine, but the burden of proof is on you.  You simply refuse to provide any.

The questions are above....did you miss them ?

A model that is accepted by the vast majority of people who would accept any model isn't proof of anything at all.
In George Orwell's 1984 it was part of the storyline that the rulers behind the screens could switch between mathematical models when it suited their propaganda.
The vast majority on earth cannot answer the basics of a supposed globe whirling through space....to the contrary.

The problem with your globe is that it is part of a big bang, inflation of the early universe, formation of stars, formation of planets, expanding and accelerating universe..resulting in a tilted, wobbling and speeding ball.
The whole package is glued to your globe model....without the whole package there would be no ball as proposed by the current cosmologists.
The very globe model uhhh peer shaped spheroid,  could not have formed without all other aspects as mentioned.

You have provided zero proof for the whole package......zero....just hypothetical wetdreams of mathematicians.
Sure you and the likes of rabinoz want to talk about the globe.....the globe comes in a total cosmic package, otherwise the very formation of our current accepted globe is impossible.
And you have provided zero proof for the total package and ask me to proof a flatearth ?
Your cosmological model (and thus the cause for a ball shaped earth) only works through the magic powers of dark energy and dark matter......but it isn't there.
It is very likely that all hypothetical conclusions about the current model incl. ball earth are in error.
If the hypothetical universe is not what the hypothetical model thought it was,....then earth cannot be shaped as a ball !!!!!
Gravity and other powers caused the very shape of a ball as promoted.
The current ball shaped earth could be formed only when ALL hypothesis are confirmed,......which no one ever has.


We are just arrived at the point that we dismiss the current hypothetical model that was the cause for the very nature of ''ball earth''.

Care to answer some questions about the visibility of stars in outerspace and on the daylightside of the lunar surface ?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 12:08:18 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 09:08:37 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 06:58:36 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

Once again you fail to provide any evidence of NASA lies.

After you, rabinoz and frenat try to answer my questions in detailed fashion....i will show you the lies.

Come on....why are you so afraid of a few questions ? I am not an evil teacher who hands out F's....

Or are you yelow ?

I guess the question is, why are you trying to deflect?  You have been asked many times over several weeks but you keep trying to divert attention.
Again, you are the one presenting a model contrary to the accepted one, which is totally fine, but the burden of proof is on you.  You simply refuse to provide any.

The questions are above....did you miss them ?

A model that is accepted by the vast majority of people who would accept any model isn't proof of anything at all.
In George Orwell's 1984 it was part of the storyline that the rulers behind the screens could switch between mathematical models when it suited their propaganda.
The vast majority on earth cannot answer the basics of a supposed globe whirling through space....to the contrary.

The problem with your globe is that it is part of a big bang, inflation of the early universe, formation of stars, formation of planets, expanding and accelarating universe, titlted, wobbling and speeding ball.
The whole package is glued to your globe model....without the whole package there would be no ball as proposed by the current cosmologists.
The very globe model uhhh peer shaped spheroid,  could not have formed without all other aspects as mentioned.

You have provided zero proof for the whole package......zero....just hypothetical wetdreams of mathematicians.
Sure you and the likes of rabinoz want to talk about the globe.....the globe comes in a total cosmic package, otherwise the very formation of our current accepted globe is impossible.
And you have provided zero proof for the total package and ask me to proof a flatearth ?
Your cosmological model (and thus the cause for a ball shaped earth) only works through the magic powers of dark energy and dark matter......but it isn't there.
It is very likely that all hypothetical conclusions about the current model incl. ball earth are in error.
If the hypothetical universe is not what the hypothetical model thought it was,....then earth cannot be shaped as a ball !!!!!
Gravity and other powers caused the very shape of a ball as promoted.
The current ball shaped earth could be formed only when ALL hypothesis are confirmed,......which no one ever has.


We are just arrived at the point that we dismiss the current hypothetical model that was the cause for the very nature of ''ball earth''.

Care to answer some questions about the visibility of stars in outerspace and on the daylightside of the lunar surface ?

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept.  your continued attempts at diversion make you look really weak.
You are presenting the alternative model.  The burden of proof is on you.  There is really not much point in going forward if you cannot offer any evidence.

The problem with your globe is that it is part of a big bang, inflation of the early universe, formation of stars, formation of planets, expanding and accelerating universe..resulting in a tilted, wobbling and speeding ball.
The whole package is glued to your globe model....without the whole package there would be no ball as proposed by the current cosmologists.
The very globe model uhhh peer shaped spheroid,  could not have formed without all other aspects as mentioned.

You have provided zero proof for the whole package......zero....just hypothetical wetdreams of mathematicians.
Sure you and the likes of rabinoz want to talk about the globe.....the globe comes in a total cosmic package, otherwise the very formation of our current accepted globe is impossible.
And you have provided zero proof for the total package and ask me to proof a flatearth ?
Your cosmological model (and thus the cause for a ball shaped earth) only works through the magic powers of dark energy and dark matter......but it isn't there.
It is very likely that all hypothetical conclusions about the current model incl. ball earth are in error.
If the hypothetical universe is not what the hypothetical model thought it was,....then earth cannot be shaped as a ball !!!!!
Gravity and other powers caused the very shape of a ball as promoted.
The current ball shaped earth could be formed only when ALL hypothesis are confirmed,......which no one ever has.

You seem to be implying that the earth can only be a globe if the present theories of the history of the cosmos are correct.

Are you unable to see how wrong this is? The earth is observably a globe today. It may have popped into existence last Thursday, no matter, it is still a globe.

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept.  your continued attempts at diversion make you look really weak.
You are presenting the alternative model.  The burden of proof is on you.  There is really not much point in going forward if you cannot offer any evidence.

Mirror on the wall ?

I am starting from scratch........
If you payed attention for once i only focus on two items.
No moonlandings and other exotic cosmic achievements and no measerable curvature.
I came to that conclusions providing sufficiant proof for such proposition that you ignore.....
You want to change the goalpost, because you present curvature as a given fact while it is clearly not there...and moon missions that have clearly not happened as described by astronauts and NASA spokesmen.

In both cases you are the one applying diversionary tactics.
And if i would be in your position, answering silly questions about the stars would be my pleasure any day, anytime.....
But you won't , can't and try everything you can to avoid them.
Even for the sake of intellectualism you should be proud to give cristal clear answers about the visuality of stars in outerspace ...my attitude shouldn't make a difference whatsoever.

You seem to be implying that the earth can only be a globe if the present theories of the history of the cosmos are correct.

Are you unable to see how wrong this is? The earth is observably a globe today. It may have popped into existence last Thursday, no matter, it is still a globe.

So you think apart from the ball shape the rest is still open for debate then ?
The tilt, the inner core, the rotation ,the sun's gravitational pull etc ?

Because if it isn't...then you do support what i wrote....contrary to the impression you are giving in this post.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 07, 2018, 01:20:14 PM

You seem to be implying that the earth can only be a globe if the present theories of the history of the cosmos are correct.

Are you unable to see how wrong this is? The earth is observably a globe today. It may have popped into existence last Thursday, no matter, it is still a globe.

So you think apart from the ball shape the rest is still open for debate then ?
The tilt, the inner core, the rotation ,the sun's gravitational pull etc ?

Because if it isn't...then you do support what i wrote....contrary to the impression you are giving in this post.

Just to be clear, I don't remotely support what you wrote.

My point is that the earth is observably a globe and this is independent of what its history might be. Are you unable to understand that point?

Just to be clear, I don't remotely support what you wrote.

My point is that the earth is observably a globe and this is independent of what its history might be. Are you unable to understand that point?

Wow....you have observed the entire globe ?

Or do you rely on secondary info that gets trashed more and more by flatearthers ? Like space fakery......
Even the very basics are never shown....a measurable curvature that confirms the hypothesis of a ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 07, 2018, 01:38:08 PM

Just to be clear, I don't remotely support what you wrote.

My point is that the earth is observably a globe and this is independent of what its history might be. Are you unable to understand that point?

Wow....you have observed the entire globe ?

Or do you rely on secondary info that gets trashed more and more by flatearthers ? Like space fakery......
Even the very basics are never shown....a measurable curvature that confirms the hypothesis of a ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.

Do you think the earth is not observably a globe? There is a great deal of evidence, of which I'm sure you're aware. If you have contrary evidence, bring it on.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 01:10:01 PM

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept.  your continued attempts at diversion make you look really weak.
You are presenting the alternative model.  The burden of proof is on you.  There is really not much point in going forward if you cannot offer any evidence.

Mirror on the wall ?

I am starting from scratch........
If you payed attention for once i only focus on two items.
No moonlandings and other exotic cosmic achievements and no measerable curvature.
I came to that conclusions providing sufficiant proof for such proposition that you ignore.....
You want to change the goalpost, because you present curvature as a given fact while it is clearly not there...and moon missions that have clearly not happened as described by astronauts and NASA spokesmen.

In both cases you are the one applying diversionary tactics.
And if i would be in your position, answering silly questions about the stars would be my pleasure any day, anytime.....
But you won't , can't and try everything you can to avoid them.
Even for the sake of intellectualism you should be proud to give cristal clear answers about the visuality of stars in outerspace ...my attitude shouldn't make a difference whatsoever.

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

. . . . . . .

You want to change the goalpost, because you present curvature as a given fact while it is clearly not there

You claim, "clearly not there"! just where have you shown any evidence that it is "clearly not there".
Saying something is "clearly not there" is quite impossible to prove - you clearly didn't look in the right place.
And, haven't you ever noticed the a lost item is always  in the last place you look!

Here's some curvature, first from low level:

More in: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain << And those that claim do have debunked Soundly are dead wrong! >>

When you get high enough, it certainly looks curved to me!

From near sea-level, sure looks perfectly flat and level, but the sharp horizon is still evidence of a near horizon and hence of "curved water".

From Concorde, 50,000 ft, maybe a bit of a curve there.

Losing Your Ride at 121,000 Feet - starting to look convincing! From a Flat Earther's video.

That sure looks curved to me, from about 200 miles.

There sure seems to be curvature there, but the earth is huge and you do need to know how and where to look for it!

...and moon missions that have clearly not happened as described by astronauts and NASA spokesmen.

From your very biased subjective interpretation of what you see in reports and recording of what they say.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 02:19:26 PM

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

Lol.  That isn't even evidence, let alone proof.  This has been explained to you many times.   Other astronauts, when stepping into the shade and giving their eyes time to adjust, did see stars.
You chose to ignore this, but your ignorance doesn't make it evidence.
Was that it?  Nothing else?

RE: The power lines phenomenon of Lake Pontchartrain were settled to be a victory for FE.

RE: The hull of close and distant ship is not proven to be evidence of a round Earth...period.

RE: The power lines phenomenon of Lake Pontchartrain were settled to be a victory for FE.

RE: The hull of close and distant ship is not proven to be evidence of a round Earth...period.

Actually pontchartrain favors RE and ships disappearing over the horizon are not proof, they do indicate a round earth.
So, no.

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 02:19:26 PM

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

Lol.  That isn't even evidence, let alone proof.  This has been explained to you many times.   Other astronauts, when stepping into the shade and giving their eyes time to adjust, did see stars.
You chose to ignore this, but your ignorance doesn't make it evidence.
Was that it?  Nothing else?

We are not talking about ''other astronauts'' are we ? But Apollo 11 featering ''Neil Armstrong''.
He didn't see any stars ever on the daylightside of the moon.....not while gazing upwards,......not in the shade.....
That is 100% impossible, the more while Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly points out to the contrary.

Like i said...Neil Armstrong was anywhere, but on the moon.
He had the oppertunity to explain exactly what, when and where he did see stars on the daylightside of the lunar surface.....and he didn't see a single one !!
Supported by a pro NASA site :
The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

See ? it is confirmed that the Apollo 11 crew did not see stars on the daylightside of the moon ever.
During their hours on the daylight surface on the moon impossible, if you walk around, enter the shade, gaze upwards and walk around !!!
Even accidentally they would have seen stars somewhere....and according to Neil deGrasse Tyson it would be inevitable while standing on the daylight surface of the moon !

Look away all you want, but you should really eat the proof....it's mighty tasty !!

Apollo 11 is completely busted !

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The latter was pre recorded,not live, and a woman and hundreds in Western Australia ( so please refrain from comments that state otherwise)saw a coke bottle during their recorded version of a supposed live event.
Did you see the coke bottle too ? The tv studio received dozens of phonecalls of people who did !
And i was two at the time and cannot recall the pre recorded event.

I have meant to get back to you on the "coke bottle":

• NO, I did not see any coke-bottle - but I wasn't really looking for one.
• Please show some evidence that there actually was a coke-bottle, say a video or something like that.
• Please show some independent evidence that there actually were, "The tv studio received dozens of phonecalls of people who did!"
• Please show some independent evidence that there actually were, "hundreds in Western Australia", apart from Una Ronald.
• Did the woman see the live TV broadcast or a pre-recorded one?

As in all of these things, there is "the other side" - see CLAVIUS, Una Ronald and the coke bottle.

And from: ApolloHoax.net, Una Ronald Stuff. I've only quoted the bits that seemed relevant, but the rest is in the link.

Obviousman		For Jay: I'm back home in Perth for a brief holiday, and so I thought I'd visit the State Library to look back over the Apollo news reports. I looked at both the WEST AUSTRALIAN and the DAILY NEWS for the period 20-28 JUL 69, and can re-confirm that neither newspaper had any letters which mentioned the "coke bottle" incident. The letters - if they involved Apollo - were generally in praise of the landing, or against it saying how it was a waste of money better spent on Earth. I can also confirm the broadcast times. Armstrong stepped onto the moon at 1058 Perth time (i.e. the morning) with Aldrin at 1116. There were repeats throughout the day, starting at 1750 on Channel 7 (40 mins duration), 1830 on Channel 9 (30 mins duration), and 1955 on Channel 2 (145 mins duration). The lunar ascent coverage started at 2105 on Ch 7 (35 mins), with Ch9 doing a "Three Hour Moon Coverage" starting at 2230. (All times from the final edition of the Daily News, 21 JUL 69, TV schedule, page 6).
Kiwi		Dwight and Obviousman: I've done a 49-page typescript of about 100 of the Apollo 11 articles in the West Australian between 11 July and 15 August 1969. I've mentioned a few times here that anyone is welcome to a copy -- PM me with email address if so. I had the microfilms sent over to New Zealand so I could back up Peter B's research into Una Ronald, and took photocopies of about 100 articles, then scanned and typed them. There were only nine letters about Apollo 11, and none of them mentioned a "Coke bottle." One letter-writer seemed to think that US taxpayers should have been forking out to ensure that toilets in West Australia flushed properly.

So where did these letters to the paper come from?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 03:26:32 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 02:19:26 PM

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

Lol.  That isn't even evidence, let alone proof.  This has been explained to you many times.   Other astronauts, when stepping into the shade and giving their eyes time to adjust, did see stars.
You chose to ignore this, but your ignorance doesn't make it evidence.
Was that it?  Nothing else?

We are not talking about ''other astronauts'' are we ? But Apollo 11 featering ''Neil Armstrong''.
He didn't see any stars ever on the daylightside of the moon.....not while gazing upwards,......not in the shade.....
That is 100% impossible, the more while Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly points out to the contrary.

Like i said...Neil Armstrong was anywhere, but on the moon.
He had the oppertunity to explain exactly what, when and where he did see stars on the daylightside of the lunar surface.....and he didn't see a single one !!
Supported by a pro NASA site :
The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

See ? it is confirmed that the Apollo 11 crew did not see stars on the daylightside of the moon ever.
During their hours on the daylight surface on the moon impossible, if you walk around, enter the shade, gaze upwards and walk around !!!
Even accidentally they would have seen stars somewhere....and according to Neil deGrasse Tyson it would be inevitable while standing on the daylight surface of the moon !

Look away all you want, but you should really eat the proof....it's mighty tasty !!

Apollo 11 is completely busted !

And we are back to it doesn't sound right to you.  You choose to interpret these statements one way and refuse to consider anything else.  That's not proof.

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 04:50:58 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 03:26:32 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 02:19:26 PM

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

Lol.  That isn't even evidence, let alone proof.  This has been explained to you many times.   Other astronauts, when stepping into the shade and giving their eyes time to adjust, did see stars.
You chose to ignore this, but your ignorance doesn't make it evidence.
Was that it?  Nothing else?

We are not talking about ''other astronauts'' are we ? But Apollo 11 featering ''Neil Armstrong''.
He didn't see any stars ever on the daylightside of the moon.....not while gazing upwards,......not in the shade.....
That is 100% impossible, the more while Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly points out to the contrary.

Like i said...Neil Armstrong was anywhere, but on the moon.
He had the oppertunity to explain exactly what, when and where he did see stars on the daylightside of the lunar surface.....and he didn't see a single one !!
Supported by a pro NASA site :
The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

See ? it is confirmed that the Apollo 11 crew did not see stars on the daylightside of the moon ever.
During their hours on the daylight surface on the moon impossible, if you walk around, enter the shade, gaze upwards and walk around !!!
Even accidentally they would have seen stars somewhere....and according to Neil deGrasse Tyson it would be inevitable while standing on the daylight surface of the moon !

Look away all you want, but you should really eat the proof....it's mighty tasty !!

Apollo 11 is completely busted !

And we are back to it doesn't sound right to you.  You choose to interpret these statements one way and refuse to consider anything else.  That's not proof.

The next generations will use your answers for a decade because you are a main example as to why the Apollo fantasies could survive for over half a century.

Care to answer ia few questions.... i

Btw Apollo 11 completely busted as shown above....,

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2018, 05:44:59 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 04:50:58 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 03:26:32 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 07, 2018, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 02:19:26 PM

No, you have provided no proof.  You only claim things don't look right to you.  The burden of proof is on you.

Sound is not transmitted through a vacuum, therefor you can bang on a rock all day on the moon without hearing anything.
The moon has no atmosphere (almost non) and light reflections can not scatter through a vacuum or interfere while gazing upwards and block your line of sight.
Ground reflections need an atmosphere to block out dimmer light sources like stars when gazing upwards.
When asked if Neil Armstrong could see stars while gazing upwards, he stated that he wasn't able to see ANY star at all.
Neil deGrasse Tyson claims because of the absent scattering properties of the atmosphere on the lunar surface a person standing on the daylight side of the moon would see all the available stars.
There are no thinkable conditions that obstruct the starlight when gazing upwards...

Since Neil Armstrong claims he couldn't see any stars during the entire lunar visit, while the question clearly was asked ''when gazing upwards'' the conclusion that Neil Armstrong was anywhere but on the daylight surface of the moon is 100% correct !

And you know that of course.......fact of the matter remains why you ignore this rock solid proof !

Lol.  That isn't even evidence, let alone proof.  This has been explained to you many times.   Other astronauts, when stepping into the shade and giving their eyes time to adjust, did see stars.
You chose to ignore this, but your ignorance doesn't make it evidence.
Was that it?  Nothing else?

We are not talking about ''other astronauts'' are we ? But Apollo 11 featering ''Neil Armstrong''.
He didn't see any stars ever on the daylightside of the moon.....not while gazing upwards,......not in the shade.....
That is 100% impossible, the more while Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly points out to the contrary.

Like i said...Neil Armstrong was anywhere, but on the moon.
He had the oppertunity to explain exactly what, when and where he did see stars on the daylightside of the lunar surface.....and he didn't see a single one !!
Supported by a pro NASA site :
The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

See ? it is confirmed that the Apollo 11 crew did not see stars on the daylightside of the moon ever.
During their hours on the daylight surface on the moon impossible, if you walk around, enter the shade, gaze upwards and walk around !!!
Even accidentally they would have seen stars somewhere....and according to Neil deGrasse Tyson it would be inevitable while standing on the daylight surface of the moon !

Look away all you want, but you should really eat the proof....it's mighty tasty !!

Apollo 11 is completely busted !

And we are back to it doesn't sound right to you.  You choose to interpret these statements one way and refuse to consider anything else.  That's not proof.

The next generations will use your answers for a decade because you are a main example as to why the Apollo fantasies could survive for over half a century.

Care to answer ia few questions.... i

Btw Apollo 11 completely busted as shown above....,

Still waiting on you to show any proof.

Still waiting on you to show any proof.

Apollo 11 photo AS11-40-5875


You have to rely on pseudo science and a google search to explain away this single booth print in the opposite direction.

It is one of hundreds of examples i can give......
Yeah like many things it is explained away with some grazy arguments that for some reason have power over you.
It doesn't matter what i show you, no matter how clear,......you will not consider anything as proof.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2018, 07:03:29 AM

Still waiting on you to show any proof.

Apollo 11 photo AS11-40-5875


You have to rely on pseudo science and a google search to explain away this single booth print in the opposite direction.

It is one of hundreds of examples i can give......
Yeah like many things it is explained away with some grazy arguments that for some reason have power over you.
It doesn't matter what i show you, no matter how clear,......you will not consider anything as proof.

Pseudo science like, maybe he stopped and turned to look and replanted a foot?  Yeah that was tough.
what do you think happened?

Quote from: dutchy on January 08, 2018, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2018, 07:03:29 AM

Still waiting on you to show any proof.

Apollo 11 photo AS11-40-5875


You have to rely on pseudo science and a google search to explain away this single booth print in the opposite direction.

It is one of hundreds of examples i can give......
Yeah like many things it is explained away with some grazy arguments that for some reason have power over you.
It doesn't matter what i show you, no matter how clear,......you will not consider anything as proof.

Pseudo science like, maybe he stopped and turned to look and replanted a foot?  Yeah that was tough.
what do you think happened?

You mean before Buzz was an alcoholic he was a gymnast ?

1/6th gravity compared to Earth?

Maybe he jumped? It seemed to be one of the common activities on the Moon.

1/6th gravity compared to Earth?

Maybe he jumped? It seemed to be one of the common activities on the Moon.

And landed on one foot. Jury gives it a 9.95

If I wanted to use your argument tactics,
I would simply say this photo is a fake.

But I won't, maybe it is real.
Since we don't know much about the photo
Other than what you supply,
It is at best, hearsay evidence.
Not very valuable.

Your argument as I understand it:
NASA faked the moon landings.
Therefore all other space explorations are fake.
Therefore all science promoted by all space agencies is false.
Therefore all current science is wrong
Ergo, the earth is flat.

What does fake moon landings have to do with the shape of the earth?