We Never Went to the Moon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
41
42

We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled
Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (27,968 Views)
David C	Aug 30 2009, 02:43 PM Post #1026
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: HeadLikeARock- That video is just an attempt at damage-control by the government. Wow! A convincing argument. Anything that counters your argument is simply an "attempt at damage control" by the government. That's hardly a rebuttal is it? This is part of the standard M.O. of regular pro-official-version-of-everything posters from Clavius. They quote a statement and don't show the whole context in order to mislead the viewers. Anyone who looks at what I actually wrote can see that I followed that statement with arguments; that's a pretty desperate tactic. Quote: [Yet you consistently refuse to do so, despite being shown how to using your own method. Why do fail to do so? You just claim it's obvious then simply don't bother. If it's so simple and so obvious, why don't you actually do the maths? I've even shown you how to do this, all you had to do was plug your own figures in. We know that a 757 is twice as high as the Pentagon is tall. All we have to do is imagine a 757 standing upright next to the part of the Pentagon that is the same distance from the camera as the craft and allow for the angle and it obviously couldn't fit. Precise calculations aren't necessary when the difference is glaringly obvious. Anyway, there's this. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm Quote: This point is so obvius that some moderators, such as the one below, simply close threads rather than have their people look like horses' a---s trying to obfuscate this evidence. http://www.booktalk.org/the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-t6222.html Tell us if you think the moderator was right in closing the above thread. Gordon Bennett, here we go again... Oy, I've just realised. You're derailing the thread again. This is about Apollo. If you have nothing to add about it, why not start another thread to discuss the other stuff with someone else, rather than filling this on up with non-Apollo stuff. There you go again using rhetoric instead of logic. This started out as an analysis of the Bad Astronomy pro-Apollo site. I cited the general lameness of the behavior of the moderators in this thread from that site... http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html ... ...as circumstantial evidence that Bad Astronomy is a government damage-control site whose regular posters know that Apollo was a hoax and the 9/11 was an inside job. It's all explained in this post. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 I asked you for your opinion of why the moderator closed this thread... http://www.booktalk.org/the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-t6222.html ...because I want to study censorship and general unfairness of moderators when 9/11 or Apollo is being discussed. If moderators are tying the hands of people who think 9/11 was an inside job or that Apollo was a hoax, doesn't that mean that they know the arguments that are being put forth have merit? If an argument has no merit, why tie the hands of posters and close threads? Those pro-government people in that thread above didn't put forth anything substantial to debunk the arguments that 9/11 was an inside job and yet, they had the attitude that they were in total control. They were looking like horses' a---s and they knew it. Your friends at Bad Astronomy thought they could tire me out and get me to stop posting and bury my arguments because they knew they were looking like horses' a---s. When they saw that wasn't going to happen, they had to do something to control the damage so they desperately closed the thread with a bogus reason--swatting the moth and breaking the bulb. The moderators at the other thread probably foresaw something similar and decided to keep the damage to a minimum and closed the thread without having debunked the argument. The study of the behavior of moderators on conspiracy threads is very related to the Apollo debate. Here's an example- http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon.html I started that thread two years ago. Now, when I try to post there, a note comes up saying the post has to be screened by a moderator before it can appear. My posts never appear. Only posts approved by the moderators appear and the debate looks like the pro-Apollo people are easily debunking the hoax evidence. The fact that the moderators are censoring posts is not known to a lot of the lurkers so they might be swayed by that bogus debate. This is the tactic that is being used at the Bad Astronomy forum now too. Please opine on this HeadLikeARock. Edited by David C, Aug 31 2009, 08:34 AM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


ULTIMA1	Aug 31 2009, 03:13 AM Post #1027
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	David C Aug 30 2009, 10:10 AM I don't avoid it. As far as I know their challenge is that they can verify that there are reflectors on the moon by bouncing signals off the moon and the signals they receive are consistent with man-made reflectors. If this turns out to be true, there are indeed man-made reflectors on the moon. My argument is that this is not proof that there were people on the moon as they had the technology back then to land robotic craft with adjustable reflectors attached to their sides on the moon. My argument is that it's perfectly plausible that those reflectors are not the ones in the pictures.... So you agree they had the technology to land robot craft on the moon but not manned...LOL I see you still have no evidence that the reflectors were not put on the moon by the Apollo missions. Thanks for conceding the moon landings are real. Edited by ULTIMA1, Aug 31 2009, 03:16 AM.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


David C	Aug 31 2009, 07:53 AM Post #1028
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Hey HeadLikeARock- Regarding the Chinese space walk... http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/ http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/ The guy on this forum says he works with a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Linear accelerators, among other equipment. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=78887&page=7 Quote: I spend my time working with a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Linear accelerators, among other equipment His position on the Chinese space walk is that it was faked and the US government doesn't want to say so openly so as not to put China in an embarrassing position. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=78887&page=3 Quote: Ever hear of tip-toeing around something for the sake of international peace? There's a reason the world just doesn't barge into China demanding they change. Why would a person with such a good education have an opinion that's so different from yours? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/22/ (post #530 and on) Please opine on this.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Aug 31 2009, 08:55 AM Post #1029
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Aug 30 2009, 02:43 PM This is part of the standard M.O. of regular pro-official-version-of-everything posters from Clavius. They quote a statement and don't show the whole context in order to mislead the viewers. Anyone who looks at what I actually wrote can see that I followed that statement with arguments; that's a pretty desperate tactic. You didn't follow it with any arguments that showed why it was a government control site, and why what was being presented was false. You just made reference to your vague 'analysis' that you've been unable to complete in over a year since being asked. Quote: We know that a 757 is twice as high as the Pentagon is tall. All we have to do is imagine a 757 standing upright next to the part of the Pentagon that is the same distance from the camera as the craft and allow for the angle and it obviously couldn't fit. Precise calculations aren't necessary when the difference is glaringly obvious. Anyway, there's this. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm We discussed this over a year ago. You've yet to show exactly what you mean. Describing it in words is far too woolly. For example, you must show EXACTLY what part of the Pentagon you are measuring against, and measure its height in pixels, then show where the plane is, measure its length in pixels, then allow for the angle of the plane, then allow for any change in distance between the plane and the impact point. You made a huge issue of someone not providing figures for the dimensions of an object, yet his analysis was far more rigorous than yours. In order for this 'analysis' to be given in the slightest shred of credence, you need to do it properly. I've already shown you how. Either do it, or stop pretending it's a foregone conclusion. You've had plenty of time to get this sorted. Quote: There you go again using rhetoric instead of logic. You started it when you mentioned the problems you're experiencing on other sites. Why not ask the mods? I had a quick look at the thread and you're not even a registered member. Quote: The study of the behavior of moderators on conspiracy threads is very related to the Apollo debate. In your opinion. I don't agree, and aren't going to waste my time getting dragged into what I consider to be a pointless argument.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


HeadLikeARock	Aug 31 2009, 09:19 AM Post #1030
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Aug 31 2009, 07:53 AM Hey HeadLikeARock- Regarding the Chinese space walk... http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/ http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/ The guy on this forum says he works with a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Linear accelerators, among other equipment. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=78887&page=7 Quote: I spend my time working with a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Linear accelerators, among other equipment His position on the Chinese space walk is that it was faked and the US government doesn't want to say so openly so as not to put China in an embarrassing position. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=78887&page=3 Quote: Ever hear of tip-toeing around something for the sake of international peace? There's a reason the world just doesn't barge into China demanding they change. Why would a person with such a good education have an opinion that's so different from yours? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/22/ (post #530 and on) Please opine on this. ROFLMAO! You cannot be serious? Firstly, you have no more idea whether he works on an ion collider or down the local fish shop. Secondly, even if he does work at an ion collider, you don't know what his area of expertise is. He could sweep the floor, he could be a junior manager, he could have a PhD in particle physics. Thirdly, whether he believes the Chinese Spacewalk was faked is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it was faked. The only way to determine that is to look at the evidence. Has he provided any analyses that can be examined? Fourthly, his level of education and his personal beliefs have no bearing on what I believe about the Chinese spacewalk. I've spoken to a NASA scientist who also believes the Chinese spacewalk was faked. His views didn't change my opinion either. I think he made some fundamental errors in his analysis. It's also possible he has an axe to grind against the Chinese government which is affecting his objectivity. Fifthly, why do you have a problem with educated people disagreeing on something?
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Aug 31 2009, 02:39 PM Post #1031
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: The study of the behavior of moderators on conspiracy threads is very related to the Apollo debate. In your opinion. I don't agree, and aren't going to waste my time getting dragged into what I consider to be a pointless argument. You consider anything you can't deal with to be a pointless argument. Quote: You started it when you mentioned the problems you're experiencing on other sites. Why not ask the mods? I had a quick look at the thread and you're not even a registered member. If moderators on sites such as Bad Astronomy and the moderators who control this thread below... http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon.html ...only let in posts by hoax-believers that their people can handle, this is circumstantial evidence that the government has some kind of influence over those sites to say the least. Some were probably started by public-relations agencies working directly for the government (such as Bad Astronomy). Some might be bending to government presssure. The fact that posts that have serious hoax evidence are being censored at sites such as Bad Astronomy and others is certainly a serious Apollo-related issue; I can understand why someone in your position would rather declare it a non-issue and avoid discussing it as even the most skilled sophist would have a hard time with this one. Quote: I had a quick look at the thread and you're not even a registered member. As I said before, I started the thread. I registered under the name "Scott". Quote: We discussed this over a year ago. You've yet to show exactly what you mean. Describing it in words is far too woolly. For example, you must show EXACTLY what part of the Pentagon you are measuring against, and measure its height in pixels, then show where the plane is, measure its length in pixels, then allow for the angle of the plane, then allow for any change in distance between the plane and the impact point. You made a huge issue of someone not providing figures for the dimensions of an object, yet his analysis was far more rigorous than yours. In order for this 'analysis' to be given in the slightest shred of credence, you need to do it properly. I've already shown you how. Either do it, or stop pretending it's a foregone conclusion. You've had plenty of time to get this sorted. I did it on paper with a protractor a while back. All one needs is a top view of the whole area and know the length of the side of the Pentagon which was hit to get the scale. I just don't know how to get what I got on paper onto a post on a forum. Anyone can verify this for himself very easily. What I got was about what these sites say. The difference is so clear that anyone can just look at the picture and do it mentally. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html (excerpt) ----------------------------------------- The apparent plane mostly obscured by the foreground structure in the first frame is much too small to be a Boeing 757. ----------------------------------------- http://0911.site.voila.fr/BionicAntboy.htm (excerpt) ---------------------------------------- It's clear that the plane in frame one can NOT be a 757. It is no more than 1/2 the length of Flight 77, and maybe less. ---------------------------------------- http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/video.html (excerpt) --------------------------------------- Is the object hidden behind the beige toll booth Flight 77, or is it too small to be the size of a Boeing 757 which a couple of Flight 77 investigation sites have concluded? --------------------------------------- Since if anyone who's serious about checking this can easily do so, my not knowing how to post pictures doesn't make this evidence go away. You know how to post pictures but will you do an analysis showing the plane was long enough to be a 757? No, you won't because you know it's too clear that it was smaller and if you try to obfuscate that, you'll just make yourself look silly. Anyway, you claimed there was a 757 in the center of this picture so your credibility is shot. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg Your postition is that there is a 757 that's moving so fast that the camera couldn't pick it up and the object at the left is either smoke or debris from plane which hit a light pole. That object on the right doesn't look at all like any smoke I've ever seen and if it were debris, it wouldn't be traveling that much slower than the 757. If the 757 was moving too fast to be picked up by the camera, the debris behind it wouldn't have been that clear. It at least would have been blurry. Quote: Why would a person with such a good education have an opinion that's so different from yours? http://s1.zetaboards.com/...ngeForums/topic/51606/22/ (post #530 and on) Please opine on this. ROFLMAO! You cannot be serious? Firstly, you have no more idea whether he works on an ion collider or down the local fish shop. Secondly, even if he does work at an ion collider, you don't know what his area of expertise is. He could sweep the floor, he could be a junior manager, he could have a PhD in particle physics. Thirdly, whether he believes the Chinese Spacewalk was faked is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it was faked. The only way to determine that is to look at the evidence. Has he provided any analyses that can be examined? Fourthly, his level of education and his personal beliefs have no bearing on what I believe about the Chinese spacewalk. I've spoken to a NASA scientist who also believes the Chinese spacewalk was faked. His views didn't change my opinion either. I think he made some fundamental errors in his analysis. It's also possible he has an axe to grind against the Chinese government which is affecting his objectivity. Fifthly, why do you have a problem with educated people disagreeing on something? What's happening is that all you pro-Apollo people aren't organized enough so you give contradictory explanations. When someone posts something new, you should have a big meeting to get your stories straight before you start trying to obfuscate it. Look what happened in this YouTube comment section. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 (see post 493) http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/20/ Your explanation of why at least three different explantion for the swinging jacket corner were correct was very vague. Svector, who made the video, still refuses my requests that he analyze the movement of the jacket corner and comment on the different explanations given for it. This guy gives another explanation. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=78887&page=3 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------- Oh, look. He's moving such that his actions at the point of contact between his jacket and his body ripple outwards. By the time they reach the outermost point of the material, he's moved in a different direction, causing a jerking motion at the outermost portion of the material. ---------------------------------------------------- The pro-Apollo people at this site are taking a long time to deal with the bouncing-jacket-corner issue. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-20.html If svector won't even acknowledge that I asked him about this issue, and people are giving different explanations, this is a serious issue that needs clearing up. I think Jay Windley should be consulted. If Apollo was real and Jay Windley is a truth-seeker he should be happy to explain in detail why you are right when you say that three different explanations are correct at the same time. You haven't explained it with enough detail to satisfy a person of normal intelligence. Why don't you post this issue at Clavius and/or Bad Astronomy and then link to their analyses? I would love to do it but they've got my whole area blocked off; I don't think anyone within four hundred miles of my area could manage to register at Clavius. Bad Astronomy would probably screen out the post and it would never appear. Maybe that same strategy is being used at Clavius now too. How about it? Why don't you ask Jay Windley and those other "Experts" at Clavius to clear this issue up once and for all? It would be easy for you to do it as you are registered there.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Aug 31 2009, 05:32 PM Post #1032
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Aug 31 2009, 02:39 PM You consider anything you can't deal with to be a pointless argument. Which part of "I'm not interested" do you have trouble understanding? Quote: Quote: I had a quick look at the thread and you're not even a registered member. As I said before, I started the thread. I registered under the name "Scott". Well, the thread showed you as a guest not a member, so contact the mods and ask them why. I don't care, so don't ask me. Quote: I did it on paper with a protractor a while back. All one needs is a top view of the whole area and know the length of the side of the Pentagon which was hit to get the scale. I just don't know how to get what I got on paper onto a post on a forum. Anyone can verify this for himself very easily. What I got was about what these sites say. The difference is so clear that anyone can just look at the picture and do it mentally. Yeah, well we can all do studies mentally and claim whatever we like. What would you be saying about the guy who did the other analysis if he said he did it mentally and got the same result his study showed, but wouldn't post his study because he couldn't figure out how to get it on the internet, but it was really obvious anyway? You'd be all over him. Somehow, it's OK for you though. Quote: It's clear that the plane in frame one can NOT be a 757. It is no more than 1/2 the length of Flight 77, and maybe less. It's smoke, dust or debris, not a plane. Check out the images from both security cams on the Judicial Watch website. You can see something coming into shot ahead of the dust cloud in both videos. Quote: Since if anyone who's serious about checking this can easily do so, my not knowing how to post pictures doesn't make this evidence go away. You know how to post pictures but will you do an analysis showing the plane was long enough to be a 757? No, you won't because you know it's too clear that it was smaller and if you try to obfuscate that, you'll just make yourself look silly. What's the point of even attempting this if you still think the dust cloud is the plane? Here's something for you to chew on while you figure out one of life's eternal mysteries (posting pictures on the internet). If the plane is approaching at 45 degrees to the optical axis of the camera, how will its visible size compare to its actual size? Simple trigonometry. Actual length = (Visible length) / (sin 45). Now sin 45 = 0.707, so no matter what figure you use for the visible length of the plane, its actual length will be 1.41 times what it appears on the screen. IIRC you once said the angle was actually 48 degrees, which still means the actual length will be 1.35 times the visible length. How does perspective change the relationship between the visible and actual length of the plane? Let's assume the distance from the camera to the impact point is 180 metres, and the distance from the camera to the plane is 252 metres. That means the plane will appear 252/180 times as large at the impact point as it does in the previous frame. This equates to an apparent increase in plane length of 1.4. The combined effect of these two (which you seem to have completely ignored) is 1.41 * 1.4 = 1.97. In other words, an apparent plane image of 20 pixels in the frame prior to impact would be 39 pixels at the impact point. The angle, the distance to the impact point, and the distance to the plane are rough guesstimates, but they're in the correct ballpark. Did you bother factoring any of this in when you performed your mental experiment that is obvious to a ten year old, or anyone with an IQ of 90? I guess not. You're method is utterly flawed. Do it again properly. Posting an image on the internet is something a ten year old with an IQ of 90 could fathom, so don't use that as an excuse. Quote: Anyway, you claimed there was a 757 in the center of this picture so your credibility is shot. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg There is clearly something in front of the dust cloud that seems to have the correct dimensions for it to be a 757, and it also has a tail fin and seems vaguely 'plane-shaped', given the inherent limitations of the source. My credibility is intact. Given your "mental proff", yours is in tatters. Quote: Your postition is that there is a 757 that's moving so fast that the camera couldn't pick it up and the object at the left is either smoke or debris from plane which hit a light pole. No it isn't. The plane is visible in both videos (albeit partly obscured by the 'box' in one of the videos). Quote: That object on the right doesn't look at all like any smoke I've ever seen and if it were debris, it wouldn't be traveling that much slower than the 757. If the 757 was moving too fast to be picked up by the camera, the debris behind it wouldn't have been that clear. It at least would have been blurry. See above: the plane is visible. Quote: What's happening is that all you pro-Apollo people aren't organized enough so you give contradictory explanations. When someone posts something new, you should have a big meeting to get your stories straight before you start trying to obfuscate it. He seems to be of the opinion that the Chinese spacewalk may have been faked underwater. I have completely the opposite opinion. The NASA scientist I contacted thinks they faked the video. That has nothing whatsoever to do with contradictory explanations. It has to do with a 'difference of opinion': something that isn't allowed in David C's world for some reason. Quote: Why don't you post this issue at Clavius and/or Bad Astronomy and then link to their analyses? I would love to do it but they've got my whole area blocked off; I don't think anyone within four hundred miles of my area could manage to register at Clavius. You had three sock-puppets on Apollohoax.net. You were banned for accusing the moderator, and all the regular posters, of being paid US government shills. It's possible that the owner of the forum (Lunar Orbit) chose to block your IP address (or range). Unfortunate for other users of your internet cafe, but effective at preventing permanently banned users from re-registering. Quote: How about it? Why don't you ask Jay Windley and those other "Experts" at Clavius to clear this issue up once and for all? It would be easy for you to do it as you are registered there. Mmmm, let me think. OK, no. For several reasons. First and foremost, because it's a non-issue (you seem to be the only person in internet-land who thinks this is filmed in gravity). Second, because I ain't here to do your bidding on forums you were banned from. Thirdly, because you're too stupid to post an image on the internet.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Sep 2 2009, 12:46 PM Post #1033
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	First of all HeadLikeARock- You claim the movements of the jacket corner and dogtags in this video are in zero-G. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 The best sophist in the world couldn't convince a ten-year-old that those movements were in zero-G. No one with any sense is going to take anything you say about anything seriously. Look at this classic tactic you used here. Quote: How about it? Why don't you ask Jay Windley and those other "Experts" at Clavius to clear this issue up once and for all? It would be easy for you to do it as you are registered there. Mmmm, let me think. OK, no. For several reasons. First and foremost, because it's a non-issue (you seem to be the only person in internet-land who thinks this is filmed in gravity). This is an argument a sophist would use. How many other people are pushing an argument is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is physics--the jacket corner goes up,stops,and goes back down. The only identifiable force stopping it is gravity. I've seen about five different explanations from pro-Apollo people explaining why it was zero-G. You tried to say that three of them were right without explaining in any detail. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/20/ (post 493) The discussion on this thread came to a screeching halt when I posted this evidence. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-21.html#post649719 (as of now this is the last post) They have to chose between saying it was in zero-G and looking silly and losing all their credibility, or disappearing so they chose the lesser of the two evils. Svector, who made the video, refuses my requests that he explain the movement of the jacket corner and the dogtags. http://www.youtube.com/user/svector When I ask him in the comment section of his channel page, he deletes it. Answer this question--is that the behavior of a truth-seeker? Also, I'm not the only hoax-believer who thinks that footage was taken in gravity. Look at the comment section. Another hoax-believer sent me a personal message an pointed this out to me. That's how it came to my attention. Quote: You consider anything you can't deal with to be a pointless argument. Which part of "I'm not interested" do you have trouble understanding? I mainly wanted people to see your response which I knew would be evasive. It's been shown pretty clearly that they never went to the moon but we can still do some productive things on this thread despite the sophists who are trying to distrupt it. This is important to know. There are a lot of bogus debates going on such as this one. http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon.html The moderators are screening the posts so that the Apollo-believers don't have to address any serious hoax evidence. I started that thread above and, when I try to post evidence, a note appears saying my post will have to be approved by a moderator and it never appears. They don't say they are doing this so a lot of lurkers might think this is all the hoax evidence that exists. These are all bogus debates. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/ The moderators at Bad Astronomy do the same thing. Quote: I did it on paper with a protractor a while back. All one needs is a top view of the whole area and know the length of the side of the Pentagon which was hit to get the scale. I just don't know how to get what I got on paper onto a post on a forum. Anyone can verify this for himself very easily. What I got was about what these sites say. The difference is so clear that anyone can just look at the picture and do it mentally. Yeah, well we can all do studies mentally and claim whatever we like. What would you be saying about the guy who did the other analysis if he said he did it mentally and got the same result his study showed, but wouldn't post his study because he couldn't figure out how to get it on the internet, but it was really obvious anyway? You'd be all over him. Somehow, it's OK for you though. After I'd done it mentally, I checked it with an overhead view of the Pentagon. All one needs to check this is an overhead view of the Pentagon which shows the angle of the craft that crashed into it and know the length of the side of the Pentagon which was hit to get the scale ant the height of the Pentagon and the length of a 757. It can be done without any trigonometry like this. Allowing for the angle caused about a twenty percent reduction in the length of the plane if I remember correctly. The difference between the length of a 757 and the length of a plane that could be hidden behind the box was significant. I can do it again but I have to look for that overhead view. I'm sure it's not hard to post pictures; it's just that nobody has ever shown me how to do it. I can ask the guy who works in the internet cafe to help me I suppose. The clearest way to calculate the size of the plane that hit the Pentagon is by using the height of the Pentagon as a reference. If we know the height of the Pentagon, everything else can be calculated. That's why your friend at Bad Astronomy chose a method that wasn't very clear. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891577 http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf It was easier to fudge the figures and get a false result. Quote: It's smoke, dust or debris, not a plane. Check out the images from both security cams on the Judicial Watch website. You can see something coming into shot ahead of the dust cloud in both videos. Those are the same videos that we've already seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&feature=channel Quote: What's the point of even attempting this if you still think the dust cloud is the plane? What's the point of talking to someone who lamely says that the jacket corner and dogtags in this video are moving in zero-G? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 Quote: There is clearly something in front of the dust cloud that seems to have the correct dimensions for it to be a 757, and it also has a tail fin and seems vaguely 'plane-shaped', given the inherent limitations of the source. My credibility is intact. Given your "mental proff", yours is in tatters. I was referring to this picture. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg More stuff here... http://www.booktalk.org/the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-t6222.html Quote: You had three sock-puppets on Apollohoax.net. You were banned for accusing the moderator, and all the regular posters, of being paid US government shills. It's possible that the owner of the forum (Lunar Orbit) chose to block your IP address (or range). Unfortunate for other users of your internet cafe, but effective at preventing permanently banned users from re-registering. If they behave like shills and lie about science, people are going to call them shills. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=273756&t=51606 Actually, I only went back as a sock puppet once. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1094 I tried a few times after that from cybercafes I'd never been to before without success so they probably blocked my whole area. Quote: He seems to be of the opinion that the Chinese spacewalk may have been faked underwater. He knew they were faked underwater and that if he tried to obfuscate the evidence that shows they were faked underwater, he'd just look silly like all the other people who do. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/ http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/ Edited by David C, Sep 2 2009, 12:51 PM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Sep 2 2009, 03:05 PM Post #1034
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Sep 2 2009, 12:46 PM First of all HeadLikeARock- You claim the movements of the jacket corner and dogtags in this video are in zero-G. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 The best sophist in the world couldn't convince a ten-year-old that those movements were in zero-G. No one with any sense is going to take anything you say about anything seriously. They're in zero gravity. Get over it. Quote: This is an argument a sophist would use. How many other people are pushing an argument is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is physics--the jacket corner goes up,stops,and goes back down. The only identifiable force stopping it is gravity. I've seen about five different explanations from pro-Apollo people explaining why it was zero-G. And this has all been discussed in great detail earlier in the thread. You're just trying to manipulate me into doing your bidding for you, and pushing an argument that I personally believe to be ludicrous on another forum. You're entitled to your beliefs, but you're not entitled to expect me to push your nonsense for you, on a forum you've been banned from three times, where you've accused most of the posters of being shills. You're not interested in genuinely trying to find out why you may be wrong, you're just paying games. Quote: The discussion on this thread came to a screeching halt when I posted this evidence. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-21.html#post649719 (as of now this is the last post) Maybe everyone got bored of you and your arguments? OK, so you had the last word. Hilarious that would interpret this as the other posters running scared from your smoking gun. Quote: Svector, who made the video, refuses my requests that he explain the movement of the jacket corner and the dogtags. http://www.youtube.com/user/svector When I ask him in the comment section of his channel page, he deletes it. Answer this question--is that the behavior of a truth-seeker? After seeing the way he behaves online, I've little time for SVector. He's right about Apollo, but I disagree with his methods. If he blocked you for a genuine reason, tough. If he blocked you because he just doesn't like you, he's going against free speech, which is abhorrent. Quote: I mainly wanted people to see your response which I knew would be evasive. The only questions I avoid are ones which I've answered in detail before, or ones which IN MY OPINION have no relevance to Apollo. If you don't like that, tough, but I'm not changing my opinion to appease you. Quote: It's been shown pretty clearly that they never went to the moon but we can still do some productive things on this thread despite the sophists who are trying to distrupt it. The only thing that's been shown is how easily some people can fool themselves into thinking they are right, based on a limited understanding of science, and poor analysis skills. Have you even bothered to consider this scenario? Let's assume that you are right, and that small segment was actually filmed on Earth or in a vomit comet. That in no way closes the case on Apollo being faked. You yourself posited the argument that even though they made it to orbit, they needed to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. If you believe that, then you must also believe that it is possible that they got to the moon, but still decided to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. Or maybe it was training footage that mistakenly got thrown in with genuine footage in the cutting room. There is a precedent for something similar happening. There were no photographs of Michael Collins spacewalk on his Gemini X mission. When he wrote his autobiography, his publishers took a photograph of him in the vomit comet, blacked out the background, and used that image. Does it prove he didn't do the spacewalk? No. Does the existence of simulated or training footage of Apollo 11 in the hypothetical situation above prove Armstrong didn't walk on the moon? No. It's moot anyway. The footage is in zero gravity. I'm just showing you how you're conclusion that the entire Apollo mission was faked based on your beliefs about the origin of this snippet of film is fundamentally flawed. Quote: The moderators are screening the posts so that the Apollo-believers don't have to address any serious hoax evidence. I started that thread above and, when I try to post evidence, a note appears saying my post will have to be approved by a moderator and it never appears. They don't say they are doing this so a lot of lurkers might think this is all the hoax evidence that exists. Did you bother contacting the mods to find out why you're no longer a member? Quote: After I'd done it mentally, I checked it with an overhead view of the Pentagon. All one needs to check this is an overhead view of the Pentagon which shows the angle of the craft that crashed into it and know the length of the side of the Pentagon which was hit to get the scale ant the height of the Pentagon and the length of a 757. It can be done without any trigonometry like this. Allowing for the angle caused about a twenty percent reduction in the length of the plane if I remember correctly. The difference between the length of a 757 and the length of a plane that could be hidden behind the box was significant. So you're quite comfortable totally ignoring the fact that the plane is significantly further away from the camera in the initial image than the distance to the impact point? You amaze me. Please answer these two questions:- How far away from the camera is the plane prior to impact? What is the distance from the camera to the impact point? Quote: I can do it again but I have to look for that overhead view. I'm sure it's not hard to post pictures; it's just that nobody has ever shown me how to do it. I can ask the guy who works in the internet cafe to help me I suppose. JFK explained the boards in-built function for doing this earlier in the thread. Or, you could register with a site like Photobucket or Imageshack. Quote: The clearest way to calculate the size of the plane that hit the Pentagon is by using the height of the Pentagon as a reference. If we know the height of the Pentagon, everything else can be calculated. No, that's just one method. The best way is to find out several different methods and see how well the answers agree. That's because there are ALWAYS errors in measurements that need to be accounted for. Quote: That's why your friend at Bad Astronomy chose a method that wasn't very clear. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891577 http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf It was easier to fudge the figures and get a false result. First, he's not my friend. Second, the method is very clear: far more clear than yours in fact. Third, I agreed with you that his conclusion was flawed, for the simple reason that he wasn't accurate enough with the size of the CSCC. Fourth, it's irrelevant anyway, since you can see the tail fin of the plane above the top of the CSCC, and the nose of the plane sticking out in front of it. Quote: Those are the same videos that we've already seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&feature=channel They show the scene before the planes come into view as well. Examining the difference in the stills makes it possible to identify with a greater degree of certainty the location of the plane. Quote: Quote: What's the point of even attempting this if you still think the dust cloud is the plane? What's the point of talking to someone who lamely says that the jacket corner and dogtags in this video are moving in zero-G? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 Look at the frame immediately before the plane comes into view, and compare it with the next one. When I get time I'll post a GIF showing what I mean. I'm probably wasting my time, it was pointed out to you in a video I linked to that you dismissed as government disinformation. Look again, at the part where it flips between the two frames in question, starting about 2:24 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4. Quote: Quote: There is clearly something in front of the dust cloud that seems to have the correct dimensions for it to be a 757, and it also has a tail fin and seems vaguely 'plane-shaped', given the inherent limitations of the source. My credibility is intact. Given your "mental proff", yours is in tatters. I was referring to this picture. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg So am I. Quote: Actually, I only went back as a sock puppet once. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1094 For accuracies sake, David + Cosmored + Rocky = 3. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Sep 3 2009, 03:05 PM.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


weasel_turbine	Sep 2 2009, 05:59 PM Post #1035
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08	David C Sep 2 2009, 12:46 PM The best sophist in the world couldn't convince a ten-year-old that those movements were in zero-G. No one with any sense is going to take anything you say about anything seriously. I take him seriously and I'm sure many other's do. You, not so much. Quote: Svector, who made the video, refuses my requests that he explain the movement of the jacket corner and the dogtags. http://www.youtube.com/user/svector When I ask him in the comment section of his channel page, he deletes it. Answer this question--is that the behavior of a truth-seeker? Seems more like the behavior of someone who is sick of you acting like a twat. Do you think your behavior/attitude might have some effect on how you're received on various forums? I've asked a few similar questions before which you ignored. Quote: This is important to know. There are a lot of bogus debates going on such as this one. http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon.html The moderators are screening the posts so that the Apollo-believers don't have to address any serious hoax evidence. I started that thread above and, when I try to post evidence, a note appears saying my post will have to be approved by a moderator and it never appears. They don't say they are doing this so a lot of lurkers might think this is all the hoax evidence that exists. You think it might have something to do with how it says you (I assume you are Scott) are a guest? Perhaps they upgraded their forum database since that thread was started. Perhaps they purged their inactive members. Have you bothered to ask them what's happening? No, it is just easier for you to assume they just don't like your "evidence". Quote: These are all bogus debates. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/ The moderators at Bad Astronomy do the same thing. AFAIK, only the first few new member's posts at BA are moderated and then only if they contain links. This is an anti spam-bot measure. After either a certain number of posts or a short period of time there is no moderation. Any proof otherwise? Quote: Quote: He seems to be of the opinion that the Chinese spacewalk may have been faked underwater. He knew they were faked underwater and that if he tried to obfuscate the evidence that shows they were faked underwater, he'd just look silly like all the other people who do. I'm curious. What about a spacewalk (essentially getting to orbit and opening the door) is so hard that the Chinese had to fake it? I don't care to argue whether it was faked or not (I frankly don't really care), I just want to know why would they have to fake it? Edited by weasel_turbine, Sep 2 2009, 06:00 PM.
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08


HeadLikeARock	Sep 3 2009, 06:00 PM Post #1036
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C I've created a new thread for discussion of the Pentagon Flight 77 footage, this one should be kept for Apollo discussions. Please feel free to contribute. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2232861/1
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Sep 4 2009, 11:07 AM Post #1037
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	HeadLikeARock- Go to post #493 on page 20. SpreadtheMuse gave this explanation for the moving jacket corner. Quote: "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." SpreadingtheMuse refused to go into detail when I asked him to be clearer. You agreed that he was correct. I asked you to explain his explanation in detail and you said this. Quote: SpreadingTheMuse gave a more complex description of what is seen in the video. This and the rest of your follow-ups on this were nothing but tap-dancing. If you think that yours and SpreadingtheMuse's explanations are both right, you're saying that you understand his explanation. His explanation is very vague. If you understand it, please explain it. If you're so sure that both explanations are right and don't contradict each other, explaining this should be child's play for you. Quote: The discussion on this thread came to a screeching halt when I posted this evidence. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-21.html#post649719 (as of now this is the last post) Maybe everyone got bored of you and your arguments? OK, so you had the last word. Hilarious that would interpret this as the other posters running scared from your smoking gun. What's happening is that they're a bunch of cornered sophists. When presented with such clear hoax evidence, they have to either use evasive tactics, or do what you did--lamely say they were in zero-G--and look silly. They chose the lesser of the two evils. You chose the greater of the two evils for which I thank you; as the representative of the Clavius forum here, you're making it very clear how full of BS that site is. Quote: After seeing the way he behaves online, I've little time for SVector. He's right about Apollo, but I disagree with his methods. If he blocked you for a genuine reason, tough. If he blocked you because he just doesn't like you, he's going against free speech, which is abhorrent. He didn't block me. He just refuses to even acknowledge that I asked him the question and you know why he did it; he is also a member of the Clavius Apollo-hoax-evidence obfuscation team. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=svector If he says that they were in zero-gravity, his credibility will be shot like yours is and he'll have to go on like the Black Knight the way you do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 Quote: Let's assume that you are right, and that small segment was actually filmed on Earth or in a vomit comet. That in no way closes the case on Apollo being faked. You yourself posited the argument that even though they made it to orbit, they needed to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. If you believe that, then you must also believe that it is possible that they got to the moon, but still decided to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. Or maybe it was training footage that mistakenly got thrown in with genuine footage in the cutting room. There is a precedent for something similar happening. There were no photographs of Michael Collins spacewalk on his Gemini X mission. When he wrote his autobiography, his publishers took a photograph of him in the vomit comet, blacked out the background, and used that image. Does it prove he didn't do the spacewalk? No. Does the existence of simulated or training footage of Apollo 11 in the hypothetical situation above prove Armstrong didn't walk on the moon? No. It's too bad for you that you didn't think of this before. It's too late now; you've already said it was zero-G and tried to explain why the movement which is obviously in gravity is really zero-G. You can go on like the Black Knight but it doesn't matter--your credibility is shot. All I have to do now is make sure that all the lurkers see your analysis of the movement of the jacket corner and dogtags in this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 ...and nobody with an IQ of 90 or above will take anything you say about any subject seriously. Quote: The moderators are screening the posts so that the Apollo-believers don't have to address any serious hoax evidence. I started that thread above and, when I try to post evidence, a note appears saying my post will have to be approved by a moderator and it never appears. They don't say they are doing this so a lot of lurkers might think this is all the hoax evidence that exists. Did you bother contacting the mods to find out why you're no longer a member? I didn't say I was no longer a member. I can log in. When I try to post the evidence that seems to have these pro-Apollo people checkmated... http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-21.html#post649719 ...it doesn't appear which means that it's a pro-government site which is trying to sway viewers with bogus debates which falsely show that the pro-Apollo people can't be checkmated. Quote: So you're quite comfortable totally ignoring the fact that the plane is significantly further away from the camera in the initial image than the distance to the impact point? You amaze me. I never said that and I never thought that. I looked at an overhead view and I saw that the point where the wall is as far from the camera as the plane is is where the tree is just behind the corner which can be seen in the sixteenth picture from the top in this link. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm Misrepresenting someone's position is a pretty low and desperate tactic. Quote: How far away from the camera is the plane prior to impact? What is the distance from the camera to the impact point? It wouldn't be hard to calculate with a good overhead picture and the dimensions of the Pentagon but I'm not going to take the time to do that now. I know that the impact point is closer to the camera than the plane is in this picture. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm Your trying to make it look like I didn't know that was pretty lame. Quote: Look at the frame immediately before the plane comes into view, and compare it with the next one. When I get time I'll post a GIF showing what I mean. I'm probably wasting my time, it was pointed out to you in a video I linked to that you dismissed as government disinformation. Look again, at the part where it flips between the two frames in question, starting about 2:24 - That's funny. I don't see anything there either. If you see zero-gravity in the movement of Collins' jacket corner and dogtags in this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 ...I'm not surprised that you see a plane in front of the object on the right of this picture. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg As usual your post was full of lame things that would get you laughed out of the debating hall so I might as well make sure eveyone knows who you are in case someone tuned in late. (post #3) http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1 (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've not been threatened but have had some pretty nasty stuff directed towards me, which is easy enough to brush off when I'm "postbaguk" or "HeadLikeARock", but now that CTs now my real identity I've had to waste a lot of time defending myself against false accusations of lying that wouldn't have bothered me as much previously. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk (post #3) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=9663&view=findpost&p=98465 (post #4916) http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2354776 Edited by David C, Sep 4 2009, 11:11 AM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


bretwalda	Sep 4 2009, 12:39 PM Post #1038
Posts: 205 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08	ULTIMA1 Aug 9 2009, 07:03 AM David C Aug 2 2009, 08:25 AM Here's part one of another of Jarrah White's latest series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D3o1htlz9c Still waiting for you to post any evidence to debate the evidence i have posted about the reflectors on the moon. Well summarized.
Posts: 205 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08


HeadLikeARock	Sep 4 2009, 01:19 PM Post #1039
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Sep 4 2009, 11:07 AM HeadLikeARock- Go to post #493 on page 20. SpreadtheMuse gave this explanation for the moving jacket corner. Quote: "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." SpreadingtheMuse refused to go into detail when I asked him to be clearer. You agreed that he was correct. I asked you to explain his explanation in detail and you said this. Quote: SpreadingTheMuse gave a more complex description of what is seen in the video. This and the rest of your follow-ups on this were nothing but tap-dancing. If you think that yours and SpreadingtheMuse's explanations are both right, you're saying that you understand his explanation. His explanation is very vague. If you understand it, please explain it. If you're so sure that both explanations are right and don't contradict each other, explaining this should be child's play for you. It's not up to me to explain what other people mean by their comments. I explained my own position very thoroughly. You want to know what SpreadTheMuse meant, ask him. Quote: What's happening is that they're a bunch of cornered sophists. When presented with such clear hoax evidence, they have to either use evasive tactics, or do what you did--lamely say they were in zero-G--and look silly. They chose the lesser of the two evils. You chose the greater of the two evils for which I thank you; as the representative of the Clavius forum here, you're making it very clear how full of BS that site is. I don't represent anyone but myself, my own views and opinions. I know you don't like to hear that: it's much easier for you to hate and pour scorn on someone who you think is in the pay of the evil US Government, but I'm just a regular chap earning a crust in the North East of England. The people on that other forum look as if they realised debating you was utterly fruitless. Here's the last three comments (other than your own). How you manage to twist this into having them cornered, between a rock and a hard place, or using evasive tactics, is symptomatic of how emotionally attached you are to the Apollo hoax, and no amount of evidence will ever shake that belief. Dan_77 - You're not getting it. I'm not debating you any longer on this topic, as you have exhibited a mental defect common to all conspiracy theorists - that of the failure to overcome confirmation bias - that demonstrates to me (and everyone else, incidentally) that further debate with you would be fruitless, as you lack the ability to properly analyze and respond to evidence. Therefore, I am no longer engaged in this debate with you. Please do not address any further posts to me. If someone else wants to keep humoring your nonsense, so be it. Sue53 - Exactly. Rocky is in thrall to the Conspiracy Theory and nothing will convince him otherwise. Everyone is wasting their time. Nono - Quote: I see nothing at work but Newton's Laws. You, on the other hand, have Got Religion. Quote: He didn't block me. He just refuses to even acknowledge that I asked him the question and you know why he did it; he is also a member of the Clavius Apollo-hoax-evidence obfuscation team. Ah, he's just ignoring you. Well, I won't give him a hard time for that. Quote: If he says that they were in zero-gravity, his credibility will be shot like yours is and he'll have to go on like the Black Knight the way you do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 To my utter shame, the irony still tastes just as sweet. Quote: Quote: Let's assume that you are right, and that small segment was actually filmed on Earth or in a vomit comet. That in no way closes the case on Apollo being faked. You yourself posited the argument that even though they made it to orbit, they needed to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. If you believe that, then you must also believe that it is possible that they got to the moon, but still decided to film that extra footage for reasons unknown. Or maybe it was training footage that mistakenly got thrown in with genuine footage in the cutting room. There is a precedent for something similar happening. There were no photographs of Michael Collins spacewalk on his Gemini X mission. When he wrote his autobiography, his publishers took a photograph of him in the vomit comet, blacked out the background, and used that image. Does it prove he didn't do the spacewalk? No. Does the existence of simulated or training footage of Apollo 11 in the hypothetical situation above prove Armstrong didn't walk on the moon? No. It's too bad for you that you didn't think of this before. It's too late now; you've already said it was zero-G and tried to explain why the movement which is obviously in gravity is really zero-G. You can go on like the Black Knight but it doesn't matter--your credibility is shot. All I have to do now is make sure that all the lurkers see your analysis of the movement of the jacket corner and dogtags in this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I do not believe the footage was filmed on Earth, or in the vomit comet. I started that paragraph with the phrase Let's assume that you are right. It was a thought experiment. In other words, even if you are right about the footage being filmed on Earth, it does not prove Apollo was faked, for the reasons posited above. Face it buster, your claim is busted! Quote: ...and nobody with an IQ of 90 or above will take anything you say about any subject seriously. So you keep saying. Lighten up and give us a cuddle. Quote: I didn't say I was no longer a member. I can log in. When I try to post the evidence that seems to have these pro-Apollo people checkmated... http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-21.html#post649719 We must be talking about different forums, the one I looked at showed you were a guest, not a member. Regardless, if you're getting so many problems on so many different forums, what is the lowest common denominator here? Dare I suggest (again) that the big problem might be you and your behaviour? Quote: ...it doesn't appear which means that it's a pro-government site which is trying to sway viewers with bogus debates which falsely show that the pro-Apollo people can't be checkmated. Or maybe it means you p!ssed off one of the mods too much? Usually you get banned. Quote: Quote: So you're quite comfortable totally ignoring the fact that the plane is significantly further away from the camera in the initial image than the distance to the impact point? You amaze me. I never said that and I never thought that. I looked at an overhead view and I saw that the point where the wall is as far from the camera as the plane is is where the tree is just behind the corner which can be seen in the sixteenth picture from the top in this link. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm Misrepresenting someone's position is a pretty low and desperate tactic. It doesn't sound as if you've allowed for it when you say this:- We know that a 757 is twice as high as the Pentagon is tall. All we have to do is imagine a 757 standing upright next to the part of the Pentagon that is the same distance from the camera as the craft and allow for the angle and it obviously couldn't fit. Precise calculations aren't necessary when the difference is glaringly obvious. Clearly this isn't as simple to do as you're claiming, so if you want this study to be taken seriously, do it properly so it can be properly analysed, without anyone having to second guess exactly what it is you're trying to say. Quote: It wouldn't be hard to calculate with a good overhead picture and the dimensions of the Pentagon but I'm not going to take the time to do that now. I know that the impact point is closer to the camera than the plane is in this picture. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm Your trying to make it look like I didn't know that was pretty lame. If you knew it, you don't seem to have allowed for it. If this is all the effort you're prepared to put in to support your claim, the other thread will end up somewhat one-sided.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 4 2009, 04:10 PM Post #1040
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	bretwalda Sep 4 2009, 12:39 PM ULTIMA1 Aug 9 2009, 07:03 AM David C Aug 2 2009, 08:25 AM Here's part one of another of Jarrah White's latest series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D3o1htlz9c Still waiting for you to post any evidence to debate the evidence i have posted about the reflectors on the moon. Well summarized. Let the record show you cannot produce any evidence to debate what i have posted.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


Q	Sep 5 2009, 06:23 AM Post #1041
A Higher Evolution Posts: 519 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: 01/13/08	Truly, this thread should have been started in the humor section. It is nothing but a diversion from the real topic under debate. The original tapes are so old and decayed, any computer printouts are probably so yellow and dusty as to crumble apart when removed from a file. NASA has suspiciously LOST the original tape of the landing, and Parkes Observatory staff(Aust) are desperately searching their archives to see if they have a copy of the repeater signals, and equally scavenging eBay looking for archaic equipment that may be able to play the tapes. NASA keeps renumbering and re-cataloging photographs to confound every new researcher in this field, and everyone goes head-to-head in the firm belief that they are right and the other party is wrong. Yes, blowing damn good hole in the "moon hoax" will go a long way toward demonstrating government corruption but, seriously, if you're more interested in the bloody moon, than 911, then find a dedicated moon hoax site, and battle it out there. Yes, the Moon thing is suspiciously suspicious, but the governmental murder of >3000 people needs to take some sort of priority.



ULTIMA1	Sep 5 2009, 07:13 AM Post #1042
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	Q Sep 5 2009, 06:23 AM Yes, the Moon thing is suspiciously suspicious, but the governmental murder of >3000 people needs to take some sort of priority. Yes we have a lot of evidence and facts to prove the moon landing , but hardly nothing at all as far as facts and evidence to support the official 9/11 story. Edited by ULTIMA1, Sep 5 2009, 07:14 AM.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


David C	Sep 7 2009, 06:19 AM Post #1043
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I do not believe the footage was filmed on Earth, or in the vomit comet. I started that paragraph with the phrase Let's assume that you are right. It was a thought experiment. In other words, even if you are right about the footage being filmed on Earth, it does not prove Apollo was faked, for the reasons posited above. Face it buster, your claim is busted! It would be unscientific to rule out that possibility. The point I was making is that your credibility is shot because you said the movement of the jacket corner and dogtags was in zero-G. Nobody is going to listen to anything you say after having said that. Quote: It's not up to me to explain what other people mean by their comments. I explained my own position very thoroughly. You want to know what SpreadTheMuse meant, ask him. Your comment was different from his and you said they were both correct. If you think his comment was correct, you should be able to explain it. What you are doing is avoiding the issue because you know his explanation was as bogus as yours was. You seem to be cornered on this one.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Sep 7 2009, 06:52 AM Post #1044
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Sep 7 2009, 06:19 AM Quote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I do not believe the footage was filmed on Earth, or in the vomit comet. I started that paragraph with the phrase Let's assume that you are right. It was a thought experiment. In other words, even if you are right about the footage being filmed on Earth, it does not prove Apollo was faked, for the reasons posited above. Face it buster, your claim is busted! It would be unscientific to rule out that possibility. OK, if it's unscientific to rule it out, you can't claim that this footage proves the hoax. Which leaves you with the Apollo 15 flag. Which, as pointed out several times, shows motion that is compatible with a vacuum (and dust movement earlier in the video indicates low gravity).
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 10 2009, 03:16 AM Post #1045
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	David C has no actual facts or evidence of the moon landing being faked, all he has it what HE THINKS he sees in videos. Edited by ULTIMA1, Sep 10 2009, 03:17 AM.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


HeadLikeARock	Sep 28 2009, 03:15 PM Post #1046
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Independent (Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organization) confirmation of the Apollo 15 landing site. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep102009/630.pdf
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Nov 6 2009, 08:34 AM Post #1047
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	This dialogue from a YouTube comment section looked like it was worth posting. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=HoQm0labM5Y&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DHoQm0labM5Y I like the arguments that Nasdaq7 put forth (The ones I really like are in bold). I removed some of the posts but you can see them by clicking on the above link. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq7 They sent up the equipment and then got the info and staged it on earth. Losing people on such a mission would have meant the end of the space programs. Rob260259 Pberrios, the evidence is in the public domain for more than 40 years now. Photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft, as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescopes from earth, broadcasts in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon, samples returned from the moon, exams of the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques and more. You fail. Nasdaq7 The man is a nervous wreck. But can you blame him? The NASA budget is on the line. The income of thousands of families. He has to lie. He is nervous as can come. The layers of truth yet undiscovered. Rob260259 I guess you see wires, too...? Nasdaq7 I see just Cold War propaganda. I bet if the government told you that you can examine atomic weapons without radiation suits you would believe it was safe. You people are the worst. Trusting people. When you were never an eye witness to an actual event. That to me just shows how gullible people can be - especially when it comes to governments. Rob260259 What I see Nasdaq is true paranoia and distrust. watch?v=OEuam8-UnDw That is, if you dare... Nasdaq7 Rob260259 you have not been an eye witness to the event. You weren't on the moon when it took place. Do you understand the concept of being there. Seeing it with your own eyes. Close to the event. Not 400k km from it. Witnessing it first hand. Would you take the word of someone that has seen something on television - an event 400 k km from the witness. I'm not unrealistic. I'm actually the only realist here. You have to think about this... really hard. You weren't a witness to the event. Rob260259 Nasaq, most people are smart enough to believe reputable engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who, based on actual empirical evidence, say that the landings are a fact. Some others believe some anonymous high-school dropouts who found everything they need to conclude the Apollo program was a hoax from a few YouTube videos. Did you witness WorldWar 1? Rob260259 Nadaq, all you ask is proof? What about the stations tracking the Apollo missions? What about the videos and pictures taken? The telemetry? The astronauts? The 60 scientific experiments left on the surface of the moon and the data received from them? What about the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back? What about the satellites launched from the SIM bays into lunar orbit? What about the reflectors left at the landing sites? Rob260259 Nasdaq, talking about the Cold War...; the Soviets had several SIGINTs available for tracking, especially at Lourdes, Cuba (to watch the Cape) and in their northern regions, to cover ICBM ranges. In 1993 Vasily Mishin, a Soviet rocket scientist gave an interview to Spaceflight Magazine, in which he acknowledged it. They monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Nasdaq7 Can you tell me with 100% certainty that men walked on the moon? NO you CAN'T. You never witnessed it first hand. Your television witness account cannot be used in a court of law to convince or convict anyone. YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW 100%. FOR SURE. BE HONEST BE A MAN AND SAY: I'M NOT SURE. I'VE SEEN THE MURDER WEAPON. I'VE SEEN A KILL B ON TV. BUT I CAN'T BE SURE A KILLED B. I CANNOT GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL MOON LANDING. MY OPINION IS A KILLED B. MY BELIEF IS THIS AND THAT ...BUT NO PROOF Rob260259 Yes Nasdaq, I can tell you with 100% certainty that men walked on the moon. And no Nasdaq, I was not on the moon in 1969. As I was not at the Somme in 1916, were you? But I can tell you with 100% certainty that the first WorldWar really happened. Why do you use these shouting capitals? Are you desperate? Nasdaq7 Relax and think clearly. Without seeing the event first hand. You cannot say 100% that the event took place. You rely on the eye witness testimony of others. I cannot be any more clear and patient with you. And people ridicule anyone that dares question NASA. It is not fair. Even if they make reasonable remarks. Rob260259 For the third time then Nasdaq: did you eye-witness the battle at the Somme in 1916? Rob260259 Nasdaq, not only do I rely on the eye witness testimony of others. Read my previous posts. I do not have the illusion that I am going to cure your delusional paranoia here on YouTube. So keep your faith and be happy, I really don't care. Nasdaq7 No I never witnessed any events. It is said ... I'm assuming ... If I can tell you how many facts I have seen personally been misrepresented over the years by journalists, by the media. By people. Don't believe everything people tell you! Question. Study. And only if you witness it yourself. Believe it 100%. And lies have a funny way of coming out. I'm sure we will learn more in years to come. The fake Dutch moon rocks may just be the tip of the iceberg... Rob260259 Wrong again Nasdaq. I was sure I had a green light some years ago when I got a ticket from that awful policewoman.... And yes! S T U D Y. Sorry for these capitals, but indeed, do some study Nasdaq and you will encounter loads of evidence that we really went to the moon. The 'tip of the iceberg' you mention was a great laugh here. It took two petrochemists only 2 minutes to acknowledge that the 'rock' was petrified wood. So what about all those other rocks...? Nasdaq7 I love your zeal. You obviously have something at stake in this matter. I don't. I'm just looking at all the facts. Edited by David C, Nov 6 2009, 08:40 AM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
41
42