1) I'd say at least 90% of moon hoax "proof" is based on people not understanding how physics/photography/geology etc. works. So that point is shot down rather quickly.

2) If people did any research at all they'd know that 100% of the evidence is on the side of the moon landing having happened as reported. The majority of moon hoax believers get their info from Jarrah White's youtube videos or websites so devoid of evidence and facts they might as well not even exist. So this point is also totally wrong.

3) This is just a massive strawman that has been beaten to death almost as severely as the moon hoax itself.

4) Now the OP is claiming that those people who prefer to use facts and reality "refuse to accept the truth"

As I had previously pointed out this "true believer" is siding with a librarian, a carpenter, an art student, a mentally unstable, religiously fanatic cab driver and various people in tinfoil hats vs. the global scientific community whose claims are backed up with mountains of evidence which has withheld scrutiny for over 40 years.

Here you have a person who ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his pre-determined conclusions, calls anyone who would dare contradict his pseudo-science and lies a shill and he has the gall to essentially describe himself while projecting on people who actually believe in evidence based discourse. Yes, shame on those of us who believe the evidence as opposed to uneducated, proven liars and con men like Percy/Renee/White/Sibrel.

One final point, notice how in his long, angry rant, he fails to provide even one single shred of evidence. Only his freakishly bias and downright delusional ramblings?

Originally posted by captainpudding
1) I'd say at least 90% of moon hoax "proof" is based on people not understanding how physics/photography/geology etc. works. So that point is shot down rather quickly.

2) If people did any research at all they'd know that 100% of the evidence is on the side of the moon landing having happened as reported. The majority of moon hoax believers get their info from Jarrah White's youtube videos or websites so devoid of evidence and facts they might as well not even exist. So this point is also totally wrong.

3) This is just a massive strawman that has been beaten to death almost as severely as the moon hoax itself.

4) Now the OP is claiming that those people who prefer to use facts and reality "refuse to accept the truth"

As I had previously pointed out this "true believer" is siding with a librarian, a carpenter, an art student, a mentally unstable, religiously fanatic cab driver and various people in tinfoil hats vs. the global scientific community whose claims are backed up with mountains of evidence which has withheld scrutiny for over 40 years.

Here you have a person who ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his pre-determined conclusions, calls anyone who would dare contradict his pseudo-science and lies a shill and he has the gall to essentially describe himself while projecting on people who actually believe in evidence based discourse. Yes, shame on those of us who believe the evidence as opposed to uneducated, proven liars and con men like Percy/Renee/White/Sibrel.

One final point, notice how in his long, angry rant, he fails to provide even one single shred of evidence. Only his freakishly bias and downright delusional ramblings?

Dude... You are seriously long on rhetoric.

Your arguments are based on a boatload of hyperbole.

And finally you come across with 0% credibility as an impartial HONEST observer.

I've got some entries in this very thread that basically repudiate your entire viewpoint... Please do feel free to engage on the slice of the facts I'm totally making fun on...

And as to your precious 'Scientific' community, they are basically a bunch of semitards that are basically incapable of seeing that ALMOST NONE of their 'viewpoints' match the physical reality.

You can start from the very beginning (so to speak ) that would of course be the so-called Big Bang theory and though it's adherents frequently engage in major rhetorical backpedaling because of it's blatant ABSURDITY they can't get away from it's basic premise...

Which of course there was a whole lot of NOTHINGNESS which suddenly became a whole lot of SOMETHINGNESS.

Creation myth much...



Or to reduce to mathematical terms

0 = 1!

Tada!

This total violation of the basic tenets of an admirable human endeavor called 'Science' knows NO LIMITS.

And pretty much involves EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 'Sciences'.

Please DO enlighten us with a complete accounting of the physics of how Apollo astronauts flew ROCKET ships to the Moon and back.

Of course, don't forget to account for the true 'gravitational' neutral point, not being where it was expected and how that would destroy the entire basic logistics and physical design limitations of the craft in terms of fuel consumption.

It is always SO exciting to have so many knowledgeable people in one of these threads...

Please educate me, the HONEST observer.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
By the way, you do realize that the moon is so close that if there were a road, most cars would be able to drive right to it? Going there was brute force, period. The rockets did exist.

I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you said, but this analogy is just bogus.

Now here is a list of scientist's who support the Moon landing as a hoax. Prof Lawrence S. Pinsky, American. Prof James M. McCanney, American. Prof Luke Sargent, American. Prof Andre Balogh, British. Prof Colin Rourke, British. Prof Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski, Russian. Prof Takahiko Soejima, Japanese. Prof Li Zifeng, Chinese. Prof Federico Martín Maglio, Argentinian. That makes a grand total of 9. So the Moon hoax supporters are way out in front on 69% with Moon landing supporters way behind on 31%.

Dr David Grove notwithstanding.

Many anomalies exist in the 'data' put forward by NASA, and it is conjusive to the good of greater scientific knowledge to question them, and those suggesting it is wrong to ask such questions misunderstand the scientific method.

Science is not an absolute, it's in a constant state of flux, changing when bold men ask questions that suggest a deviation from the norm.

Advancement can only be achieved when a deviation from the norm occurs.

Neither I, Brandon, nor anybody else use shadow direction as an argument of Apollo irregularity, you're arguing a straw man.

As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Neither I, Brandon, nor anybody else use shadow direction as an argument of Apollo irregularity, you're arguing a straw man.

As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Please cite a video that you can either link or embed for everyone to look at and see what you are talking about please.

Thanks.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.

Can you read my post and explain what you mean exactly?

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.

Can you read my post and explain what you mean exactly?

It is my conclusion that the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized.