They faked it ! The Moon Landing !!

Is that what the kids say these days?

Our culture is really deteriorating.
Back in the days we knew some real juicy insults.


(Google Beschaafde Tango (NSFW))

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/10/2013 09:10 PM

That's it -- you're a Poe.


Either that, or you are hoping to wrest title of this month's stundie.

Wrong. They did. The first time asked.

BS burnt those tapes, though. He wasn't interested in letting people know the truth. He kept asking, and kept shooting, until the astronauts got disgusted with him and told him to buzz off. And THAT's when he kept the tape.

Don't forget Doctor Astroshill!

'cause they all trusted in God on a dollar bill

LIAR!



RIJKS MOON's PIECE OF WOOD

[link to content.usatoday.com]

.

Proof it.


What is your evidence the card and the stone originally belonged together?
What is your evidence the card didn't come in the mail?

Do you even know what the word 'provenance' means?
Or 'evidence'?

Let's talk about NASA and their uncanny ability to propagate radio waves that could travel faster than the speed of light. Feel free to take a trip on the web to NASA.gov and check out some of the Apollo recordings. Note to yourself the absence of delay between transmissions. Now for Halcyon and his "Proof it":

Radio waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Obviously we're not in a vacuum here on earth, but the outcome of a total vacuum scenario still proves the hoax.
Distance to the moon = 238,900 miles. Radio waves travel at about 186,282 miles per second. Simply put 186,282/1 = 238,900/x. 238,900/186,282 = x which is 1.282 If we accounted for the distance of non-vacuum area we can safely say there should have been a 1.5 second delay on each transmission to and from the moon. But, oh but, there wasn't such a delay. Which is why we should ask NASA the Einstein question of all questions: How, oh how, did you manage to propagate radio waves at a speed faster than the speed of light?

No takers huh? Didn't think anyone could adequately explain how NASA managed to break the speed of light barrier.

Care to go over this with a specific recording?

Shotgun approach... Ignore all the stuff you have already thrown against the wall, which wouldn't stick, and all the questions you have been asked which, if you answered, would have exposed the absurdity of your position.

Now you just expect others to just start dancing for you the moment you toss something new out. Yawn...

Right... if someone responds right away, you accuse them of being paid to monitor the thread. If no one answers in 30 minutes, it proves that your assertion is correct.

Wot a maroon!

Of course there are paid shills, especially on this topic. We're beyond that though, I know you're interests. My interest is truth and, oh I don't know, I guess I kind of believe that Guss Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee are the real HERO's not bowing down to the lie like Buzz, Neil, and Collins did. But beyond this emotional plea, NASA still has some 'splaining' to do about breaking the light barrier. Many scientists are lining up in anticipation.

You didn't respond to another question:

Care to go over this with a specific recording?

You are a paid communist shill.

Prove it.


Yeah, because if you want to get rid of someone that won't play along, the best way to do that is to do it in an extremely public incident that invites scrutiny and nearly gets the entire priject shut down.
You didn't really think that through did you?



You have yet to prove there is anything to explain. All the recordings I've heard have the appropriate delay. Halcyon Dayz asked for a specific recording and all we hear from you is crickets.



Really? Name one.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 03/10/2013 05:00 PM

Just another unevidence ASSertion in a very long string of unevidenced ASSertions.

You have been shown to be incapable of proving a single one of your claims.
Why would this one be any different?


You do?
You also like My Little Ponies?


It's not.

People who have a genuine interrest in the truth of something spend effort to learn all there is to known about that something.
Like all hoaxies you don't know shit about Apollo.


Since emotional pleas are logical fallacies why even bring it up?


Only facts need to be explained.

Unevidenced ASSertions do not.
They need to be proven to be true.
Be the person doing the asserting.

So have at it.

Actually no, I dislike the faux Russian Space missions as well but I digress....
Let's start with this recording...

I especially like how you can see right through the ASTRO-NOT. It's almost as if they were utilizing a scotch screen and projection to make it seem like they were on the moon.

Right... if someone responds right away, you accuse them of being paid to monitor the thread. If no one answers in 30 minutes, it proves that your assertion is correct.

Wot a maroon!

Of course there are paid shills, especially on this topic. We're beyond that though, I know you're interests. My interest is truth and, oh I don't know, I guess I kind of believe that Guss Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee are the real HERO's not bowing down to the lie like Buzz, Neil, and Collins did. But beyond this emotional plea, NASA still has some 'splaining' to do about breaking the light barrier. Many scientists are lining up in anticipation.


Please explain to me why they went out of their way to explain the light-speed limit to the general public AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL LANDINGS WERE BROADCAST.

You seem to think this is news. It has been commented on on practically every NASA mission.

Here's you. You notice that one NASA source seems to be saying "A = 2" and another NASA source seems to be saying "A + A = 4." You immediately leap to the conclusion that out of the tens of millions of people who have also seen these two datum, only you were intelligent enough to notice the contradiction.

I respectfully suggest to you the alternative is true; that out of tens of thousands or more who noticed the apparent contradiction, they didn't stop thinking there. They didn't run out the door screaming "NASA lies about everything!" Instead they looked again, to see where the confusion might lie.

That's....unique.

Please explain to me what part of front-projection technique would produce distortion-free transparency.

While you are at it, explain why the the helmets used in any studio setting -- particularly one in which front projection technique was contemplated -- would be spherical.

Heck, I'd be happy if you just gave evidence of understanding why that would be an issue (or, even, knowledge of what such disparate surfaces as the diving helmets in "The Abyss" and the F302 fighter in "Stargate SG-1" look like geometrically, and why the film-makers made that choice).

Of course there are paid shills, especially on this topic. We're beyond that though, I know you're interests. My interest is truth and, oh I don't know, I guess I kind of believe that Guss Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee are the real HERO's not bowing down to the lie like Buzz, Neil, and Collins did. But beyond this emotional plea, NASA still has some 'splaining' to do about breaking the light barrier. Many scientists are lining up in anticipation.


Please explain to me why they went out of their way to explain the light-speed limit to the general public AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL LANDINGS WERE BROADCAST.

You seem to think this is news. It has been commented on on practically every NASA mission.

Here's you. You notice that one NASA source seems to be saying "A = 2" and another NASA source seems to be saying "A + A = 4." You immediately leap to the conclusion that out of the tens of millions of people who have also seen these two datum, only you were intelligent enough to notice the contradiction.

I respectfully suggest to you the alternative is true; that out of tens of thousands or more who noticed the apparent contradiction, they didn't stop thinking there. They didn't run out the door screaming "NASA lies about everything!" Instead they looked again, to see where the confusion might lie.

nomuse not logged in...long time no chat. I've read through your post several times just to make sure I didn't miss anything. I couldn't help but notice there was no reply to the video I posted. Two points of argument included: #1. The absence of the approx 1.5 second delay necessary for radio waves to travel to and from the moon. #2. The invisible astronauts which coincides with a scotch screen projection.
Also...For the many you claim are absolutely convinced of the moon landing there are also many critical thinking people who know better. Unless you can produce statistics to that matter, let's just stick to the points of argument, shall we? Also, let's leave out the Ad Hominem attacks as well as they are shallow and very apparent. I am willing to be open minded on the matter, but please give me substance of rebuttal for the two points I've politely enquired about. Thanks

You "digress"???? You equivocate, misrepresent, and downright run away from supporting any of the utter fucking nonsense you spew.

What happened to the light speed issue you raised? Oh... somebody called your bluff, so you just started throwing different crap against the wall? BITE ME, you fucking insipid troll.

oh fuck it, we know nasa could beam signals to the moon, bounce a flounce back to earth so they was talkin to themselve all along. Thats why they had to pin it on a single source in australia report the fakery so it was compartmentalized and fully contained and controlled.

Actually no one called my bluff because it's fact. I'm sorry, but the 1.5 second delay to and from the moon is not adhered to in the moon hoax. I've included a link to a video in my above posts which clearly shows this fact. I've also added to this, the fact that the astronaut is transparent at times which is also another glitch of the moon film. This is not a normal effect but rather a side-effect for film manipulation. That's a fact jack.

First, since it contains material from different cameras in different locations this video has obviously been edited.
What is its provenance?

Second, which specific responses do you claim are premature? Give the time codes.

Are you sure you're not confusing the voices of people Earth-side with those of the missions crew?
Have you checked the transcript?


It almost looks exactly like ghosting.
A common artefact caused by the latency of the tube.


Translated from SC22ese: "Something I just discovered inside my colon."

Which tube are you inferring to? The see through astronaut was visible on the direct projection provided by NASA. Remember, they wouldn't allow a direct feed but rather forced images to be captured from projection. That alone raises many many questions, but the television tube you are alluding to is not an issue; yet the invisible astronaut problem remains. As far as time hacks, I guess we can hone in on the 38 second marker for instance. Absent a 1.5 second delay X 2.

At 38 seconds you hear first the astronaut and then Houston. Since it was recorded at Houston there is no delay expected there. Immediately after that the camera changes (clear edit) so there is no reason to expect a delay there. Is that the best you've got?

If you want to TRY to make a case you need an unedited audio recording. This is NOT it.

As far as the tube, I believe that is the one inthe camera.