Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

page: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by exponent
 


Oh wow seriously? This is the last thing I respond to you, I feel like I am explaining to a third grader what makes the Sun set.

If you curbed your arrogance somewhat you'd learn why you are wrong. I guess you can't see over your own ego.


I AM SHOWING THAT NASA USES A SIMILAR KNEE STRAP IN THEIR HARNESSES AND THAT SUCH STRAPS CAN BE UTILIZED IN ANY ORIENTATION.

Why would they use such obvious knee straps in the most important hoax of all time? Why would they use them when the astronauts were inclined vertically, not horizontally? Why would they be outside the space suit instead of inside?

You have no answers, just assertions, and you are correct. This argument is done, you've presented nothing other than your own assertions that you are right, nobody else seems to be able to see this strap and nobody else seems to be arguing they'd pointlessly use an obvious strap while hiding the rest of the rigging.

Thanks for the laughs.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Umm... I presented evidence supporting my assertions. i asked you to provide some to the contrary, you did not, you argued weak illogical arguments that didn't pertain to the original assertion.



If you curbed your arrogance somewhat you'd learn why you are wrong. I guess you can't see over your own ego.


All you have done is say I am wrong "just because you say". That sir is the height of arrogance.

DENY IGNORANCE
edit on 2-12-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
DENY IGNORANCE




The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

If one looks at the hoax "theory" in total, it becomes apparent it is little more than a fairy tale based on a handful of mistaken observations and assumptions. You may see a hundred examples of so-called hoax evidence, but it is mostly just repeated samples of the same misinterpreted phenomena. For those who have convinced themselves Apollo was nothing more than a hoax, it becomes necessary to create a story that fits the remaining evidence and is consistent with the hoax plot.
...
The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.
www.braeunig.us...

WHY A CONSPIRACY?
...
To account for variations in observation.
Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It's only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it's natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.
As entertainment.
Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It's more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner's landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it's even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.

To seem intelligent.
Conspiracy theories are often much more elaborate than what's commonly believed about something. And they usually require the listener to expand his understanding to accept the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who casually examine photographs of the lunar landings are impressed when they are led to discover discrepancies. This inflates the ego and gives one the impression that he is smarter than the dozens who look at the same photographs and see nothing special.

To be "on the inside."
The conspiracist fancies himself to be elite, to be privy to secret information that few others have.
www.clavius.org...


edit on 2-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by exponent
 

Umm... I presented evidence supporting my assertions. i asked you to provide some to the contrary, you did not, you argued weak illogical arguments that didn't pertain to the original assertion.

No, what I provided was an explanation that your theory could not be correct as the dust behaved correctly for 1/6g instead of an inclined plane at 1g. You then modified your argument to include some unknown type of gravity rig that uses a visible knee strap for no reason.

There are more plausible explanations, such as the pockets we know were mounted around that area.

Still, I should do better so I did my research. This is Gene Cernan on EVA 2 and in fact on this EVA he placed the geology hammer in his right shin pocket. This is what we are seeing on the video, not a pocket cover:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


All you have done is say I am wrong "just because you say". That sir is the height of arrogance.

Not at all, just using simple logic we can tell that it's not an inclined plane and there are only a few ways to simulate lunar gravity. None that would affect the soil in such a manner, and none that require a knee strap.

As I hope I have now demonstrated, the object sticking out is the end of the geology hammer, not a knee strap.


DENY IGNORANCE
edit on 2-12-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

Indeed.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think the strongest evidence against Apollo is NASA's always posturing as though it were above it all. I understand their disinclination to get involved in the debate themselves. But its still the thing that got me considering hoax as a legitimate possibility. I pray to God the thing was real. If it ever was established that the moon landings were faked then the country would never recover. It would be worse than having all of our major cities destroyed in war.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I once saw a movie called "Paper Moon" that attempted to debunk the Moon landing. There were many interesting conflicts brought to light. One sealed the deal for me. Researchers noticed that the life support system that the astronauts wore on their backs were larger than the hatch on the LEM. The data quickly led to a series of legitimate questions that have never been resolved... How did they suit up when the LEM barely had enough room for the 3 astronauts without the equipment? Assuming there was some magical way to defy physics and make the inside of the LEM large enough to suit up, how did they pass through the hatch to Moon's surface when the equipment exceeded the diameter of the LEM hatch???



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


This is a very very common claim and has been modified quite a few times since its original inception. You can see more information about it here:

www.clavius.org...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Interesting! Thanks for sharing...
I'll need to read through all of the info when I have more time.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by byrontheman
I think the strongest evidence against Apollo is NASA's always posturing as though it were above it all. I understand their disinclination to get involved in the debate themselves. But its still the thing that got me considering hoax as a legitimate possibility.


NASA did commission a book intended to debunk the hoax claims but canceled it amid congressional complaints and negative news coverage.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 

What were the complaints and negative media about? They considered it a waste of time, effort, and therefore, government money?

Has anyone ever been sued for slander for claiming the astronauts were liars? I would LOVE to see that happen, as anyone with a tiny bit of a conscience will admit that calling these people liars IF they did actually go to the moon is seriously awful.

How about it hoax believers? You know you can only be sued for slander if it can be proven in a public court of law that what you claim against someone is false?
So there's no way you can be found guilty is there, if what you say is true?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Since i see it on illuminati card game, i don't trust it anymore
but i don't know why gov lie on this landing?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
How did they suit up when the LEM barely had enough room for the 3 astronauts without the equipment?


What makes you claim 3 astronauts were in the LEM?


make the inside of the LEM large enough to suit up,


What makes you think they suited up in the LEM?


how did they pass through the hatch to Moon's surface when the equipment exceeded the diameter of the LEM hatch???


It didnt. I suggext you avoid the silly conspiracy sites, and go to a NASA source for your facts.
edit on 3-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 


Here's an article on the subject by the author:

www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 


the problem with american astronauts sueing idiots for slander / libel - is the assanine US libel / slander laws that force the plaintiff to demonstrate that the alledged libel / slander is untrue

there have been several well publicised cases of american m[plaintiffs attempting [ with varying degrees of sucess ] to sue thier defamors in UK courts where the defendant has to demonstrate that thier claim is true



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the problem with american astronauts sueing idiots for slander / libel - is the assanine US libel / slander laws that force the plaintiff to demonstrate that the alledged libel / slander is untrue
....

I actually thought this would be a positive in this instance, because the act of proving the case would systematically present such a mass of overwhelming evidence.
Not that that doesn't already exist readily in massive amounts.

But I guess it really wouldn't be worth it because if people believe the way they do now, a court case would never prove anything to them.

They will go to their grave thinking like this. Oh well.
I'll just have to learn to stop being personally bothered by it. People's severe reality delusions are not my problem, I'm not on a mission to save them from themselves (sometimes I think I am though, and that's MY delusion).


Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by delusion
 


Here's an article on the subject by the author:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Thanks for the article.
edit on 3-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The CIA has handled all of the Apollo images from 1968 until today.






posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


do you actually fail to comprehend the concept of " changing jobs " ?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


do you actually fail to comprehend the concept of " changing jobs " ?


Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?


I wish we had a good quality facepalm emoticon so I could use it every time you post. What a shock Sayonara that you find the moon landing was faked when you start from the premise that the moon landing was faked.

Every post I have seen of yours starts with a predetermined conclusion and then cherry picks evidence that would best fit that conclusion.

This is the exact opposite of how to investigate. You're not denying ignorance, you're ensuring 100% that you'll remain ignorant forever, as any challenge of your position makes you believe it more strongly.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?


And why would Richard Nixon spend so much energy on a conspiracy to immortalize John F Kennedy?





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join