NASA's Moonlanding Hoax Debunked Once and for ALL

Punisher is a moron.

Go for it. Make your case.

Punisher, you just lost.

Epic fail.

So much for that irony meter. ;)

He could have stopped there.

'NASA LIES' is of course 'Punisher'.

So far, Punisher has proved (to his satisfaction), the 'Flat-Earth Theory', and that 'Solar Eclipses Cannot Possibly Happen'....

His supporters include:

Untypical User (Emily Cragg/Chaiyah)

..and... well, that's about it.


His entertainment value is unquestionable. It is unfortunate that he is pretty much the kiss of death to any cause he takes on.

IF Punisher had actually stated anything new in his 'debunking', someone might reply. But he hasn't, and has already shown his non-grasp of basic maths and geometry.

For anyone who wishes to re-flog this ailing horse and join Punisher's Elite Team, perhaps you could start with these sources, depending on your comprehension ability and level of knowledge, they are in a rough order from most basic to most comprehensive:

Mythbusters, Episode 104. "Moon Hoax Myth". ( [link to mythbustersresults.com]
[link to www.space.com]
National Geographic, 2005 Episode 1150, "Conspiracy Moon Landing"
(also [link to news.nationalgeographic.com]
[link to abcnews.go.com]
[link to cumbriansky.wordpress.com]
(note the cool simulation of what the LRO should be capable of, once it is tuned up and fully operational)
[link to www.badastronomy.com]
[link to homepages.wmich.edu]
[link to www.apollo-hoax.co.uk]
[link to www.iangoddard.com]
[link to pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu]
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.braeunig.us]

Now, if you have something NEW, post away. But if it is something old, please give us a link that refers to the current debunking (by all means use any of the above), and offer your full coountering argument. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours.

If that list is too long for you, just use one of the last two links.


Lastly, I have FOUND PUNISHER'S WEBSITE on this matter!!!

And I have to admit, after visiting it, I am beginning to be swayed, maybe it IS a hoax?? Here it is:

[link to hater]

Read that and weep, debunkers!

Oh, I see I have triggered GLP's fucking childish website banning word-substitution system. GLP obviously hates Punisher...

To get to that amusing website, just follow your nose and decode the following (remove ONLY the spaces and && symbols):

h&&tt&&p://stuff&& ucan &&use.com /fake&& _moon&& _landings/&& moon&& _landings.ht&&m


Cheers, glp.

(Please, quote this post to make GLP's mod's get angry..)

OK, quoted.. that site is rather funny...

And here it is again. Are we having fun yet?

By the way, Merry Christmas GLP censors! If anyone else is affected by these silly bans, I suggest you post the following words, so that people can do a Google search and find out why they are used:

fuck_off
jerry_springer
Merry Christmas
nolink4_you
flowers
puppies
kittens
bye bye
haters
Merry Christmas
tridget the midget


Yes, GLP, home of the grown ups, and freee speech!!!!!

Debunked?

Again?

Double negative equals that The Hoax has been Debunked then right?

I don't know or care who Punisher is, but I can assure you he did not author this thread.
Since none of my posts will show up now under my well known identity here, I simply used a statement for an ID.

WOAH.. Wait a minute!

IDW is claiming HE is 'NASA LIES' (note the capitalisation, exactly the same as Punisher? Did someone just reveal their schizophrenia or sockpuppeting, or is that just a REMARKABLE coincidence?

... Nice one, IDW ....

You just SANK your own thread by aligning yourself with Punisher.

And the title is indeed correct.

The Moon Hoax has been debunked, comprehensively.

WHO GIVES A RATS ASS!!!

.. you do coz you posted?

what's my prize?

Opie will never come close to a real debate because of inane comments will deflect his objective. Too many mind controlled sock puppets and half-wits.

I didn't intend to use a fake identity, just to get past the censorship. I've never heard of Punisher and I've used the moniker 'NASA LIES' many times in the past to do just that.
I have been very busy over the past year and have had little time for this quest for the truth. I have some new information to present as well as much that has been systematically removed from the internet because it exposed the hoax.
The challenge stands, and as for Jay Wesley I doubt he has the courage to show. He has nothing to gain as he has himself stated. I wonder why he feels that way given the nature of his job title?

Lots of us here have the pictures to show that NASA used sound stages.

This is nothing new.

What WAS news to me was that Disney AND Kubrick were both involved.

That's a lot of corporate collusion!

If I were going to produce a fake moonlanding back in the late 60's , Kubrick would definitley have come to mind considering the job he did on 2001.

BREAKING! BREAKING!

IDW posts thread saying that he has changed his mind - "Moonlanding Hoax DEBUNKED once and for all", he says.

Also admits to using "NASA LIES" identity.


Spread the Word!!

Even on 2001, when the spaceship lands on the Moon, the dust billows and hangs in the air. That's not how it works!

You have lots of pictures you IMAGINE show many things. But you are mentally ill and you see imaginary things that are not there, so your opinion is worthless.

Nothing in any sci-fi movie comes close to the realism of any moon images. Morons just show how little they understand when they say the moon images/vidoes look 'faked'.

Even though I'm an administrator over on the BAUT Forum, I doubt I could persuade Jay Windley to enter the GLP cesspool.

As for the OP, I'm inclined to believe that this "NASA LIES" and the one we've been dealing with are indeed two different people. This one isn't frothing at the mouth the way Punisher does.

I sympathize with the effort of not letting the enemy pick the language. One man's freedom fighters, etc.

However, there is a hoax here; it is the effort to take a well-documented historical event and cast doubts on it such that make possible the gathering of social and real currency by the promulgators of those doubts.

In small words -- people make money from making up stories about how Apollo was hoaxed. Or they make notoriety, which is worth something as well. How many visitors would Jarrah White's YouTube site have, after all, if he removed all the Apollo Hoax material?

Still, for semantic simplicity I've been removing the term "hoax" from most of my conversation. Better to refer to the argument more directly; "Apollo Denier" versus "Apollo Supporter." That way, there is no confusion about which "hoax" one might be referring to.





It depends on your form of reasoning. For some, a shotgun approach works; many bad arguments are assumed to somehow add up to one or more good arguments. For others, only good arguments make the cut and should be actively considered; and the list of those is short indeed.

But then, the prime method of the Apollo Deniers is an emotional appeal, and for that, any shade of doubt is sufficient. (If they took that same attitude to, say, their chances of getting to the corner store alive, they'd probably stay in their rooms until they starved. I can come up with a dozen remote but not impossible ways I might die on that journey, without taxing my imagination overmuch.)




As to the former, I have not seen it ever put that way. There are no plans to repeat Apollo. There is a program with somewhat nebulous goals and a twenty-year timeline on the last-known NASA budget (already been changed by the new administration, but anyhow!) If there was need, most observers believe that any of the technological nations could get someone to the Moon with a crash program in rather less time than that. The US might manage it in as little as two years, if the need was urgent enough.

As to the latter -- why should the onus be on Apollo Supporters to come up with the best arguments against the veracity of the program? Shouldn't you be dreaming them up? Well, the Apollo Deniers have been trying for some forty years and they haven't found many decent ones yet.

Who is it that keeps bringing up bad old arguments like diverging shadows or "no stars?" Why, if there is this point of honor in addressing the "real disqualifications," do the majority of the Apollo Deniers continue to waste time with the ridiculous and the long-debunked instead?

(Is it just possible they have no intent of strong debate on scientific merits, but instead are reaching for convincing arguments to sway the general public to their view -- regardless of whether those arguments are any good?)



You won't find "NASA's best" here, or on YouTube. They are a bit too busy designing real spacecraft, and exploring space. Instead you'll have to settle for amateur debaters. Fortunately, most of us Apollo amateurs have studied the subject a little. We know where the Rover was stored, unlike Jack White. We can actually name a few of the astronauts, and we've even heard of esoterica like quindar tones, or slow-scan video.

Sometimes I think that "It looks faked" to them means "it doesn't look the way it did in the movies." Kind of backwards there.

Either that, or, "It doesn't look like I imagined it would look like."

What basis informed their imaginations, though, is anyone's guess.

While it is true that the mentally ill do not make the best witnesses because their credibility is automatically in question, it is not true that their opinions are all worthless, nor is it true that real evidence they present is automatically disqualified. I've seen the pictures of the sound stages myself and they are real evidence nomatter who presents it. With the photography alone the moonlanding hoax is easily exposed to the thinking man. For instance the mountains in every photograph supposedly taken on the moon show signs of advanced erosion .There are literally thousands of mistakes and gross errors made in the production of these photgoraphs and videos..As for the thinking man, It's unfortunate that there are so few left that meet that description. Most are conditioned to believe what they're told to believe in an effort to conform. Since I have never tried to conform , I am not saddled with worrying about what the uninformed think of my position.

as for the photography, here are a few questions I have myself:
Why were none of the photographs time stamped? It seems if you planned on using them for evidence of success, they'd have thought of that.Is it because it would have given away the fact that there are more pictures than the astronots could possibly have taken?

Why do none of the photographs show signs of degredation from radiation? Just leaving a package of film in the Sun (on a cold day} for too long will cause this, inside the Earths protective shields and in a foil wrapper.

How did they manage to take so many photographs and videos withen the time constraints they were under?(see question one)

Why were there no pictures of Earth taken on the return trip, when this would have made for some spectacular photography?

Why do the videos of the LEM spacecraft moving in space look so fake? Instant acceleration and deceleration are not convincing cinematography, nor are they physically possible. When thrust is applied to an object it gradually accelerates, it does not achieve a specific velocity instantaneously like in the videos..

Why do the videos of the lunar rover show roostertails of dirt that behave precisely like seen on Earth behind an atv or car driving through dry sand, except that the film has been altered in speed? The acceleration due to gravity on the moon is much less than on Earth, and even though they slowed the videos down to make it believable the dirt falls about 4 times as fast as it should.

Oh that's right, it's been a long time. The guys name is Windley. I don't know how I remembered it as Wesley. I am sorry for the mistake but I am quite sure you remember me as Interdimensional warrior. ALmsot every word I have written on the subject of the moonlanding hoax has been removed from the internet, and considering the volume of it that in itself is evidence someone didn't want you to see it..
I doubt he will debate me nomatter how respectful I treat him because he cannot successfully engage me in debate and gain anything, but he can lose something. Like his credibility. I've seen him destroy weak arguments on television and on the internet, but he avoids the intelligent questions.