without echoing NASA's statement, how would you defend this landing on the moon.

Can you imagine the physics involved to set up that large of a vacuum chamber, so we didn't see plumes of fine sand off their boots?

The editing of the thousands of photos and hundreds of videos available at JPL...

 

Oh yeah, the behavior of the regolith in various Apollo videos is just one of many rich sources of evidence. I like the Apollo 15 trench video in particular, where you can see bits of it go flying several feet with nary a whiff of billowing the way you would see in an atmosphere of any appreciable density. Even Mars with its comparatively thin atmosphere can manage to cause the planet's dust to billow, and of course famously whips the stuff up into global sand storms as well. But again, no sign whatsoever of atmosphere is to be seen in the Apollo videos, and that you couldn't hope to achieve even today without reverting to some kind of fancy computer special effects in lieu of real astronauts and dust/regolith.

I went through all sorts of arguments and photographic analysis in exploring this lunar hoax stuff for the first time on the English-language Pravda.ru forum several years ago now. The thread is even still there, still getting bumped occasionally, but it, like the forum itself, has long since been abandoned to the kooks..

 

Yeah, there's no standard of evidence that will work for people like him. I've heard a retort that the mirror could have been placed there robotically, for instance. Naturally, the LRO images that have happened to capture the Apollo landing sites are likewise disregarded as "fakable," as though that alone suffices to wave the evidence away without a further thought.

What an unfortunate way of thinking that is, to be locked up in one's own little world, ignoring amazing reality in favor of some anti-government worldview that renders even space missions and nuclear energy unreal. Where does that leave the believer? In a mental box as crazy and unreal as the basement or attic chamber they no doubt inhabit physically..

 

But there are three or four mirrors as well. They don't only use one of them.

 

Well, you could expect the same response to that. If one could have been placed robotically, so could three or four of them. I mean, honestly, we could play a game of deflection like your typical hoax believer does, where you make an argument in favor of Apollo and I dream up a way to bat that argument aside.

Not that I'm really interested in doing this, but we could.

 

Yes, I know.

The CT crowd can always find excuses not to believe the truth, no matter how undeniable it gets.

 

Yep. Once I figured that out, I pretty much gave up on arguing with them, though it's fun to stop in here once in a while anyway. Maybe it's nostalgia for those Pravda days

 

The laser bounce off the reflectors left by Apollo has been accomplished by many universities and amateurs......

I suppose they're "all in on it" too.

 

Yes I have seen and read accounts of ubernerds ( meant with the utmost respect ) who spend their own resources to build a laser capable of emiting a beam of light which can duplicate the university laboratory results.

Apparently they do this for fun. More power to em.

What no one can explain is IF the landings were faked what would be the point of faking them while simultaneously landing an unmanned mission to install the reflectors.

One other quick criticism of Mr. Scott and may some others is a false claim he has made more than once.

Essentially if you CAREFULLY study all of the images from the lunar landings long and hard enough you will find ANOMOLIES. Little things which do not make much sense when seen in a specific context.

Mr.Scott has said that if the landings were real no such anomolies would exist. This of course indicates a clear ignorance of science. There are always anomolies in everything and anything if one studies something long enough and close enough. SO of course with decades of studying the images from the lunar landings one will find something that does not seem to quite look right. This proves............nothing.

 

A nutter on Pravda argued that the Van Allen radiation belts make manned space travel beyond LEO impossible. I believe he went on to assert that the retroreflectors were therefore placed there robotically, though he also argued that even the unmanned probes like Voyager, the Mars rovers, etc. were also faked for the same reason (radiation).

An addled mind can come up with any excuse it needs to bat away logical arguments. The fun part comes when you point out their own inconsistencies in their various arguments.

 

I think most of the Moon Hoaxers go with the "Van Allen radiation" theory for why manned space flight, beyond the Earth orbital, is "impossible". They believe it's impossilbe to build a manned spacecraft capable of surviving the "intense VA radiation".

Which again poses some questions when they DO believe in orbital flights...and that we can build a spacecraft capable of the tremendous heat of re-entry and the crew survive.

Naturally, they'll build all their Tinker-toy excuses for that too.

 

They're not exactly clued in on how radiation dosage and its effects on the body works. They just know it's evil and deadly and stuff.

At least, those who believe it exists. That one guy who was adamant about humans not being able to travel beyond LEO due to radiation was also adamant that nuclear energy was a hoax. Not sure how we're supposed to have radiation without nuclear energy..

 

Mirrors can be placed by unmanned craft so mirrors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4
(3:26:12 time mark)

 

See? So Scott, why couldn't men land on the Moon, if robotic probes could? "Van Allen Radiation"?

- - - Updated - - -

Love to meet a conspiracy theorist who believed there is "no such thing as nuclear energy".

How does he explain those big concrete buildings that use no coal or natural gas or solar panels....but produce electricity???

 

This is where you provide some evidence for this. Where are the development teams that created this hardware and all the technical teams to launch, track and land it? Your video is nothing to do with this, it is the debunked film from David Percy.

 

If the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology to land an unmanned craft on the moon with a rotating upper section with adjustable reflectors attached to its sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program


Do you pro-Apollo people maintain that mirrors on the moon are proof that there were people on the moon?

 

So, you are basically forced to admit that Surveyor has to be real. Meanwhile you avoided my post entirely:-

We all know you have no proof, so just say so.

Of course not. But in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it stands as evidence for it.

You are incapable of putting arguments into your own words. Your whole cut and paste, relies on the work of others. When asked about the lunar samples, you simply are unable to respond, so we get your spammed website links and somebody else's ignorant claims.

Question: Are you capable of explaining how the lunar samples were obtained, in your own words?

 

Examples that have plausible alternative scenarios such as reflectors on the moon don't make the proof that the footage was faked in a studio go away. There's a mountain of proof that the missions were faked in a studio.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

The flag moving without being touched and the way Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon are positive proof that at least some of the footage was faked (see first part of above post). There's absolutely no positive proof that the missions were real.

If somebody else's work makes sense, who cares whose work it is. Of course I can think of alternative senarios: an unmanned robotic craft could have collected them and returned them to earth. There are alternative scenarios that would explain the lunar samples and they don't make the positive proof of fakery I mentioned above go away. Once some positive proof is found, stuff with plausible alternative explanations is all moot.

Here's some stuff about the lunar samples from my above link in case any viewers missed it.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

 

It isn't a plausible scenario. I guess that's why you keep running away from my question asking for some proof. You have none. The development phase, the assembly phase, defining launch window, vehicle tracking and landing involve a substantial number of people. There are 3 of them on the Moon. In addition, there were dozens and dozens of individually placed science experiments sending back gigabytes of data for some considerable time.

Do you have any proof for these?

There is no proof and you argue like a child.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

You are like a stuck record with your spam claims. Link above addresses these.

The lunar samples are proof. There are 50 plus hours of surface footage showing lunar gravity without any faults. I demonstrate one tiny example of this and you have no answer to it:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs

Comedy. What may make sense to you, does not to those who understand.

Vastly more difficult than sending men to do it.

No there are not and you have no evidence whatsoever for anything.


In your own words, name some alternative scenarios. It's called debate!

 

You haven't answer my question, Scott.

If we could land Surveyor-1....robotically in May 1966....why couldn't Neil Armstrong do it with help from Buzz Aldrin in July 1969?

 

Well, you could always sign up at the Pravda English forum and see if he's still posting away. I think he is under the name of Ghostwriter.

If'n it ain't against the rules.. engforum.pravda.ru

 

You know that's all classified information. An objective debator wouldn't demand something he knows is impossible for the other side go get.

http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs

This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
---------------------------------------------

I've never seen it debunked. Show us where it's been debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4

If there are any viewers who don't have time to actually view the proof, please don't be swayed by rhetoric and withhold judgement until you've seen the proof.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

It's all pretty clear.

I guess I'll have to post this again.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

Viewers-

The clearest proof of fakery is the way the flag moved without being touched. Check out post #1 of this thread.

Also, please look at this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979

BetaMax showed himself to be less-than-sincerer by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

 

Let the record show that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. Let it also show that he failed also to come up with "other" scnearios for gathering rocks.

It isn't impossible. Of all the numerous people needed to be involved, none have come forward. There are no documents, no visible signs, no eye witness accounts of lunar launch vehicles. This absence of proof doesn't support your case, it shows you don't have one. Your argument is pathetic.

You said it.

Not playing dumb, acting dumb. I just posted the link. The blue highlighted letters?

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-1.html

Anyway, what you see is irrelevant. It's been debunked whether you are smart enough to see it or not.

Spam.

Spam and off topic. It takes a rare form of blinkered "trothing" to use another dumb conspiracy claim to support another.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Your cut and paste replies are nauseatingly repetitive.

 

Scott?

Ask again....if we could land Surveyor-1 robotically on the Moon in May 1966....why couldn't Neil Armstrong aided by Buzz Aldrin do it three years later in July 1969?

 

It was probably space radiation. You can read about it here in post #1.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html