Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: DebtSlave

I don't suppose you have a link to that documentary?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DebtSlave



I don't suppose you have a link to that documentary?

Lol, that's what I was wondering when I was writing my post. If I start searching YouTube now, I will be on there for hours (clicking on all the related videos.) If I remember it in the future, I will private message you.

Now I'm going crazy thinking what movie it was. I don't watch a lot of "fake moon landing" documentaries, so it must have been an illuminati documentary. Now I really want to find and share it with everybody!

The Apollo suits were designed to cope with what was known about radiation hazards in space, not inside a nuclear reactor that has gone boom.

a reply to: DebtSlave



I know the feeling. Sorry for triggering the "crazies"...

I'd just never heard that one before, and to put it mildly, I'm skeptical. If you find it, great...if not, that's fine, too. Eventually, I'll run across it.

a reply to: DebtSlave

There's a huge difference between radiation in space, and radiation in a nuclear reactor. A lead shield will kill you faster in space, but will protect you in a nuclear reactor.

a reply to: DebtSlave

It's two different types of radiation, requiring two different means of dealing with that radiation.

Cosmic rays (the radiation found in space) is caused by particles moving through space. The radiation from a nuke plant or from X-rays is waves of energy.

Lead, for example, stops the radiation from a nuke plant or x-rays, but lead can be harmful as a shield against cosmic particle radiation. Cosmic particles striking the dense lead can make the lead itself give off a secondary radiation that can affect anyone behind that lead shield.

Thinner and/or less dense shielding works better in space. The Apollo astronauts were protected by the thinn aluminum and fibrous insulation of the spacecraft, and by the outer shell and fibers of their space suit.

Nowadays, plastic (polyethylene) is used to protect astronauts, such as the plastic radiation shielding of the space station.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DebtSlave

If you find it, great...if not, that's fine, too. Eventually, I'll run across it.

I thought about it last night when I was trying to sleep. I still can't remember the name (I think it was an older documentary) but I do remember the other argument was that the equivalent of ten feet of concrete world be required for the outter shell of the spacecraft to protect the crew from cosmic radiation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DebtSlave


A lead shield will kill you faster in space

LOL, why cause it would trap the radiation? I can just imagine little test monkeys in 1960's lead shield suits.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: DebtSlave


Lead, for example, stops the radiation from a nuke plant or x-rays, but lead can be harmful as a shield against cosmic particle radiation. Cosmic particles striking the dense lead can make the lead itself give off a secondary radiation that can affect anyone behind that lead shield.

Oh, ok. That makes sense.

One more argument, watch as the Apollo craft takes off from the moon - the rocket thrusts produce no dust storm.

originally posted by: captainpudding

originally posted by: turbonium1


I suppose you need "numbers" to back up the claim of the sky being blue, otherwise, it is only an opinion?

No. It is simply the observation of our sky which is needed to prove it is blue in color.

It is not a matter of opinion, correct?

Are you honestly that disconnected from reality? You honestly don't think we have the technology to determine the colour of something? Just take an interferometer, measure the wavelength of blue sky and there you go, numbers.

But if we want to stick with your analogy of the sky being blue is a matter of opinion; around 7 billion people can look up and say the sky is blue, you're the only one who seems to be able to say the apollo 11 footage was sped up 2x, notice the difference?

No, I said the Apollo 11 clip, at 2x sped up, showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and a clip from Apollo 15, at 2x sped uo, showed astronauts moving faster than at normal speed.

YOU (Apollo-ites) said it was only my opinion the Apollo 11 astronaut moved at normal speed. YOU said it needed proof of it being in normal speed. YOU said I need 'measurements' to prove his movements are, indeed, at normal speed.

THIS was my comparison of a blue sky - you get the point? I hope so, it is very simple...


A blue sky is something we can observe as blue in color. This is an example of our sky, as blue....get it?

It is idiotic spouting about a sky not being blue all the time, or various shades of blue, in a blue sky.


My point is a blue sky is known to be blue - it is seen as blue.

Observation of a blue sky do not require measurements to prove it is blue in color. It is not an opinion of being blue in color, we all see it as blue.

Now, if a group of people sneered at Joe Smith for thinking the sky was blue in color on that day, and asked him to prove it was blue, with measurements. This group of people suggest that Joe Smith is merely giving his personal opinion of the sky being blue in color, which they don't agree with. So Joe needs to prove it is blue, or it is only his opinion....


That's absurd.

And your argument is absurd, much the same way.


As you know, I'm claiming at 2x sped up, the Apollo 11 astronaut moves at a normal, Earth-bound speed.

That is based on over 50 years of first-hand experience in moving at a normal, Earth-bound speed, first of all.

It is also based on observing others move at normal speed over that same 50+ years, as well.

Movements that look much faster than normal are seen by most people - because normal speed is known from our lifetime of experience, and if it's much too fast for normal speed, therefore.


Your side claims it is faster than normal, and what I see is only my personal opinion.

I compared the Apollo 11 clip to an Earth clip, and it wholly confirmed my claim.

Your side has tried to change the issue, as you have tried to change it, right here.


Not going to fly .

a reply to: turbonium1

But you are claiming that it is slowed down by using 1 clip. What about the rest of the footage from Apollo 11?

1 clip proves nothing. Seconds prove nothing. Do it for the full footage and you'll see why you're wrong.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1
...you'll see why you're wrong.

I think you underestimate the levels of stupidity and willful ignorance at play here.

originally posted by: DebtSlave
One more argument, watch as the Apollo craft takes off from the moon - the rocket thrusts produce no dust storm.

There are a few things there. Firstly, there wouldn't be a 'storm' as such, as there is no air in which to suspend the dust. Dust hit by a rocket exhaust on earth gets displaced then meets resistance from air, causing it to stop moving in away from the rocket and move in reaction to movement of the air around it instead. On the moon it just moves away from the rocket.

Secondly the ascent module engine doesn't fire against the ground, it fires against the descent module that stays where it is. You don't get as much rocket exhaust hitting the ground as it is shielded by that descent module.

Finally you do see dust and other objects being disturbed, like these two shots from inside Apollo 14 and outside Apollo 17:

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1
...you'll see why you're wrong.

I think you underestimate the levels of stupidity and willful ignorance at play here.

I think you may be correct.

He's already been showed another clip at x2 speed that showed the Apollo 11 folks moving too fast, but dismissed it saying that they must have used a different speed for that. Then said it's not relevant.

I'm thinking confirmation bias on this one.

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, I said the Apollo 11 clip, at 2x sped up, showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and a clip from Apollo 15, at 2x sped uo, showed astronauts moving faster than at normal speed.

YOU (Apollo-ites) said it was only my opinion the Apollo 11 astronaut moved at normal speed. YOU said it needed proof of it being in normal speed. YOU said I need 'measurements' to prove his movements are, indeed, at normal speed.

THIS was my comparison of a blue sky - you get the point? I hope so, it is very simple...

It was very simple, but you failed to understand the implications of your analogy. You also failed to provide numbers or proof or measurements. Still waiting for those.

A blue sky is something we can observe as blue in color. This is an example of our sky, as blue....get it?

It is idiotic spouting about a sky not being blue all the time, or various shades of blue, in a blue sky.

No it isn't, because the sky isn't always blue, and it isn't always the same shade of blue.

My point is a blue sky is known to be blue - it is seen as blue.

Observation of a blue sky do not require measurements to prove it is blue in color. It is not an opinion of being blue in color, we all see it as blue.

It does if you are claiming that it is a specific shade of blue and insisting that yours is the only possible shade of blue that the sky can be, and that the colour of the sky that I see is different to the one you see. If you want to demonstrate something absolutely, you do it empirically.

Now, if a group of people sneered at Joe Smith for thinking the sky was blue in color on that day, and asked him to prove it was blue, with measurements. This group of people suggest that Joe Smith is merely giving his personal opinion of the sky being blue in color, which they don't agree with. So Joe needs to prove it is blue, or it is only his opinion....


That's absurd.

And your argument is absurd, much the same way.

Nope, it's how science works.

As you know, I'm claiming at 2x sped up, the Apollo 11 astronaut moves at a normal, Earth-bound speed.

That is based on over 50 years of first-hand experience in moving at a normal, Earth-bound speed, first of all.

It is also based on observing others move at normal speed over that same 50+ years, as well.

And my understanding of the Apollo footage are also based on 50+ years of personal experience of movement and observations of other people's movements. If you want to prove that your understanding is better than mine, you need to prove it much more satisfactorily than just trying to shout me down saying "I'm right, you're wrong". Give me numbers.

My understanding of Apollo is also based on many years of intensive research of archives and published material that informs my understanding beyond the level of mere arm waving opinion drawn from a few minutes on youtube.

Movements that look much faster than normal are seen by most people - because normal speed is known from our lifetime of experience, and if it's much too fast for normal speed, therefore.

Except they don't. The only time the movements look faster than normal is when people speed up the footage and try and claim it looks normal

Your side claims it is faster than normal, and what I see is only my personal opinion.

You have posted your opinion and your opinion is worthless without proof. You were supplied with everything you needed to prove that it was speed up, you avoided doing so.

I compared the Apollo 11 clip to an Earth clip, and it wholly confirmed my claim.

No it didn't.

Your side has tried to change the issue, as you have tried to change it, right here.

No, what people have been trying to do (for years and on every goalpost shift you've ever done) is get you to back your argument with facts and evidence. You have never done anything but offer your opinion and insist you are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong.

originally posted by: DebtSlave

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DebtSlave


A lead shield will kill you faster in space

LOL, why cause it would trap the radiation? I can just imagine little test monkeys in 1960's lead shield suits.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I suppose you need "numbers" to back up the claim of the sky being blue, otherwise, it is only an opinion?

No. It is simply the observation of our sky which is needed to prove it is blue in color.

It is not a matter of opinion, correct?

the difference between this and your theory is that you cant prove it. where as scientists CAN prove the sky is blue they can go into detail why it can appear blue.
if we were to liken your method to proving the sky is blue it would be along the lines of pointing at the sky (probably when its overcast) and saying "this blue, me smart you wrong"

p.s. if determining the sky colour as blue is merely opinion, why do you think that scientists KNOW that blue has a different wavelength to red? why do scientists KNOW that the atmosphere scatters more light to appear in the blue wavelength? if your example was true it would be merely scientists pointing to the sky and saying "sky, blue" and when someone asks why they will answer "me smart, you learn, sky, blue, no why."

You can have two different speeds in the same mission, and it means nothing, because the same source is used?

Are you serious?

two different speeds?? you havent even been able to establish if the video you linked to is at double speed or if the video i linked to is at double speed.

again you are just using the method of "what me say right, you, wrong!"

You are quite the hypocrite, since you've consistently ignored my clip because it doesn't support you.

you have it wrong, i havent ignored your video, i have only debunked your "argument" i shouldnt say i debunked it, i should say you debunked yourself.

your clip doesnt even support you like you say it does.. you believe that a few seconds worth of footage from a 2.5hr long EVA is sufficient to prove your theory.. yet you havent even been able to establish if its really at double speed, but you can obviously tell the video i linked to (posted by the same person) is not..

No, it is proven by repeating those movements on Earth, at normal speed. It is not a matter of opinion. Numbers are not required, because repeating those movements proves it is normal speed.

Just like we know the sky is blue, without numbers - it is not a matter of opinion.

proven?? how?? by posting a video with your accompanying opinion?

i know you value your opinion like it always comes out as fact, but that will only work for yourself.
you want to convince everyone you need to move beyond your arrogance, your opinions wont convince anyone.

It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion!

Saying it is at normal speed, or faster than normal speed, that's just an opinion.


Proof is repeating it - at normal speed.

A movement is proven to be normal speed in our repeating that movement, at normal speed.

It is not a matter of personal opinion, it is an absolute fact.


So cry all you want, it won't save you

a reply to: DebtSlave

Because the denser the material the more ionizing radiation it releases into the craft. That's one reason spacecraft are made of lighter materials.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, I said the Apollo 11 clip, at 2x sped up, showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and a clip from Apollo 15, at 2x sped uo, showed astronauts moving faster than at normal speed.

YOU (Apollo-ites) said it was only my opinion the Apollo 11 astronaut moved at normal speed. YOU said it needed proof of it being in normal speed. YOU said I need 'measurements' to prove his movements are, indeed, at normal speed.

THIS was my comparison of a blue sky - you get the point? I hope so, it is very simple...

It was very simple, but you failed to understand the implications of your analogy. You also failed to provide numbers or proof or measurements. Still waiting for those.

A blue sky is something we can observe as blue in color. This is an example of our sky, as blue....get it?

It is idiotic spouting about a sky not being blue all the time, or various shades of blue, in a blue sky.

No it isn't, because the sky isn't always blue, and it isn't always the same shade of blue.

My point is a blue sky is known to be blue - it is seen as blue.

Observation of a blue sky do not require measurements to prove it is blue in color. It is not an opinion of being blue in color, we all see it as blue.

It does if you are claiming that it is a specific shade of blue and insisting that yours is the only possible shade of blue that the sky can be, and that the colour of the sky that I see is different to the one you see. If you want to demonstrate something absolutely, you do it empirically.

Now, if a group of people sneered at Joe Smith for thinking the sky was blue in color on that day, and asked him to prove it was blue, with measurements. This group of people suggest that Joe Smith is merely giving his personal opinion of the sky being blue in color, which they don't agree with. So Joe needs to prove it is blue, or it is only his opinion....


That's absurd.

And your argument is absurd, much the same way.

Nope, it's how science works.

As you know, I'm claiming at 2x sped up, the Apollo 11 astronaut moves at a normal, Earth-bound speed.

That is based on over 50 years of first-hand experience in moving at a normal, Earth-bound speed, first of all.

It is also based on observing others move at normal speed over that same 50+ years, as well.

And my understanding of the Apollo footage are also based on 50+ years of personal experience of movement and observations of other people's movements. If you want to prove that your understanding is better than mine, you need to prove it much more satisfactorily than just trying to shout me down saying "I'm right, you're wrong". Give me numbers.

My understanding of Apollo is also based on many years of intensive research of archives and published material that informs my understanding beyond the level of mere arm waving opinion drawn from a few minutes on youtube.

Movements that look much faster than normal are seen by most people - because normal speed is known from our lifetime of experience, and if it's much too fast for normal speed, therefore.

Except they don't. The only time the movements look faster than normal is when people speed up the footage and try and claim it looks normal

Your side claims it is faster than normal, and what I see is only my personal opinion.

You have posted your opinion and your opinion is worthless without proof. You were supplied with everything you needed to prove that it was speed up, you avoided doing so.

I compared the Apollo 11 clip to an Earth clip, and it wholly confirmed my claim.

No it didn't.

Your side has tried to change the issue, as you have tried to change it, right here.

No, what people have been trying to do (for years and on every goalpost shift you've ever done) is get you to back your argument with facts and evidence. You have never done anything but offer your opinion and insist you are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong.

It is repeatable at normal speed.

Repeating the movement at normal speed is not 'offering an opinion', it is legitimate proof.


You spew on and on about these measurements you need, while you have no idea of what those measurements would actually measure, but that's not important, but I must get these measurements, to meet your demands, required to prove he moves at normal speed.....


You see, science is all about asking someone to take measurements, because that's required for proving you wrong, and you'll surely accept it as proof, too!!


Sheesh, that's a good laugh

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, I said the Apollo 11 clip, at 2x sped up, showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and a clip from Apollo 15, at 2x sped uo, showed astronauts moving faster than at normal speed.

YOU (Apollo-ites) said it was only my opinion the Apollo 11 astronaut moved at normal speed. YOU said it needed proof of it being in normal speed. YOU said I need 'measurements' to prove his movements are, indeed, at normal speed.

THIS was my comparison of a blue sky - you get the point? I hope so, it is very simple...

It was very simple, but you failed to understand the implications of your analogy. You also failed to provide numbers or proof or measurements. Still waiting for those.

A blue sky is something we can observe as blue in color. This is an example of our sky, as blue....get it?

It is idiotic spouting about a sky not being blue all the time, or various shades of blue, in a blue sky.

No it isn't, because the sky isn't always blue, and it isn't always the same shade of blue.

My point is a blue sky is known to be blue - it is seen as blue.

Observation of a blue sky do not require measurements to prove it is blue in color. It is not an opinion of being blue in color, we all see it as blue.

It does if you are claiming that it is a specific shade of blue and insisting that yours is the only possible shade of blue that the sky can be, and that the colour of the sky that I see is different to the one you see. If you want to demonstrate something absolutely, you do it empirically.

Now, if a group of people sneered at Joe Smith for thinking the sky was blue in color on that day, and asked him to prove it was blue, with measurements. This group of people suggest that Joe Smith is merely giving his personal opinion of the sky being blue in color, which they don't agree with. So Joe needs to prove it is blue, or it is only his opinion....


That's absurd.

And your argument is absurd, much the same way.

Nope, it's how science works.

As you know, I'm claiming at 2x sped up, the Apollo 11 astronaut moves at a normal, Earth-bound speed.

That is based on over 50 years of first-hand experience in moving at a normal, Earth-bound speed, first of all.

It is also based on observing others move at normal speed over that same 50+ years, as well.

And my understanding of the Apollo footage are also based on 50+ years of personal experience of movement and observations of other people's movements. If you want to prove that your understanding is better than mine, you need to prove it much more satisfactorily than just trying to shout me down saying "I'm right, you're wrong". Give me numbers.

My understanding of Apollo is also based on many years of intensive research of archives and published material that informs my understanding beyond the level of mere arm waving opinion drawn from a few minutes on youtube.

Movements that look much faster than normal are seen by most people - because normal speed is known from our lifetime of experience, and if it's much too fast for normal speed, therefore.

Except they don't. The only time the movements look faster than normal is when people speed up the footage and try and claim it looks normal

Your side claims it is faster than normal, and what I see is only my personal opinion.

You have posted your opinion and your opinion is worthless without proof. You were supplied with everything you needed to prove that it was speed up, you avoided doing so.

I compared the Apollo 11 clip to an Earth clip, and it wholly confirmed my claim.

No it didn't.

Your side has tried to change the issue, as you have tried to change it, right here.

No, what people have been trying to do (for years and on every goalpost shift you've ever done) is get you to back your argument with facts and evidence. You have never done anything but offer your opinion and insist you are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong.

It is repeatable at normal speed.

Repeating the movement at normal speed is not 'offering an opinion', it is legitimate proof.


You spew on and on about these measurements you need, while you have no idea of what those measurements would actually measure, but that's not important, but I must get these measurements, to meet your demands, required to prove he moves at normal speed.....


You see, science is all about asking someone to take measurements, because that's required for proving you wrong, and you'll surely accept it as proof, too!!


Sheesh, that's a good laugh

I noticed you skipped over my post, again.

The measurements that have been asked for, repeatedly, would show the amount of time an objects arcs and comes back down. With those measurements we can calculate the gravity.

While it has been done (not by yourself, obviously) it shows that the time and speed for the objects are within moons gravity.

With your x2 speed none sense those arcs and speeds are neither Moon OR Earth gravity. That kind of throws your whole argument out the window (which you have completely failed at anyway).