@Cosmored You call this site proof? This is the same nonsense that has been recycled year after year for the past 40. The flag waving, don't tell me this old hat is still going around. So much nonsense.
What about the JAXA (japenese space agency) has taken 3d images of the moon that match the Apollo landing pictures exactly, watch?v=bpveN21EM9Q. Also watch?v=kbTRGj5aNCM&feature=channel_video_title
The is possible only if the Apollo images are accurate, they did not have 3d in ’69, (cont)
@Cosmored (cont)The JAXA had resolution of 10 meters, not enough to see the actual hardware. But if you want to see the Apollo11 landing site from the LRO, in resolution better than the best commercial satellite we have around Earth today, googles GeoEye-1 has a 16-inch ground resolution, while GoneToPlaid has enhanced the LRO photos to 6 inch resolution. watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ&feature=ch¬annel_video_title
@Cosmored Show me where the JAXA had 6" resolution. This is completely false. According to the JAXA mission instrument website, the Terrain camera (TC) (resolution 10 meters per pixel), not enough to see Apollo hardware. Also verified on Wikepedia.
You can always say anything is "fakable", does not make it so. Not just photos returned from Selene and LRO, also a LOT of data. No one in the scientific community has expressed the least doubt concerning these probes. Game over.
"No one in the scientific community has expressed the least doubt concerning these probes"
We haven't read that they've had doubts. If one were to have a doubt, he'd have trouble making his opinion known. You seem to be trying to bury the info in this link I keep posting to get it off page one. All I can do to thwart you is to keep posting it.
@Cosmored "The JAXA had resolution....6 inch resolution"
It is the LRO images here, that are enhanced to 6" resolution: watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ&feature=channel_video_title
Other landing sites also enhanced.
I stated JAXA's Selene probe made 3d images of the moon that match the Apollo landing pictures exactly, watch?v=bpveN21EM9Q. Also watch?v=kbTRGj5aNCM&feature=channel_video_title
No way to fake that. Photos taken from lunar surface during Apollo match exactly what JAXA imaged recently.
"No way to fake that. Photos taken from lunar surface during Apollo match exactly what JAXA imaged recently."
We don't know which photos were really taken where. NASA could make everything match if it wanted to pull a stunt to further obfuscate the situation. Those photos don't prove anything.
Yes they do. They match TV transmitted live to the World. The TV pictures in turn match weather patterns exactly as per satellite pictures at the time they would be half way to the Moon. So satellite data taken in real time becomes moving pictures and clear photographs taken at great distance and obviously not faked. Only a moron can refute this evidence. That's you.....
"Yes they do. They match TV transmitted live to.....taken at great distance and obviously not faked. Only a moron can refute this evidence"
If they really came live from space, how do we know it wasn't just a satellite filming the earth. This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
Why am I blocked from postingf on those two videos?
@Cosmored "How do we know it wasn't a satellite?" You know jack shit about orbital mechanics. Satellites move in orbit. The only way to keep a satellite stationary is by it being in a narrow corridor at 22k miles - geostationary. It then moves in relation to the Moon and moves off signal direction. Then you forget that the weather patterns match moving pictures and still photography. Hmmm, magic. You're unblocked, don't spam forum links at me or I'll block your spamming ass again.
It'a plausible that it wasn't a satellite. If it turns out that it's proved that it was a craft where Apollo was supposed to be, how do we know it was manned?
This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
@Cosmored No, it's impossible it was a satellite, cretin. So we have an unmanned craft with OBVIOUSLY somebody holding a camera , zooming in and out, and filming his colleagues?? Apollo 11 is where it should be, it matches weather system data and photography. You keep going on about your stupid mountain of (debunked to death) evidence and spamming your links anywhere you can like a dog pissing everywhere.
@Cosmored "If it turns out that it's proved that it was a craft where Apollo was supposed to be, how do we know it was manned?"
I told you, if it wasn't manned the transmission delay would have to be twice as long. Math does not lie. Get your head out of these pseudoscience conspiracy sites and read some real science.
And lastly, my CHALLENGE still stands, if you still believe in your hoax site's evidence, give me the best one they have, I will easily debunk it with science.
"if it wasn't manned the transmission delay would have to be twice as long"
We read that this has been verified but is that true? For all we know it was prerecorded with the right delay. If there are plausible scenarios that would explain something, it can't be used as proof. Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Russia, Jodrell Bank & Frequencies".
@Cosmored Why is this so hard for you to understand. If it was just a satellite in lunar orbit, whether prerecorded or not, the transmission from the astronauts would of taken twice as long, since there is no one in lunar orbit to send signal. The tracking stations working for Nasa all around the world would know if the signals were coming from the moon since their antenna was pointed there. If the signal came from earth to moon satellite and back to earth, thats twice the expected delay.
"Why is this so hard for you to...the expected delay."
All we have is second-hand info on this. We have no way to verify what really happened. If there are some clear anomalies in the footage that show fakery, that trumps second-hand info that may be bogus.
@Cosmored What does second hand info have to do with the fact that tracking stations around the world would of known if there was no one on the moon by the delay. Of course it is second hand, do you think I was there. You think all these tracking stations are lying, covering up for Nasa, this conspiracy just keeps growing.
Believe whatever you like, you are obviously obsessed with this site you keep posting and do not understand enough about physics to be objectionable.
@Cosmored Remember, Tracking stations around the world, hired by Nasa (and others on their own) to send and receive the transmission signals between Houston and Moon (as Earth turned different ones would pick up duties) knew their antenna was pointed at the moon, and knew the expected delay in the signal. If there was no astronaut on moon (or at least in lunar orbit) the signal would have been twice the delay. Math doesn't lie, and this proves at least someone was in lunar orbit.
@Cosmored What are you talking about? All I see on this site is nonsense. One video of Collins jacket going up and down in time with him running in place, what's wrong with that? Another of a women on a treadmill with caption from your site, "Here hair flops up and down but there's clearly no gravity; her hair has no tendency to go downward." Of course it would go up and down, she is running on a treadmill. This is your best evidence you have, come on, this is nonsense.
The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner by putting a loose jacket on a hanger and bouncing it up and down.
@Cosmored "The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity."
Please tell me your joking and this is not the best evidence you can come up with. Ever heard of a little thing called inertia. The jacket moves exactly as it should, and so does the one on the hanger and neither of them has to do with gravity. Gravity comes into play when the object is at rest. Even on your forum this is explained, read your own site.
@CosmoredAs per are agreement I will give you my best evidence for the landing. I could go with the LRO, but you would just cry fake (as if this matters). The massive amount of data returned from the many scientific experiments performed during these Lunar landings. There are hundreds of scientific peer reviewed papers written off this data and much has been independently verified since by other countries/crafts, and all has withstood the scientific scrutiny of over 40 years.
Pictures are fakeable and we can't simply believe second-hand information. I keep posting this but you keep playing dumb and trying to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it.
@Cosmored The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments, to name a few. This is still being studied today. Not one iota of all that data has been doubted or shown to be faked. How could this be? If all this data was faked it would of been proven long ago.
@Cosmored Not to mention for this to have been faked, someone must have designed, installed and operated all the sets and thousands of system simulations fed to mission control, simulated astronaut blast off, recovery, delivery to set, transport to Pacific "splash down", doctored optical and radio telescopes in both hemispheres, got the lunar laser ranging equipment to the moon, manufactured the Moon rocks, which are unlike anything on Earth, all by themselves, with nobody noticing. (cont)
"manufactured the Moon rocks, which are unlike anything on Earth, all by themselves, with nobody noticing"
geschichteinchronologie (dot) ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL (dot) html
"got the lunar laser ranging equipment to the moon"
They been sending unmanned craft to the moon for a year before Apollo. Google "Surveyor moon". Unmanned craft can have adjustable reflectors attached to their sides.
@Cosmored (cont) Plus the set designers, camera men, security, people transporting asto's to and from the supposed set, costume designers. THE LIST OF CONSPIRATORS IS NEVER ENDING.
And yet none, NOT ONE, has ever come forward and cried fake.
And what is most surprising to me, is this makes perfect sense to someone like you. Your perfectly willing to dismiss the massive amount of evidence for the most documented human achievement ever, because of a forum site, insanity anyone.
@2lib2live Insanity?, Yes, On you're part for saying that they went when never have they gone back with newer craft or newer astronauts. hundreds of trips to the space station, but only a few to the Moon. which one you think holds more information to be gained.? You want real proof,
DEMAND THEY DO IT AGAIN. Today's technology dwarfs the 60's, this should be easy for'em to do.
@Cosmored Dr. David McKay, Planetary Scientist oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."
There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks. We just don't know which scenario is the right one. There's some info about the rocks in the above post and if you scroll down to post #649, you'll see that we can't just believe what they tell us about the rocks.
@Cosmored There is nothing on this site to debunk, because I don't see anything that is wrong. You will have to explain better what you think there is on this site that is such good proof, because I don't see it. You do realize that gravity is not the only thing acting on a jacket. There is also the momentum of the astronaut. Please explain what evidence on this site you expect me to address, because I can't see anything out of ordinary.
@Cosmored You don't seem to understand. Nasa's photos from the moon landings from '69 - '72 (From the Lunar Surface) match the Japanese Space Agencies 3D images of moon from their Selene lunar orbiter exactly. The only way this is possible is if Nasa had astro's on the moon photographing the landscape. They could not have so many photos of landscape that match if it was on a set, right? Or are the Japanese in on this hoax also, and their data is all fake as well? Pretty large conspiracy.
@Cosmored "The anomalies have already proven the hoax."
There are no anomalies, it is just the scientific illiterates that don't understand the physics involved. After 40 years every single so called "anomaly" has been explained.
Mighty large conspiracy isn't it. Every space-faring nation must be involved, all the tracking stations around the world, every scientist who has studied the massive amount of data, geologists around the world who have studied the moon rocks. (cont)
@Cosmored (cont) Every media outlet must be involved, along with every academic, everyone at Nasa, including astronauts, those who designed the crafts etc. Ever wonder why no scientist, geologist, astrophysicist, astronomer, NATION, or scientifically literate person doubts the moon landings, perhaps you should. Instead of such a world wide conspiracy, isn't much more likely that they landed on the moon.
"Every media outlet must be involved, along with every academic, everyone at Nasa, including astronauts, those who designed the crafts etc. Ever wonder why no scientist...that they landed on the moon."
You keep playing dumb about the info in this link.
@Cosmored "It is plausible the the Japanese government is cooperating with NASA."
Anything is possible, plausible definitely not. How about China, India, and definitely Russia would also have to been "in on the hoax". The list of conspirators just keeps getting longer.
"Anything is possible, plausible definitely not. How about China, India, and definitely Russia would also have to been "in on the hoax". The list of conspirators just keeps getting longer"
We don't know what was printed in Chinese or Indian newspapers. The US press would never report it if there were articles in an Indian newspaper saying the moon missions were being faked. It's possible that they were fooled, or blackmailed into silence.
Tracking stations around the world (some hired by nasa to follow the moon landings) followed the conversations between Houston and Apollo. They knew where they were pointing their antenna and they know exactly what delay in the signal was. If there was no human at the moon (just a satellite relaying signals) the delay would be twice as long, and the ruse would of ended. You can't fake math, and the correct delay proves humans had to be at least in moon's orbit. Math doesn't lie.
@Cosmored I have seen this video and many others by Jarrah White, he is not an expert, nor does he talk about delay. Phil Webb debunks everything he states, he is an expert.
Google "Echos from the Moon" about how Italian HIGH SCHOOL students took the original recording of Apollo 11, using recording software precisely measured the delay. Then, using this number were able to calculate how far the Moon is from the Earth with amazing accuracy, just by the transmission delay. Can't fake math!
@Cosmored And now the conspiracy grows to Italian high school students who measured the delay from the recordings and calculated the distance from Earth to Moon (Echoes from the Moon). I guess everyone on the planet is in on the hoax but the few Hoax conspirators, yeah that makes sense.
And funny, the "mountain of hoax" evidence you claim, not one real science study undertaken on any of it, because no real scientist takes it seriously. It has all been debunked. 40+ years and still no proof.
@Cosmored So now all the tracking stations around the world are in on the conspiracy. What would they gain by lying about it? As well as every space faring nation, scientist, geologist, astronomer, astrophysicist, this conspiracy is really large huh.
And I told you, everything on your conspiracy forum site has been debunked over and over for the past 40 years. These people simply do not understand the physics involved or see some anomaly in the thousands of pics and jump on it as proof.
@Cosmored Next perhaps you would like to explain how with the massive amount of datareturned from the Apollo missions, much of which has been independently verified by countries/crafts since and all has withstood the test of time. And the hundreds of PEER REVIEWED (do you know what that is) papers written off that data and not one disputing Nasa's claim. Not one iota of that data has yet to be even doubted much less shown as faked. How could this be.
" much of which has been independently verified by countries/crafts since and all has withstood the test of time. And the hundreds of PEER REVIEWED (do you know what that is) papers written off that data and not one disputing Nasa's claim."
You keep playing dumb about the info in this link.
@Cosmored "A total of 382 kilograms of lunar material, and 6' core samples, has been processed to meet scientific requirements into more than 110,000individually cataloged samples." Geologist in universities, labs & observatories around the world have been examining them for 40 years without being discredited. "More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year."
@hunchbacked "Few of the samples have actually been analyzed, and those which have been analyzed come from antarctica."
I assume you can prove this insane statement.
If they came from antarctic they would be called meteors. And they would have Fusion Crust from the melting of the exterior that occurs during their passage through Earth's atmosphere Easy to spot. Lunar meteorites are exceedingly rare. The first was discovered in on January18, 1982. Kind of blows that theory. Try research.
@hunchbacked 1)Not enough lunar meteorites, they are very rare, 1st found in '82 2) There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles from around the world. More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples today! Google COMPARISON OF LUNAR WITH TERRESTRIAL AND METEORITIC ROCKS, for one such paper 3) They could not be made artificially because they have been exposed to billions of yrs of cosmic rays, rays that do not penetrate Earth's atmosphere. (cont)
@hunchbacked (cont) They are unique. Go here to learn about meteorites and how to spot one: meteorites(dot)wustl(dot)edu/lunar/moon_meteorites(dot)htm 4) The USSR, using 6 separate robotic probes were able, with 3 successes, to return 326 grams of lunar material.
The US was able to return 382 KILOgrams, over 1000 times as much.
curator*jsc*nasa.gov/lunar/compendium*cfm
The idea that it was returned with unmanned probes is not credible, it would take hundreds of probes.
@hunchbacked Sorry, did not realize you were the type to dismiss massive amounts of evidence (actually not even look at any) as propaganda. At least check out the sites I listed.
What about all the other evidence I listed, have you looked it over. Looked at the vids I provided. I don't really care, just keep believing you have some secret knowledge no one else possess, science will continue nicely without you. And the science is with the moon landings.
@hunchbacked Just not the propaganda kind I suppose. Read as, any science I disagree with.
Sorry, not how science works, you can't pick and choose it. Do you know what it means if a study has been published in a peer reviewed article. Because this cannot be propaganda, it just means it does not fit in with your world view. Not what I call science my friend.
@hunchbacked Now you are just trying to be dense, correct. I showed you a site from Washington University that talks about meteorites. If you had taken the time to read it you would of seen that the first lunar meteorite was recovered on January18, 1982. It states and I quote "lunar meteorites are exceedingly rare. The total mass of all known lunar meteorites is only about 50 kg (110 lbs.)."
Also told you about the changes they go thru when passing thru the atmosphere. Get over it.
@hunchbacked REAL moon rock(s) have been in the Boerhaave Museum storage. This video (watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk&feature=channel_video_title) comes officially from their museum website and shows us the REAL lunar samples given to The Netherlands by the US.
For very complete story of the so called fake moon rock The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 1
watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
Very detailed story of all moon rocks givin as gifts.
@hunchbacked I think I can prove every moon rock has been analyzed. Go to curator*jsc*nasa.gov/lunar/compendium*cfm, there is detailed analysis, photos, even how to ask for samples here. Every moon rock, and every 6' core is cataloged at this site, enjoy.
@hunchbacked Look at the video, watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ, it explains it very well and tells about all the moon rocks given away. Nasa never, I repeat never gave away large samples, just very small samples in plastic along with the flag of the country (which also was on board the moon flight). The whole petrified wood story was not true. It was a large rock found in a drawer, no card or anything and got blown out of proportion. WATCH THE VIDEO.
What makes me so sure that Apollo can't be real is not only the incredible amateurism with which the project had been led (no serious test of the effect of radiations and of the LEM), but also the incredible amount of incoherencies in the project; and not only in photos and videos (I can find incoherecnies in any photo), but also the more technical aspect; the operating system of the computer is the most delirious I have ever seen, and the electronic interfaces full of absurdities.
@hunchbacked No serious test of the LM? Really? I can't speak to radiation testing (I'm unfamiliar with what they did, although there's plenty of documentation that discusses Apollo hardware and radiation), but the LM was very thoroughly tested. Components were tested. Three orbital tests were done before the first landing. Parametrized data was gathered to make design choices like the number of legs. The LM was very thoroughly tested. What more do you think they should have done?
The lem had to start at an altitude of 100km and a horizontal speed of 6000km/h and had to arrive near the lunar ground with both null horizontal and vertical speeds in an airless environment.
It's not trivial at all, and testing components is not enough to ensure it can do it.
To be sure it could do it, it should first have been tested with nobody aboard; then it could have been considered safe for people to be inside.
@hunchbacked Why? The space shuttle was first tested with humans on board, and that was without integrated tests like Apollo 9 and 10 (and 5, for that matter). Apollo 11 was testing the landing. And, in fact, had Armstrong not been on board, there's a very good chance the LM would have failed upon touchdown, likely leaving engineers in the dark about the cause. Apollo was flight testing on a massive scale, and Apollo 11 was no different.
The space shuttle is an enhanced plane; in the earth's atmosphere, it benefits of the air lift, like an ordinary plane, and planes have already made the proof they can fly and land; on the moon the space shuttle would have much more difficult to land, and I would even say that the way it is conceived, it couldn't.
@hunchbacked "it benefits of the air lift, like an ordinary plane"
Reentry using a delta winged, hypersonic spacecraft with reusable heat shield tiles was so absurdly new that STS-1 was probably the single most dangerous mission in NASA history to date. In fact, there was some issue with calculating the stability coefficients of the shuttle at hypersonic speeds that resulted in an unanticipated yaw coupling with roll that John Young had to manually correct. The shuttle was something brand new.
I don't say that the shuttle is absolutely safe, and it has even unfortunately proven once it could be dangerous, but the fact is that, in the landing procedure, it does benefit of the air lift.
In the case of the LM, it is the first time than a spacecraft was landing in an airless environment in which the combination of the vertical and horizontal speeds had to be accurately controlled; on the moon, the LM had to expect no assistance, and could not replenish its tanks.
@hunchbacked Everything you say about the LM is accurate. And so what? The shuttle had one shot to land on STS-1; there was no go-around option. The shuttle had one chance to reenter - there was no way to save the crew if the thermal tiles shook off during ascent. Space travel is dangerous business. The LM probably had more ways to keep the crew alive than the shuttle. An abort could be performed at virtually any point in the descent. The vacuum enviornment is easier to design for, controlwise.
Also, unlike the earth's relief, the moon's relief was not very well known; no landing runway.
It's not because the astronauts had come close to the moon they could immediately land, they had to find a safe spot to land on, and they were burning fuel till they found it.
@hunchbacked Correct, but they had an expected landing ellipse with decent photography of the area. They knew they were landing in a relatively smooth area. This wasn't a blind landing. Furthermore, if Armstrong didn't find a safe place to land, he had plenty of chance to abort. He was still at 300 feet when he leveled off, and he still had plenty of fuel. I still maintain that STS-1 was an order of magnitude riskier than Apollo 11, and yet that risk was accepted.
Without humans aboard, it's possible that the LM would have more difficulty to land, and might have crashed; but at least it would have made the demonstration it could arrive near the lunar ground in conditions in which humans could then made it land in normal conditions.
If the LM arrives near the lunar ground with a too important horizontal or vertical speed, even the talent of astronauts could not prevent the LM from having a fatal issue.
@hunchbacked What, exactly, needed to be tested that NASA did not test? Engine firings, rendezvous, guidance, navigation, control, AGS, PGNS, depress, repress, landing radar, etc. were all tested on Apollos 5, 9 and 10. The only thing left was landing, and that was tested on Apollo 11 (precise landing demonstrated on Apollo 12). Eagle didn't land by magic. Everything was tested and was proven to work. If at any time Armstrong thought it would be a bad day, he could hit Abort or Abort Stage.
Possible that the LM made three orbital tests, but it didn't start from an orbit to land on the earth (without parachute!); that would have been a real conclusive test; just orbiting around the earth doesn't prove much.
@Cosmored "All mainstream publications are controlled–even the scientific journals."
If this is true, how do we have any science. According to you it is all made up, and scientists (who care about their reputation above all else) always lie and are coerced. You just have zero understanding of how science progresses. It is done when their published papers are tested by other scientists and if duplicate results becomes the best science to date. How do you think science advances?
"If this is true, how do we have any science. According to you it is all made up, and scientists (who care about their reputation above all else) always lie and are coerced."
Not all of it is made up–just certain stuff such as Apollo and the 9/11 attacks.
@Cosmored "Not all of it is made up–just certain stuff such as Apollo and the 9/11 attacks".
Who decides what science is made up and what isn't, you? Science is not propaganda just because you disagree with it.
And PLEASE, stop posting these conspiracy forum websites to me as some kind of proof. If you have any actual scientific proof, a "peer reviewed" article perhaps, I would be glad to look at it. I am NOT interested in a forum from a bunch of non-scientific conspirators spouting off
"stop posting these conspiracy forum websites to me as some kind of proof. If you have any actual scientific proof, a "peer reviewed" article perhaps....non-scientific conspirators spouting off"
You couldn't give a rebuttal to what this scientist said about scientific journals so you just brushed it off.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
She's a scientist and she says we can't trust what scientific journals say.
@Cosmored I love these videos you post. This one (watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA) is from a creationist group trying to discredit science because it does not agree with the literal interpretation of the bible. And this is your PROOF. How funny.
@Cosmored Why would any scientist risk his reputation, his entire career by faking data for Nasa. Other scientist who would read these "fake" work would quickly expose them and their career would be over.
You also claim the hundreds of scientific journals, like Nature, Science Mag, Review of Modern Physics mag etc. are all controlled by who? All these journals have is their stellar reputations. But your little video is all the proof you need that they are all "controlled" by some force.
@Cosmored Wow, another creationist video trying to discredit science because they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. (watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA) And this is your proof, this is too funny dude. Are you a creationist or something? It would explain a lot about your scientific illiteracy.
I like to stay with the best science with have to date, but you stick to your 1000 yr. old book of how the universe started, LOL.
@Cosmored And Thomas Baron: Wouldn’t of made more sense to murder him (officially Baron’s death is ruled an accident) BEFORE he testified to congress, and before he delivered his report to congress.
To try to silence him three months later, after his testimony, makes zero sense. He had already lost his job at North American Aviation, the company who built the CM. What would Nasa gain by killing him after he testified, except to bring suspicion on them? Try using reason.
@Cosmored So let me get this straight. They allow him to turn in his report and testify before congress. Then 3 months later after everything has died down, they murder him. AFTER he had lost his job at North American Aviation, the company who built the CM. What else would he have to testify about? And this makes perfect sense to you, strange.
@Cosmored And I don't care about 9/11, what does that have to do with Apollo landings being scientifically proven. Just means you are very paranoid.
And saying Apollo I was a murder is equally insane. It is all listed in the realm of conspiracy theory, meaning no proof, just asinine speculation.
Again, give me your best proof of a moon landing hoax. After 40+ years you would think someone would of found that smoking gun, but no, same old recycled claims over and over.
@Cosmored And yes, you gave me your link to the hoax forum of 40 year old debunked pseudoscience. A bunch of conspiracy theorists spouting the same nonsense over and over. This is your best proof.
Tell you what. You look on this stupid site of other scientific illiterate people and GIVE me what you think is the best proof for a faked moon landing. I don't have the time or inclination to go over every post on this site. But I bet I could easily debunk it all. Give me what you think is best
@Cosmored "I've never seen an Apollo-believer explain this anomaly."
Are you talking about the video where the asto is running in place and his jacket is following him up and down. It says on your hoaxer site, watch video at 4;10 mark. Is this the best proof you have that you want me to comment on? If so, I don't know what you want me to say, looks perfectly natural to me. How do you think his jacket should look, he is moving up and down, and his jacket is following, so?
"A total of 382 kilograms of lunar material, and 6' core samples, has been processed to meet scientific requirements.....y pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year."
That's what we read, but is it true? Here's a link to a rebuttal to this argument.
@Cosmored 2200 individual specimens have been processed to meet scientific requirements into more than 110,000 individually cataloged samples. Geologist in universities, labs & observatories around the world have been examining them for 40 years without being discredited. More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year. How do you fake that?
@Cosmored And the site you post for proof, is a forum for hoax believers to spout their conspiracy theories. There is NO proof there, just the same recycled claims that have been going around for 40 years, and has all been debunked.
What about the rest of the evidence I presented, no explanation for any of it, just insane ramblings about the moon rocks being meteors.
Go here to learn about meteorites and how to spot one: meteorites(dot)wustl(dot)edu/lunar/moon_meteorites(dot)htm
"And if you need proof, read some of the hundreds of peer reviewed (do you know what that is?) studies done on the lunar samples"
The anomalies in the footage prove they faked it and articles and documents don't make the anomalies go away. Scientists can lie because they can be bribed and threatened. Did you even read the info in my last post?
There's some stuff about the moon rocks in this link.
@Cosmored I have looked at that site. It is a hoax proponent forum site where non-scientific people come to spout the same recycled and debunked pseudoscience I have seen for the past 40 years.
And to rule out peer reviewed scientific studies by stating "Scientists can lie because they can be bribed and threatened." tells me you have no idea about what a scientific study has to go thru to be accepted as the best science we have to date.
Keep living in your fantasy, I will stick with science
"And to rule out peer reviewed scientific....have to date."
You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who don't look at the info in the link I posted. I guess I'll have to post some of it directly here to thwart that tactic. Listen to what this scientist says about science journals at the 00:16 time mark of this video.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
Do a YouTube search on "Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2".
@Cosmored "what this scientist says about science journals"
What scientist, this is a guy in a suit. And this video was made by a group called "UFOvideo.com" so yeah, I guess they can't get a serious scientific journal to publish them. Do you also believe in 'little green men".
@Cosmored When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc. Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. From: Life Science Library
A scholarly journal is visibly different from other magazines.
"When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same.....articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. From: Life Science Library
A scholarly journal is visibly different from other magazines."
@Cosmored Looked at another forum site from you. There is a video saying the government is irradiating us, a couple of comments that scientists disagree with one another(nothing new there).
Bottom line, there is not one iota on this site that claims peer reviewed scientific studies are somehow false. They state the best science we have to date. You don't have to agree with this but this is how science is done. Not on forums, try to read some real science studies, then come back.
@Cosmored Tell you what, give me your best 1 or 2 reasons why you think the Moon landings were a hoax. Couple of things that cannot be debunked, real proof. Then I will do the same, let's see who has the best proof. Let's see whose proof holds up to scientific scrutiny and whose proof is supposition. Deal, you can go first.
@Cosmored Oh, and one last thing. This forum sites makes a lot of claims about how scientists would lie, but of course cannot give the slightest proof to back up these insane claims. Just saying they would be killed is not proof. Just saying astronomers back up Nasa because they need access to the Hubble is insane. What about the geologists, astrophysicists, radiations experts from around the world, all lie to protect Nasa? What about countries, all paid off, right? Insanity!
"This forum sites makes a lot of claims about how scientists would lie, but of course cannot give the slightest proof to back up these insane claims."
There was the testimony of two scientists. That would make an objective person wonder at least. If the press distorts reality, how do we know how many scientists really think it was a hoax?
@islandbuoy4 Why won't Bart give the money to charity, it's his and he's the one wanting to give it away for his up-coming movie.
You act like it's Armstrong's fault that money will not be donated to charity, you got it twisted around man. Bart's the big fool clown here in this scenario, Armstrong was not soliciting Sibrel.
@islandbuoy4 Your saying it's Mr. Armstrong's fault the money wasn't given to charity.
You don't see the fallacy in that claim?
You must have no integrity at all to be able,so easily to redirect & transfer your own feelings of inadequacy to a man like Armstrong.The integrity that Armstrong has is something you can't comprehend.
How do you know Armstrong believes in the God of the Bible or give any credence to swearing on a Bible?
I will never expect the average stupid MERIKAN patri-idiot to realize the entire program was a ruse to siphon off funds for 'black ops programs' and to 'prepare'
Hey Shit Kicker...You obviously know nothing about Armstrong, not one damn thing.
He still has bigger balls than you'll ever dream about. He was the best and the brightest with the best skills of anyone around at the time, and a flunky like you or any post adolescent egocentric kid will never take that away from him.
Go protest the funeral of the Iraqi war veteran...shit kicker
So many fuckers agreeing with this shit? You should be ashamed for agreeing with this mini bush faggot. Niel and Buzz sure as hell landed on the moon and any stupid shit who thinks otherwise, tell me their reasons and they better be good or i will lose all respect for American citizens.
What? That's obviously a diversion to avoid swearing and a lame one.
Ironically after responding, he said that sibriel wasn't entitled to a response. Though saying that, I don't respect Sibriel although I find the whole situation to be odd.
@orgminyak They didn't fake it 9 times, they faked it 6 times. 12 men. They did it mulitple times to prove exactly what you've said. They wanted us to believe it was real by showing it so many times. They wanted to prove ULTIMATE superiority over the people who haven't been there. The moon landing, I think is completely ridiculous.
@orgminyak Number 1: Have YOU seen this mirror with your own eyes? How do you know it exists? Number 2: If this so called "Mirror" was indeed there, it may have been placed by unmanned craft sometime after the alleged "moon landings."
they didnt fake anything.. dont you think the soviet union would have found out if all 6 missions were faked?? do you want to tell me that they keept more then 15 000 people quiet for 40 years? and that the Soyuz apollo programm was also a fake? and oh yeah maybe the space shuttle missons are fake. OH as i renember. there is a space station .called ISS its also a fake right.?
and OH the mars rover that landed on mars. are fake too..your right.....
we are already sending stuff to the mars and even mercury soon..
ITs just because. we dont return to the moon. because Nasa doesnt have that much budget to start another moon mission again. they focus more on mars because you can actually make oxygen and water there. with machines. so its a planet wich can be used to life on.
@muckletoon No it's not impossible, and they DID go to the moon actually. Six times, in fact. Why don't we go back now? Well, we're not making any Saturn V rockets, or any rockets that have the capacity to send a manned mission to the moon. It's not that we can't go, it's just that after Apollo 17 Americans lost interest in the Apollo program, and so no more flights were made. Then, there's the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos NASA took of the landing sites, as well.
why can't he just swear on the bible and get over it. At the mean time he can donate $5000 to the charity, save other astronauts some harassing and all these nonsense. His actions will only make people more suspicious and for those who truly believe in the landing to find it odd. Not entitled to an answer is just a lame excuse.
What a dreadful way to treat a man who rose to the top of the toughest selection process ever ..... Does anyone really think conclusions can be drawn just because he doesn't entertain this idiot? He now an elderly and frail old man ... he probably felt intimidated and threatened .... If the question had been asked 40 years ago he would probably have laid this jerk out.
Seriously, even if they didnt walk on the moon, they can still put their hand on a book and say a few words. Seriously. Im sure "God" would understand :P
Doesn't anyone find it odd that he wouldn't swear on the bible?? Why not do it and shut him up? It would have got rid of him for good and he would have shut up all the nonbelievers....but he didn't it was almost like he was afraid to do it? Talk about looking guilty he had nothing to lose and he would have gotten rid of the pest?
no hand on bible, no landing, God speaks the truth!
NASAvsPETE1 1 month ago in playlist Space - Apollo - Moon hoax
@NASAvsPETE
u my friend, are one of the most hideous shills on utube
muckletoon 8 months ago
@muckletoon
Don't take him seriously, NASAvsPETE is just joking, he doesn't mean it.
He is fooling the Apollo idiots he has come to their side.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
There's a ton of evidence that they faked the moon landings. Here's a link to some of it.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored You call this site proof? This is the same nonsense that has been recycled year after year for the past 40. The flag waving, don't tell me this old hat is still going around. So much nonsense.
What about the JAXA (japenese space agency) has taken 3d images of the moon that match the Apollo landing pictures exactly, watch?v=bpveN21EM9Q. Also watch?v=kbTRGj5aNCM&feature=channel_video_title
The is possible only if the Apollo images are accurate, they did not have 3d in ’69, (cont)
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored (cont)The JAXA had resolution of 10 meters, not enough to see the actual hardware. But if you want to see the Apollo11 landing site from the LRO, in resolution better than the best commercial satellite we have around Earth today, googles GeoEye-1 has a 16-inch ground resolution, while GoneToPlaid has enhanced the LRO photos to 6 inch resolution. watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ&feature=ch¬annel_video_title
Other Apollo missions are also available.
(cont)
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"The JAXA had resolution....6 inch resolution"
Those photos were fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof because it might be bogus.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Show me where the JAXA had 6" resolution. This is completely false. According to the JAXA mission instrument website, the Terrain camera (TC) (resolution 10 meters per pixel), not enough to see Apollo hardware. Also verified on Wikepedia.
You can always say anything is "fakable", does not make it so. Not just photos returned from Selene and LRO, also a LOT of data. No one in the scientific community has expressed the least doubt concerning these probes. Game over.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"No one in the scientific community has expressed the least doubt concerning these probes"
We haven't read that they've had doubts. If one were to have a doubt, he'd have trouble making his opinion known. You seem to be trying to bury the info in this link I keep posting to get it off page one. All I can do to thwart you is to keep posting it.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "The JAXA had resolution....6 inch resolution"
It is the LRO images here, that are enhanced to 6" resolution: watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ&feature=channel_video_title
Other landing sites also enhanced.
I stated JAXA's Selene probe made 3d images of the moon that match the Apollo landing pictures exactly, watch?v=bpveN21EM9Q. Also watch?v=kbTRGj5aNCM&feature=channel_video_title
No way to fake that. Photos taken from lunar surface during Apollo match exactly what JAXA imaged recently.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live Correction, to see Apollo 11 hardware search - (Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site) watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"No way to fake that. Photos taken from lunar surface during Apollo match exactly what JAXA imaged recently."
If NASA wanted to make everything match, they could do it. Are you saying they couldn't?
Cosmored 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"No way to fake that. Photos taken from lunar surface during Apollo match exactly what JAXA imaged recently."
We don't know which photos were really taken where. NASA could make everything match if it wanted to pull a stunt to further obfuscate the situation. Those photos don't prove anything.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "Those photos don't prove anything."
Yes they do. They match TV transmitted live to the World. The TV pictures in turn match weather patterns exactly as per satellite pictures at the time they would be half way to the Moon. So satellite data taken in real time becomes moving pictures and clear photographs taken at great distance and obviously not faked. Only a moron can refute this evidence. That's you.....
watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs
watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA
Spammer.
TrueGroup 8 months ago
@TrueGroup
"Yes they do. They match TV transmitted live to.....taken at great distance and obviously not faked. Only a moron can refute this evidence"
If they really came live from space, how do we know it wasn't just a satellite filming the earth. This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
Why am I blocked from postingf on those two videos?
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "How do we know it wasn't a satellite?" You know jack shit about orbital mechanics. Satellites move in orbit. The only way to keep a satellite stationary is by it being in a narrow corridor at 22k miles - geostationary. It then moves in relation to the Moon and moves off signal direction. Then you forget that the weather patterns match moving pictures and still photography. Hmmm, magic. You're unblocked, don't spam forum links at me or I'll block your spamming ass again.
TrueGroup 8 months ago
@TrueGroup
"Satellites move in orbit."
It'a plausible that it wasn't a satellite. If it turns out that it's proved that it was a craft where Apollo was supposed to be, how do we know it was manned?
This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored No, it's impossible it was a satellite, cretin. So we have an unmanned craft with OBVIOUSLY somebody holding a camera , zooming in and out, and filming his colleagues?? Apollo 11 is where it should be, it matches weather system data and photography. You keep going on about your stupid mountain of (debunked to death) evidence and spamming your links anywhere you can like a dog pissing everywhere.
TrueGroup 8 months ago
@Cosmored "If it turns out that it's proved that it was a craft where Apollo was supposed to be, how do we know it was manned?"
I told you, if it wasn't manned the transmission delay would have to be twice as long. Math does not lie. Get your head out of these pseudoscience conspiracy sites and read some real science.
And lastly, my CHALLENGE still stands, if you still believe in your hoax site's evidence, give me the best one they have, I will easily debunk it with science.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"if it wasn't manned the transmission delay would have to be twice as long"
We read that this has been verified but is that true? For all we know it was prerecorded with the right delay. If there are plausible scenarios that would explain something, it can't be used as proof. Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Russia, Jodrell Bank & Frequencies".
The government lies to us all the time.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526619
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Why is this so hard for you to understand. If it was just a satellite in lunar orbit, whether prerecorded or not, the transmission from the astronauts would of taken twice as long, since there is no one in lunar orbit to send signal. The tracking stations working for Nasa all around the world would know if the signals were coming from the moon since their antenna was pointed there. If the signal came from earth to moon satellite and back to earth, thats twice the expected delay.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Why is this so hard for you to...the expected delay."
All we have is second-hand info on this. We have no way to verify what really happened. If there are some clear anomalies in the footage that show fakery, that trumps second-hand info that may be bogus.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored What does second hand info have to do with the fact that tracking stations around the world would of known if there was no one on the moon by the delay. Of course it is second hand, do you think I was there. You think all these tracking stations are lying, covering up for Nasa, this conspiracy just keeps growing.
Believe whatever you like, you are obviously obsessed with this site you keep posting and do not understand enough about physics to be objectionable.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"You think all these tracking stations are lying, covering up for Nasa, this conspiracy just keeps growing."
That's a possiblity. It's also possible that they're being misquoted.
Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Russia, Jodrell Bank & Frequencies"
The anomalies in the video already prove the hoax so that trumps second-hand info that might be bogus.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Remember, Tracking stations around the world, hired by Nasa (and others on their own) to send and receive the transmission signals between Houston and Moon (as Earth turned different ones would pick up duties) knew their antenna was pointed at the moon, and knew the expected delay in the signal. If there was no astronaut on moon (or at least in lunar orbit) the signal would have been twice the delay. Math doesn't lie, and this proves at least someone was in lunar orbit.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"if you still believe in your hoax site's evidence, give me the best one they have"
I've never seen this debunked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62 (dot) html#post3319015
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then adopt the attitude that they've debunked it.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored What are you talking about? All I see on this site is nonsense. One video of Collins jacket going up and down in time with him running in place, what's wrong with that? Another of a women on a treadmill with caption from your site, "Here hair flops up and down but there's clearly no gravity; her hair has no tendency to go downward." Of course it would go up and down, she is running on a treadmill. This is your best evidence you have, come on, this is nonsense.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"What are you talking about?this is nonsense."
You are being deliberately obtuse.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62 (dot) html#post3319015
The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner by putting a loose jacket on a hanger and bouncing it up and down.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity."
Please tell me your joking and this is not the best evidence you can come up with. Ever heard of a little thing called inertia. The jacket moves exactly as it should, and so does the one on the hanger and neither of them has to do with gravity. Gravity comes into play when the object is at rest. Even on your forum this is explained, read your own site.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Ever heard of a little thing called inertia...read your own site."
You may sway a few people who haven't seen the anomaly with this but anyone who actually looks at it will know you're full of it.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62 (dot) html#post3319015
Cosmored 8 months ago
@CosmoredAs per are agreement I will give you my best evidence for the landing. I could go with the LRO, but you would just cry fake (as if this matters). The massive amount of data returned from the many scientific experiments performed during these Lunar landings. There are hundreds of scientific peer reviewed papers written off this data and much has been independently verified since by other countries/crafts, and all has withstood the scientific scrutiny of over 40 years.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"per are agreement I will give...40 years."
Pictures are fakeable and we can't simply believe second-hand information. I keep posting this but you keep playing dumb and trying to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526619
When you pro-Apollo debaters are shown to be wrong, you do mass posting to bury that part of the debate and continue as if nothing had happened.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments, to name a few. This is still being studied today. Not one iota of all that data has been doubted or shown to be faked. How could this be? If all this data was faked it would of been proven long ago.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"The six missions that landed on...shown to be faked."
The anomalies show that they faked it. Some info may have been obtained by unmanned probes and a lot of it is probably just bogus.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526619
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Not to mention for this to have been faked, someone must have designed, installed and operated all the sets and thousands of system simulations fed to mission control, simulated astronaut blast off, recovery, delivery to set, transport to Pacific "splash down", doctored optical and radio telescopes in both hemispheres, got the lunar laser ranging equipment to the moon, manufactured the Moon rocks, which are unlike anything on Earth, all by themselves, with nobody noticing. (cont)
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"manufactured the Moon rocks, which are unlike anything on Earth, all by themselves, with nobody noticing"
geschichteinchronologie (dot) ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL (dot) html
"got the lunar laser ranging equipment to the moon"
They been sending unmanned craft to the moon for a year before Apollo. Google "Surveyor moon". Unmanned craft can have adjustable reflectors attached to their sides.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored (cont) Plus the set designers, camera men, security, people transporting asto's to and from the supposed set, costume designers. THE LIST OF CONSPIRATORS IS NEVER ENDING.
And yet none, NOT ONE, has ever come forward and cried fake.
And what is most surprising to me, is this makes perfect sense to someone like you. Your perfectly willing to dismiss the massive amount of evidence for the most documented human achievement ever, because of a forum site, insanity anyone.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live Insanity?, Yes, On you're part for saying that they went when never have they gone back with newer craft or newer astronauts. hundreds of trips to the space station, but only a few to the Moon. which one you think holds more information to be gained.? You want real proof,
DEMAND THEY DO IT AGAIN. Today's technology dwarfs the 60's, this should be easy for'em to do.
Snowman374th 1 week ago
@Cosmored Dr. David McKay, Planetary Scientist oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."
How could it be fake?
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Dr. David McKay, Planetary...cooperate in any....be fake?"
The anomalies in the video already prove the hoax.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526599
There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks. We just don't know which scenario is the right one. There's some info about the rocks in the above post and if you scroll down to post #649, you'll see that we can't just believe what they tell us about the rocks.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored There is nothing on this site to debunk, because I don't see anything that is wrong. You will have to explain better what you think there is on this site that is such good proof, because I don't see it. You do realize that gravity is not the only thing acting on a jacket. There is also the momentum of the astronaut. Please explain what evidence on this site you expect me to address, because I can't see anything out of ordinary.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored You don't seem to understand. Nasa's photos from the moon landings from '69 - '72 (From the Lunar Surface) match the Japanese Space Agencies 3D images of moon from their Selene lunar orbiter exactly. The only way this is possible is if Nasa had astro's on the moon photographing the landscape. They could not have so many photos of landscape that match if it was on a set, right? Or are the Japanese in on this hoax also, and their data is all fake as well? Pretty large conspiracy.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"You don't seem to understand. Nasa's photos...Pretty large conspiracy."
It is plausible the the Japanese government is cooperating with NASA. The anomalies have already proven the hoax.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526599
They could make all the photos match if they wanted to fake something like that.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "The anomalies have already proven the hoax."
There are no anomalies, it is just the scientific illiterates that don't understand the physics involved. After 40 years every single so called "anomaly" has been explained.
Mighty large conspiracy isn't it. Every space-faring nation must be involved, all the tracking stations around the world, every scientist who has studied the massive amount of data, geologists around the world who have studied the moon rocks. (cont)
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored (cont) Every media outlet must be involved, along with every academic, everyone at Nasa, including astronauts, those who designed the crafts etc. Ever wonder why no scientist, geologist, astrophysicist, astronomer, NATION, or scientifically literate person doubts the moon landings, perhaps you should. Instead of such a world wide conspiracy, isn't much more likely that they landed on the moon.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
" Every media outlet...isn't much more likely that they landed on the moon."
You keep playing dumb about the info in this link so I guess I have to keep posting it.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526619
I guess your underlying strategy is to bump it off of page 1 to reduce the number of people who see it.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Every media outlet must be involved, along with every academic, everyone at Nasa, including astronauts, those who designed the crafts etc. Ever wonder why no scientist...that they landed on the moon."
You keep playing dumb about the info in this link.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65 (dot) html#post3526619
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "It is plausible the the Japanese government is cooperating with NASA."
Anything is possible, plausible definitely not. How about China, India, and definitely Russia would also have to been "in on the hoax". The list of conspirators just keeps getting longer.
2lib2live 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2lib2live
"Anything is possible, plausible definitely not. How about China, India, and definitely Russia would also have to been "in on the hoax". The list of conspirators just keeps getting longer"
We don't know what was printed in Chinese or Indian newspapers. The US press would never report it if there were articles in an Indian newspaper saying the moon missions were being faked. It's possible that they were fooled, or blackmailed into silence.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored
Tracking stations around the world (some hired by nasa to follow the moon landings) followed the conversations between Houston and Apollo. They knew where they were pointing their antenna and they know exactly what delay in the signal was. If there was no human at the moon (just a satellite relaying signals) the delay would be twice as long, and the ruse would of ended. You can't fake math, and the correct delay proves humans had to be at least in moon's orbit. Math doesn't lie.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Tracking stations around the world.....moon's orbit. Math doesn't lie."
That's what we read but it's not necessarily what actually happened. Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Russia, Jodrell Bank & Frequencies"
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored I have seen this video and many others by Jarrah White, he is not an expert, nor does he talk about delay. Phil Webb debunks everything he states, he is an expert.
Google "Echos from the Moon" about how Italian HIGH SCHOOL students took the original recording of Apollo 11, using recording software precisely measured the delay. Then, using this number were able to calculate how far the Moon is from the Earth with amazing accuracy, just by the transmission delay. Can't fake math!
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Italian HIGH SCHOOL students took the original recording of Apollo 11"
As I said above, that's what we read, but how do we know it's true. We are lied to constantly.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
They never went to the moon.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored And now the conspiracy grows to Italian high school students who measured the delay from the recordings and calculated the distance from Earth to Moon (Echoes from the Moon). I guess everyone on the planet is in on the hoax but the few Hoax conspirators, yeah that makes sense.
And funny, the "mountain of hoax" evidence you claim, not one real science study undertaken on any of it, because no real scientist takes it seriously. It has all been debunked. 40+ years and still no proof.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Tracking stations around the world (some hired by nasa to follow the moon landings) followed the conversations between Houston and Apollo."
That's what we read, but is it true. We are lied to about everything else so why not about Apollo.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored So now all the tracking stations around the world are in on the conspiracy. What would they gain by lying about it? As well as every space faring nation, scientist, geologist, astronomer, astrophysicist, this conspiracy is really large huh.
And I told you, everything on your conspiracy forum site has been debunked over and over for the past 40 years. These people simply do not understand the physics involved or see some anomaly in the thousands of pics and jump on it as proof.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored Next perhaps you would like to explain how with the massive amount of datareturned from the Apollo missions, much of which has been independently verified by countries/crafts since and all has withstood the test of time. And the hundreds of PEER REVIEWED (do you know what that is) papers written off that data and not one disputing Nasa's claim. Not one iota of that data has yet to be even doubted much less shown as faked. How could this be.
2lib2live 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2lib2live
" much of which has been independently verified by countries/crafts since and all has withstood the test of time. And the hundreds of PEER REVIEWED (do you know what that is) papers written off that data and not one disputing Nasa's claim."
You keep playing dumb about the info in this link.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Maybe we are being lied to.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "A total of 382 kilograms of lunar material, and 6' core samples, has been processed to meet scientific requirements into more than 110,000individually cataloged samples." Geologist in universities, labs & observatories around the world have been examining them for 40 years without being discredited. "More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year."
All faked, don't think so.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
Give me a break, this is intoxication.
Few of the samples have actually been analyzed, and those which have been analyzed come from antarctica.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked "Few of the samples have actually been analyzed, and those which have been analyzed come from antarctica."
I assume you can prove this insane statement.
If they came from antarctic they would be called meteors. And they would have Fusion Crust from the melting of the exterior that occurs during their passage through Earth's atmosphere Easy to spot. Lunar meteorites are exceedingly rare. The first was discovered in on January18, 1982. Kind of blows that theory. Try research.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
If you remove the exterior of a meteorite, the inside is intact.
Meteorites can be broken into a certain number of stones.
And you on your side, can you prove that many samples have been analyzed?
Can you also prove that it is not possible to make a lunar rock artificially?
Anyway lunar rocks can also be brought back with unmanned missions.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked 1)Not enough lunar meteorites, they are very rare, 1st found in '82 2) There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles from around the world. More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples today! Google COMPARISON OF LUNAR WITH TERRESTRIAL AND METEORITIC ROCKS, for one such paper 3) They could not be made artificially because they have been exposed to billions of yrs of cosmic rays, rays that do not penetrate Earth's atmosphere. (cont)
2lib2live 8 months ago
@hunchbacked (cont) They are unique. Go here to learn about meteorites and how to spot one: meteorites(dot)wustl(dot)edu/lunar/moon_meteorites(dot)htm 4) The USSR, using 6 separate robotic probes were able, with 3 successes, to return 326 grams of lunar material.
The US was able to return 382 KILOgrams, over 1000 times as much.
curator*jsc*nasa.gov/lunar/compendium*cfm
The idea that it was returned with unmanned probes is not credible, it would take hundreds of probes.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
I say that not all these kilograms have been analyzed, and that they are not as unique as you say.
Some meteorites show exactly the same characteristics as the lunar rocks.
I see that NASA propaganda works well!
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Sorry, did not realize you were the type to dismiss massive amounts of evidence (actually not even look at any) as propaganda. At least check out the sites I listed.
What about all the other evidence I listed, have you looked it over. Looked at the vids I provided. I don't really care, just keep believing you have some secret knowledge no one else possess, science will continue nicely without you. And the science is with the moon landings.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
no one ever walked on the moon.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Can't argue with that logic. Enjoy your life without science.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
My life is not without science, it's full of science, but real science.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Just not the propaganda kind I suppose. Read as, any science I disagree with.
Sorry, not how science works, you can't pick and choose it. Do you know what it means if a study has been published in a peer reviewed article. Because this cannot be propaganda, it just means it does not fit in with your world view. Not what I call science my friend.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
The article of the review just shows characteristics of the rock.
These charactericitics can also be found in meteorites fallen in antarctica.
It doesn't prove kilograms of rocks have been brought back from the moon by the astronauts.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Now you are just trying to be dense, correct. I showed you a site from Washington University that talks about meteorites. If you had taken the time to read it you would of seen that the first lunar meteorite was recovered on January18, 1982. It states and I quote "lunar meteorites are exceedingly rare. The total mass of all known lunar meteorites is only about 50 kg (110 lbs.)."
Also told you about the changes they go thru when passing thru the atmosphere. Get over it.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
Correction: was officially found at that time.
I don't believe all the kilograms of rocks "brought back' by the astronauts have been analyzed to be proven genuine, and I dare you to prove it.
What about the rock of the dutch museum?
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked REAL moon rock(s) have been in the Boerhaave Museum storage. This video (watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk&feature=channel_video_title) comes officially from their museum website and shows us the REAL lunar samples given to The Netherlands by the US.
For very complete story of the so called fake moon rock The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 1
watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
Very detailed story of all moon rocks givin as gifts.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@hunchbacked I think I can prove every moon rock has been analyzed. Go to curator*jsc*nasa.gov/lunar/compendium*cfm, there is detailed analysis, photos, even how to ask for samples here. Every moon rock, and every 6' core is cataloged at this site, enjoy.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
Oh you think you can prove!
I would like to know how!
I bet the rock of the dutch museum was also originally genuine and that it later turned to petrified wood by magic!
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Look at the video, watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ, it explains it very well and tells about all the moon rocks given away. Nasa never, I repeat never gave away large samples, just very small samples in plastic along with the flag of the country (which also was on board the moon flight). The whole petrified wood story was not true. It was a large rock found in a drawer, no card or anything and got blown out of proportion. WATCH THE VIDEO.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@hunchbacked It's called The Lunar Sample Compendium if you have trouble finding it.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
What makes me so sure that Apollo can't be real is not only the incredible amateurism with which the project had been led (no serious test of the effect of radiations and of the LEM), but also the incredible amount of incoherencies in the project; and not only in photos and videos (I can find incoherecnies in any photo), but also the more technical aspect; the operating system of the computer is the most delirious I have ever seen, and the electronic interfaces full of absurdities.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked No serious test of the LM? Really? I can't speak to radiation testing (I'm unfamiliar with what they did, although there's plenty of documentation that discusses Apollo hardware and radiation), but the LM was very thoroughly tested. Components were tested. Three orbital tests were done before the first landing. Parametrized data was gathered to make design choices like the number of legs. The LM was very thoroughly tested. What more do you think they should have done?
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
The lem had to start at an altitude of 100km and a horizontal speed of 6000km/h and had to arrive near the lunar ground with both null horizontal and vertical speeds in an airless environment.
It's not trivial at all, and testing components is not enough to ensure it can do it.
To be sure it could do it, it should first have been tested with nobody aboard; then it could have been considered safe for people to be inside.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Why? The space shuttle was first tested with humans on board, and that was without integrated tests like Apollo 9 and 10 (and 5, for that matter). Apollo 11 was testing the landing. And, in fact, had Armstrong not been on board, there's a very good chance the LM would have failed upon touchdown, likely leaving engineers in the dark about the cause. Apollo was flight testing on a massive scale, and Apollo 11 was no different.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
The space shuttle is an enhanced plane; in the earth's atmosphere, it benefits of the air lift, like an ordinary plane, and planes have already made the proof they can fly and land; on the moon the space shuttle would have much more difficult to land, and I would even say that the way it is conceived, it couldn't.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked "it benefits of the air lift, like an ordinary plane"
Reentry using a delta winged, hypersonic spacecraft with reusable heat shield tiles was so absurdly new that STS-1 was probably the single most dangerous mission in NASA history to date. In fact, there was some issue with calculating the stability coefficients of the shuttle at hypersonic speeds that resulted in an unanticipated yaw coupling with roll that John Young had to manually correct. The shuttle was something brand new.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
I don't say that the shuttle is absolutely safe, and it has even unfortunately proven once it could be dangerous, but the fact is that, in the landing procedure, it does benefit of the air lift.
In the case of the LM, it is the first time than a spacecraft was landing in an airless environment in which the combination of the vertical and horizontal speeds had to be accurately controlled; on the moon, the LM had to expect no assistance, and could not replenish its tanks.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Everything you say about the LM is accurate. And so what? The shuttle had one shot to land on STS-1; there was no go-around option. The shuttle had one chance to reenter - there was no way to save the crew if the thermal tiles shook off during ascent. Space travel is dangerous business. The LM probably had more ways to keep the crew alive than the shuttle. An abort could be performed at virtually any point in the descent. The vacuum enviornment is easier to design for, controlwise.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
Also, unlike the earth's relief, the moon's relief was not very well known; no landing runway.
It's not because the astronauts had come close to the moon they could immediately land, they had to find a safe spot to land on, and they were burning fuel till they found it.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked Correct, but they had an expected landing ellipse with decent photography of the area. They knew they were landing in a relatively smooth area. This wasn't a blind landing. Furthermore, if Armstrong didn't find a safe place to land, he had plenty of chance to abort. He was still at 300 feet when he leveled off, and he still had plenty of fuel. I still maintain that STS-1 was an order of magnitude riskier than Apollo 11, and yet that risk was accepted.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
A relatively smooth area can have vicious holes.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked True. Hence the use of the Mark I eyeball for final approach and landing.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
Without humans aboard, it's possible that the LM would have more difficulty to land, and might have crashed; but at least it would have made the demonstration it could arrive near the lunar ground in conditions in which humans could then made it land in normal conditions.
If the LM arrives near the lunar ground with a too important horizontal or vertical speed, even the talent of astronauts could not prevent the LM from having a fatal issue.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked What, exactly, needed to be tested that NASA did not test? Engine firings, rendezvous, guidance, navigation, control, AGS, PGNS, depress, repress, landing radar, etc. were all tested on Apollos 5, 9 and 10. The only thing left was landing, and that was tested on Apollo 11 (precise landing demonstrated on Apollo 12). Eagle didn't land by magic. Everything was tested and was proven to work. If at any time Armstrong thought it would be a bad day, he could hit Abort or Abort Stage.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat
Possible that the LM made three orbital tests, but it didn't start from an orbit to land on the earth (without parachute!); that would have been a real conclusive test; just orbiting around the earth doesn't prove much.
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"Do you know what it means if a study has been published in a peer reviewed article. Because this cannot be propaganda"
You keep ignoring this.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
All mainstream publications are controlled–even the scientific journals.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "All mainstream publications are controlled–even the scientific journals."
If this is true, how do we have any science. According to you it is all made up, and scientists (who care about their reputation above all else) always lie and are coerced. You just have zero understanding of how science progresses. It is done when their published papers are tested by other scientists and if duplicate results becomes the best science to date. How do you think science advances?
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"If this is true, how do we have any science. According to you it is all made up, and scientists (who care about their reputation above all else) always lie and are coerced."
Not all of it is made up–just certain stuff such as Apollo and the 9/11 attacks.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144746
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "Not all of it is made up–just certain stuff such as Apollo and the 9/11 attacks".
Who decides what science is made up and what isn't, you? Science is not propaganda just because you disagree with it.
And PLEASE, stop posting these conspiracy forum websites to me as some kind of proof. If you have any actual scientific proof, a "peer reviewed" article perhaps, I would be glad to look at it. I am NOT interested in a forum from a bunch of non-scientific conspirators spouting off
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"stop posting these conspiracy forum websites to me as some kind of proof. If you have any actual scientific proof, a "peer reviewed" article perhaps....non-scientific conspirators spouting off"
You couldn't give a rebuttal to what this scientist said about scientific journals so you just brushed it off.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
She's a scientist and she says we can't trust what scientific journals say.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored I love these videos you post. This one (watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA) is from a creationist group trying to discredit science because it does not agree with the literal interpretation of the bible. And this is your PROOF. How funny.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored Why would any scientist risk his reputation, his entire career by faking data for Nasa. Other scientist who would read these "fake" work would quickly expose them and their career would be over.
You also claim the hundreds of scientific journals, like Nature, Science Mag, Review of Modern Physics mag etc. are all controlled by who? All these journals have is their stellar reputations. But your little video is all the proof you need that they are all "controlled" by some force.
2lib2live 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2lib2live
"Why would any scientist risk his reputation, his entire career by faking data for Nasa."
He'd be risking his career if he refused to fake the data.
/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU
"are all controlled by who?"
Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media". You seem to be really out of it when it comes to understanding who controls what we read.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media""
He is talking about mass media, not scientific journals.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"He is talking about mass media, not scientific journals."
The same forces control scientific journals too.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
Cosmored 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cosmored Wow, another creationist video trying to discredit science because they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. (watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA) And this is your proof, this is too funny dude. Are you a creationist or something? It would explain a lot about your scientific illiteracy.
I like to stay with the best science with have to date, but you stick to your 1000 yr. old book of how the universe started, LOL.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored And Thomas Baron: Wouldn’t of made more sense to murder him (officially Baron’s death is ruled an accident) BEFORE he testified to congress, and before he delivered his report to congress.
To try to silence him three months later, after his testimony, makes zero sense. He had already lost his job at North American Aviation, the company who built the CM. What would Nasa gain by killing him after he testified, except to bring suspicion on them? Try using reason.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"What would Nasa gain by killing him after he testified"
To keep him from testifying again.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored So let me get this straight. They allow him to turn in his report and testify before congress. Then 3 months later after everything has died down, they murder him. AFTER he had lost his job at North American Aviation, the company who built the CM. What else would he have to testify about? And this makes perfect sense to you, strange.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored And I don't care about 9/11, what does that have to do with Apollo landings being scientifically proven. Just means you are very paranoid.
And saying Apollo I was a murder is equally insane. It is all listed in the realm of conspiracy theory, meaning no proof, just asinine speculation.
Again, give me your best proof of a moon landing hoax. After 40+ years you would think someone would of found that smoking gun, but no, same old recycled claims over and over.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"give me your best proof of a moon landing hoax"
Did address this? If you already did, I missed the post.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62 (dot) html#post3319015
(check link for gaps)
I've never seen an Apollo-believer explain this anomaly.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored And yes, you gave me your link to the hoax forum of 40 year old debunked pseudoscience. A bunch of conspiracy theorists spouting the same nonsense over and over. This is your best proof.
Tell you what. You look on this stupid site of other scientific illiterate people and GIVE me what you think is the best proof for a faked moon landing. I don't have the time or inclination to go over every post on this site. But I bet I could easily debunk it all. Give me what you think is best
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored "I've never seen an Apollo-believer explain this anomaly."
Are you talking about the video where the asto is running in place and his jacket is following him up and down. It says on your hoaxer site, watch video at 4;10 mark. Is this the best proof you have that you want me to comment on? If so, I don't know what you want me to say, looks perfectly natural to me. How do you think his jacket should look, he is moving up and down, and his jacket is following, so?
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"A total of 382 kilograms of lunar material, and 6' core samples, has been processed to meet scientific requirements.....y pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year."
That's what we read, but is it true? Here's a link to a rebuttal to this argument.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Also, documents saying the moon rocks are real don't make the anomalies in the footage go away.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored 2200 individual specimens have been processed to meet scientific requirements into more than 110,000 individually cataloged samples. Geologist in universities, labs & observatories around the world have been examining them for 40 years without being discredited. More than 60 research labs around the world actively pursue studies of the samples & approx 400 samples are prepared & sent to investigators each year. How do you fake that?
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored And the site you post for proof, is a forum for hoax believers to spout their conspiracy theories. There is NO proof there, just the same recycled claims that have been going around for 40 years, and has all been debunked.
What about the rest of the evidence I presented, no explanation for any of it, just insane ramblings about the moon rocks being meteors.
Go here to learn about meteorites and how to spot one: meteorites(dot)wustl(dot)edu/lunar/moon_meteorites(dot)htm
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored And if you need proof, read some of the hundreds of peer reviewed (do you know what that is?) studies done on the lunar samples.
Here's one, very, very detailed, shows these people know what they are talking about!
COMPARISON OF LUNAR WITH TERRESTRIAL AND METEORITIC ROCKS*
BY FRANCIS J. TURNER AND MIABEL ULBRICH
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"And if you need proof, read some of the hundreds of peer reviewed (do you know what that is?) studies done on the lunar samples"
The anomalies in the footage prove they faked it and articles and documents don't make the anomalies go away. Scientists can lie because they can be bribed and threatened. Did you even read the info in my last post?
There's some stuff about the moon rocks in this link.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored I have looked at that site. It is a hoax proponent forum site where non-scientific people come to spout the same recycled and debunked pseudoscience I have seen for the past 40 years.
And to rule out peer reviewed scientific studies by stating "Scientists can lie because they can be bribed and threatened." tells me you have no idea about what a scientific study has to go thru to be accepted as the best science we have to date.
Keep living in your fantasy, I will stick with science
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"And to rule out peer reviewed scientific....have to date."
You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who don't look at the info in the link I posted. I guess I'll have to post some of it directly here to thwart that tactic. Listen to what this scientist says about science journals at the 00:16 time mark of this video.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
Do a YouTube search on "Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2".
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored "what this scientist says about science journals"
What scientist, this is a guy in a suit. And this video was made by a group called "UFOvideo.com" so yeah, I guess they can't get a serious scientific journal to publish them. Do you also believe in 'little green men".
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc. Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. From: Life Science Library
A scholarly journal is visibly different from other magazines.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@2lib2live
"When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same.....articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. From: Life Science Library
A scholarly journal is visibly different from other magazines."
Read the info in this forum post.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
You don't have to agree but please answer in a way that shows you understand the argument.
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Looked at another forum site from you. There is a video saying the government is irradiating us, a couple of comments that scientists disagree with one another(nothing new there).
Bottom line, there is not one iota on this site that claims peer reviewed scientific studies are somehow false. They state the best science we have to date. You don't have to agree with this but this is how science is done. Not on forums, try to read some real science studies, then come back.
2lib2live 8 months ago
@Cosmored Tell you what, give me your best 1 or 2 reasons why you think the Moon landings were a hoax. Couple of things that cannot be debunked, real proof. Then I will do the same, let's see who has the best proof. Let's see whose proof holds up to scientific scrutiny and whose proof is supposition. Deal, you can go first.
2lib2live 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2lib2live
"give me your best 1 or 2 reasons why you think the Moon landings were a hoax"
Here's a link to one that I've never seen debunked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62 (dot) html#post3319015
(check link for gaps)
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored Oh, and one last thing. This forum sites makes a lot of claims about how scientists would lie, but of course cannot give the slightest proof to back up these insane claims. Just saying they would be killed is not proof. Just saying astronomers back up Nasa because they need access to the Hubble is insane. What about the geologists, astrophysicists, radiations experts from around the world, all lie to protect Nasa? What about countries, all paid off, right? Insanity!
2lib2live 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2lib2live
"This forum sites makes a lot of claims about how scientists would lie, but of course cannot give the slightest proof to back up these insane claims."
There was the testimony of two scientists. That would make an objective person wonder at least. If the press distorts reality, how do we know how many scientists really think it was a hoax?
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Cosmored 8 months ago
@headells Thats what he gets because he lied to the whole world.
Wazzup9023 10 months ago
why not just take the $5000 donate it to a charity and swear on the bible?
WHY NOT?
WHY NOT?
Is Bart suggesting god fearing men would not lie, swear to god?
Interesting ploy.
WHY will not any of the astronauts swear on the bible?
Take the money, donate it.
Big DEAL
What is the problem?
islandbuoy4 10 months ago
@islandbuoy4 Why won't Bart give the money to charity, it's his and he's the one wanting to give it away for his up-coming movie.
You act like it's Armstrong's fault that money will not be donated to charity, you got it twisted around man. Bart's the big fool clown here in this scenario, Armstrong was not soliciting Sibrel.
Tweekerhead 10 months ago
@Tweekerhead
duh how does Neil lose face if he takes the money and gives it to charity?
He does NOT lose face on TV actually.
Maybe that is the point of the video lost on YOU?
That Neil, IF he is a god-fearing MAN, would not dare tempt 'the Lord' with blasphemy, swearing on the bible and taking money to hide your LYING ways?
What if it is YOU that fails to see the obvious ploy Bart is suggesting by pulling this stunt?
think about it
It was far cheaper and success guaranteed by FAKING IT
islandbuoy4 10 months ago
@islandbuoy4 Your saying it's Mr. Armstrong's fault the money wasn't given to charity.
You don't see the fallacy in that claim?
You must have no integrity at all to be able,so easily to redirect & transfer your own feelings of inadequacy to a man like Armstrong.The integrity that Armstrong has is something you can't comprehend.
How do you know Armstrong believes in the God of the Bible or give any credence to swearing on a Bible?
FYI...he doesn't.
Why did Barty have a camera crew with him?
Tweekerhead 10 months ago
@Tweekerhead
STFU you pathetic little twat
WE are discussing the LIARS and the FAKES
I will never expect the average stupid MERIKAN patri-idiot to realize the entire program was a ruse to siphon off funds for 'black ops programs' and to 'prepare'
these folks are not boy scouts
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
islandbuoy4 10 months ago
@islandbuoy4 You type statements like the ones you've posted, and you call me a pathetic little twat?
You must the typical uneducated dumbass who assumes it's fake because you just don't get it.
If you mean Bart Sibrel, then yes he's a LIAR AND A FAKE.
Why did he have the film crew with him? It was all for his little movie, which was full of more cow shit than a dairy farm.
BTW..Armstrong actually was a Boy Scout, the guy never drank or smoked.
Read ..it helps.
Tweekerhead 10 months ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 10 months ago
Well said Neil.
thespoon456 10 months ago
sibrel's a colossal jerk.i never liked this guy.
dudeeful1 11 months ago
@micolewill
I agree with you
melende1970 11 months ago
I can prove the moon landings were faked.
yesiamawizardjonny 11 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
You can't prove anything, the moon langings where real
melende1970 11 months ago
Hey Shit Kicker...You obviously know nothing about Armstrong, not one damn thing.
He still has bigger balls than you'll ever dream about. He was the best and the brightest with the best skills of anyone around at the time, and a flunky like you or any post adolescent egocentric kid will never take that away from him.
Go protest the funeral of the Iraqi war veteran...shit kicker
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
The idiots on here who think the Moon landings were faked, probably still think the Moon is made of cheese and that the world is flat.
Get a life, the lot of you... :P
sgtgrash 1 year ago
So many fuckers agreeing with this shit? You should be ashamed for agreeing with this mini bush faggot. Niel and Buzz sure as hell landed on the moon and any stupid shit who thinks otherwise, tell me their reasons and they better be good or i will lose all respect for American citizens.
bigscratch67 1 year ago
"Knowing you, that's a fake bible." what the heck does that mean?
And what's mk ultra that everyone seem to be talking about?
esh1 1 year ago
"Knowing you, that's a fake bible."
What? That's obviously a diversion to avoid swearing and a lame one.
Ironically after responding, he said that sibriel wasn't entitled to a response. Though saying that, I don't respect Sibriel although I find the whole situation to be odd.
orgminyak 1 year ago
@orgminyak
they faked the moon landings in '69, that's a major fraud foisted upon the public to cream their tax dollars, not 'odd'
muckletoon 1 year ago
@muckletoon But then again, if they've faked it, why do it 9 times? Once is difficult and dangerous enough if it was a hoax.
orgminyak 1 year ago
@orgminyak They didn't fake it 9 times, they faked it 6 times. 12 men. They did it mulitple times to prove exactly what you've said. They wanted us to believe it was real by showing it so many times. They wanted to prove ULTIMATE superiority over the people who haven't been there. The moon landing, I think is completely ridiculous.
cbmdg8551976 1 year ago
@cbmdg8551976 It seems like even if they really did go there, there isn't a way to prove it to you guys.
orgminyak 1 year ago
@muckletoon They placed a mirror on the moon and it has been proven that it is there so isn't that a great evidence that we landed on the moon?
orgminyak 1 year ago
@orgminyak Number 1: Have YOU seen this mirror with your own eyes? How do you know it exists? Number 2: If this so called "Mirror" was indeed there, it may have been placed by unmanned craft sometime after the alleged "moon landings."
cbmdg8551976 1 year ago
@muckletoon
they didnt fake anything.. dont you think the soviet union would have found out if all 6 missions were faked?? do you want to tell me that they keept more then 15 000 people quiet for 40 years? and that the Soyuz apollo programm was also a fake? and oh yeah maybe the space shuttle missons are fake. OH as i renember. there is a space station .called ISS its also a fake right.?
and OH the mars rover that landed on mars. are fake too..your right.....
predatortheme 1 year ago
@predatortheme
tell me why they didn't go back to the moon in the last 40 years?
cos it's impossible.
muckletoon 1 year ago
@muckletoon
No you idiot. its not impossible.
we are already sending stuff to the mars and even mercury soon..
ITs just because. we dont return to the moon. because Nasa doesnt have that much budget to start another moon mission again. they focus more on mars because you can actually make oxygen and water there. with machines. so its a planet wich can be used to life on.
predatortheme 1 year ago
@predatortheme
'sending stuff to mars and mercury soon' - mega LOL
muckletoon 11 months ago
@muckletoon No it's not impossible, and they DID go to the moon actually. Six times, in fact. Why don't we go back now? Well, we're not making any Saturn V rockets, or any rockets that have the capacity to send a manned mission to the moon. It's not that we can't go, it's just that after Apollo 17 Americans lost interest in the Apollo program, and so no more flights were made. Then, there's the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos NASA took of the landing sites, as well.
sanbsball44 11 months ago
why can't he just swear on the bible and get over it. At the mean time he can donate $5000 to the charity, save other astronauts some harassing and all these nonsense. His actions will only make people more suspicious and for those who truly believe in the landing to find it odd. Not entitled to an answer is just a lame excuse.
orgminyak 1 year ago
@headells no man has ever been to the moon
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
Bart Sibrel is a HERO
Armstrong the Traitor
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
Update! I see "Buzz" Aldrin did .... Well done "Buzz"!
SearchBucket 1 year ago
What a dreadful way to treat a man who rose to the top of the toughest selection process ever ..... Does anyone really think conclusions can be drawn just because he doesn't entertain this idiot? He now an elderly and frail old man ... he probably felt intimidated and threatened .... If the question had been asked 40 years ago he would probably have laid this jerk out.
SearchBucket 1 year ago 2
Boy there are some real idiots in a greement with Sibrel here....that also dont deserve answers.
sculptorguy 1 year ago
Seriously, even if they didnt walk on the moon, they can still put their hand on a book and say a few words. Seriously. Im sure "God" would understand :P
PSNLookBehind 1 year ago
@PSNLookBehind
Armstrong knows what he did and he was on the moon, he has no reason to swear to God something he did and knows to be true.
ReconTeam111 1 year ago
Doesn't anyone find it odd that he wouldn't swear on the bible?? Why not do it and shut him up? It would have got rid of him for good and he would have shut up all the nonbelievers....but he didn't it was almost like he was afraid to do it? Talk about looking guilty he had nothing to lose and he would have gotten rid of the pest?
AlienVisitor 1 year ago