Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

The point I am making is that NASA fraud is not out of character for governments. 

 

That's a fair point. But doesn't mean the moon landings were faked. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SimonTV said:

 

No the lack of dust on the lander proves it is fake. 

 

I've been assessing these apollo hoax claims for years now. And one thing I always find is the same arguments debunked hundreds of times, over and over. It justs becomes silly after a while. Interesting at first. Then funny. Then silly. Then just plain boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

They were debunked in Apollo Zero if I remember correctly. Not difficult to fake data. 

Memory is a very fickle thing ,maybe you don't remember correctly,just saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

They are simply working under the assumption that the NASA fraud is legitimate and going with it. They don't prove the reflector story by acting as if it is real. 

So what you saying is legit scientists believe the NASA fraud and conduct themselves accordingly , well lets say it is a fraud and as such there can't possibly be any reflectors up there , a logical person would have to ask

1  what object did the gentleman fire the laser at on the moon then ,if he indeed did and if not

2   is he also  part of the elaborate  fraud as well and  just there to lend weight to the so called bogus moon landings.

I know what seem more plausible ,to me anyway

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarianF said:

 

I've been assessing these apollo hoax claims for years now. And one thing I always find is the same arguments debunked hundreds of times, over and over. It justs becomes silly after a while. Interesting at first. Then funny. Then silly. Then just plain boring.

exactly ,flat earth anyone?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

I expected more from you than this explanation? I guess it all rests on this very notion. 

 

This is correct. The exhaust on descent stage rocket is coming out at thousands of metres per second. How please can you think dust is not sent very far away? It is very obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

Yes I calculated several years ago that NASA budget had cumulatively reached $800 billion dollars since its inception, not accounting for inflation. That is a lot of reasons to come up with some what almost plausible technical lies for everyone to eat up. Never mind the blatant wastes of money like the AS2 test stand that was never used. 

 

This is a thread for Apollo. Apollo budget was close to 25 billion and much money was spent on Saturn V and launches. Your argument is very poor, all Apollo money was paid to subcontractors for Lunar Module, Command Module, Lunar Rover, Special build computers, space suit. There was half a million staff on Apollo. Lots of wages.

 

The Space Review: A new accounting for Apollo: how much did it really cost? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

The entire story from the part they leave the atmosphere to the point they end the press conference. 

 

This is your appeal to incredulity, it is not an argument. 

16 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Reflectors are a joke and debunked years ago. 

 

False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time.

 

I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2021 at 9:24 PM, peter said:

So what you saying is legit scientists believe the NASA fraud and conduct themselves accordingly , well lets say it is a fraud and as such there can't possibly be any reflectors up there , a logical person would have to ask

1  what object did the gentleman fire the laser at on the moon then ,if he indeed did and if not

2   is he also  part of the elaborate  fraud as well and  just there to lend weight to the so called bogus moon landings.

I know what seem more plausible ,to me anyway

 

Did I say that? Don't think I did. 

 

People are easily manipulated, they are fed fake data and some even base their whole career around fake data. Many are so deep in to the fraud, that even if they were presented with evidence to the contrary they would be unable to comprehend it. 

 

I went up and placed a cow on mars and here is the data. Prove me wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 11:35 AM, Doctor What said:

 

This is correct. The exhaust on descent stage rocket is coming out at thousands of metres per second. How please can you think dust is not sent very far away? It is very obvious.

 

It is very obvious that is a laughable lie, to think a vehicle could land on any surface without getting any dust on it, is ludicrous. This even applies to the Mars lander which has limited self cleaning capacity, it is funny. I think anyone can easily observe that below the landing pad and below the lander has not been disturbed by any engines and certainly not by an engine with such power. You also failed to address the fact the the video you posted showed dust displacement within the camera view, clearly showing dust around the lander during the descent. It seems ridiculous and it is ridiculous to claim that the lander could land with such an engine with a video showing such dust movement result in a post landing image of the lander with zero dust on it. 

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 11:41 AM, Doctor What said:

 

This is a thread for Apollo. Apollo budget was close to 25 billion and much money was spent on Saturn V and launches. Your argument is very poor, all Apollo money was paid to subcontractors for Lunar Module, Command Module, Lunar Rover, Special build computers, space suit. There was half a million staff on Apollo. Lots of wages.

 

The Space Review: A new accounting for Apollo: how much did it really cost? 

 

No, you are missing the point, the reason NASA faked Apollo and ISS and space travel is for $800 billion. In response to the common argument, why would they do fake it? People always make that argument, not just about NASA but other topics as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 11:46 AM, Doctor What said:

 

This is your appeal to incredulity, it is not an argument. 

 

False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time.

 

I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. 

 

You asked which parts a fraud and I answered the question. 

 

If I had to ask you to prove to me that there are reflectors on the moon what would you say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

It is very obvious that is a laughable lie, to think a vehicle could land on any surface without getting any dust on it, is ludicrous. 

 

Once more you offer your appeal to incredulity. To independent viewers, I offer the obvious. To you, it seems you experience trouble with the obvious. Rocket gases strike a surface at thousands of metres per second if you are unable to understand why dust is moved with this speed I see no point with labouring such a point with you.

 

59 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

This even applies to the Mars lander which has limited self cleaning capacity, it is funny.

 

There are winds on Mars. Because you have no knowledge and understanding doesn't alter the obvious.

 

59 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 I think anyone can easily observe that below the landing pad and below the lander has not been disturbed by any engines and certainly not by an engine with such power. 

 

Not even your own claim. You are what Mr. Icke calls a repeater. Debunked for 20 years -

Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

 

I have no expectation of you reading this link. One other consideration is why NASA can be so dumb to photograph and talk with astronauts about this issue - but according to only hoax belief should be a big crater!

 

59 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

You also failed to address the fact the the video you posted showed dust displacement within the camera view, clearly showing dust around the lander during the descent. 

 

I address this with the same point. It is moving thousands of metres per second. What more is there for you to understand?

 

59 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

  It seems ridiculous and it is ridiculous to claim that the lander could land with such an engine with a video showing such dust movement result in a post landing image of the lander with zero dust on it. 

 

Appealing once more to incredulity. Same answer. And, seconds before a landing was the LM much more light from almost no fuel and able to throttle back on the engine. Explained on this page you will not read -

Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

No, you are missing the point, the reason NASA faked Apollo and ISS and space travel is for $800 billion. In response to the common argument, why would they do fake it? People always make that argument, not just about NASA but other topics as well. 

 

I am missing no point that is relevant. The budget was 25 billion. But let me pick my jaw up from the floor! You now are claiming ISS is also fake  this is a extremely stupid idea. And space travel too?

 

Oh dear, are you a flat earther disguised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

You asked which parts a fraud and I answered the question. 

 

If I had to ask you to prove to me that there are reflectors on the moon what would you say? 

 

Do not quote my post and not answer. This is very dishonest. You said reflectors debunked:

 

False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time.

 

I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. 

 

Please try once more and properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

Did I say that? Don't think I did. 

 

People are easily manipulated, they are fed fake data and some even base their whole career around fake data. Many are so deep in to the fraud, that even if they were presented with evidence to the contrary they would be unable to comprehend it. 

 

I went up and placed a cow on mars and here is the data. Prove me wrong. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

Do not quote my post and not answer. This is very dishonest. You said reflectors debunked:

 

False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time.

 

I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. 

 

Please try once more and properly.

 

50 years of data. All faked of course. 😂 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/50-years-apollo-11-experiment-sending-data-moon/story?id=64339197

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

Once more you offer your appeal to incredulity. To independent viewers, I offer the obvious. To you, it seems you experience trouble with the obvious. Rocket gases strike a surface at thousands of metres per second if you are unable to understand why dust is moved with this speed I see no point with labouring such a point with you.

 

 

There are winds on Mars. Because you have no knowledge and understanding doesn't alter the obvious.

 

 

Not even your own claim. You are what Mr. Icke calls a repeater. Debunked for 20 years -

Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

 

I have no expectation of you reading this link. One other consideration is why NASA can be so dumb to photograph and talk with astronauts about this issue - but according to only hoax belief should be a big crater!

 

 

I address this with the same point. It is moving thousands of metres per second. What more is there for you to understand?

 

 

Appealing once more to incredulity. Same answer. And, seconds before a landing was the LM much more light from almost no fuel and able to throttle back on the engine. Explained on this page you will not read -

Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

 

Your argument is a silly contradiction. On the one hand you are saying the engine moves dust so fast that it doesn't leave any dust behind on the lander, yet at the same time you claim that it doesn't create a creator.  You would have to leave your logic at the door to believe that one, no matter how complicated and convoluted the evidence appeared to be. 

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

I am missing no point that is relevant. The budget was 25 billion. But let me pick my jaw up from the floor! You now are claiming ISS is also fake  this is a extremely stupid idea. And space travel too?

 

Oh dear, are you a flat earther disguised?

 

Here we go. Ignore the evidence, double down and accuse of flat earth. It is like you guys have a checklist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

Do not quote my post and not answer. This is very dishonest. You said reflectors debunked:

 

False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time.

 

I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. 

 

Please try once more and properly.

 

If I had to ask you to prove to me that there are reflectors on the moon what would you say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...