Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

turbonium1

You need to actually post a theory of some sort, some way they could of faked that one aspect, something to actually support your claims.

The community has presented to you and everyone else the proof to over 98% of all claims of illegitimacy, have done many hundreds to 1000s of man hours of presenting all of this proof, and you have not as yet been able to present even a concept of a theory or explanation of your claims.

We are/have run out of energy and the will to keep indulging your baseless claims and that of presenting no tangible proof or theory, all you have presenting is words and more words.

Your also seem to be running on empty as presented by your 6 very long posts of words and mores words of posts in a row with nothing presented to support anything you dare to claim.

Interest in continuing with you is at an all time low.

Splutter splutter said the engine without fuel.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Inventing a theory cannot possibly hope to explain what is totally inexplicable.

So a theory exists to explain something that doesn't exist???

The point is the fact that a theory exists proves you wrong with your claim that it does not exist.

When will you realise that if it didn't exist as you claimed, you wouldn't be here arguing about it being a theory.

So will you admit you were wrong or carry on your long winded rant??

a reply to: choos

So will you admit you were wrong or carry on your long winded rant??

I'm going to guess rant, as that's all he's been doing for pages and pages.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Inventing a theory cannot possibly hope to explain what is totally inexplicable.

So a theory exists to explain something that doesn't exist???

The point is the fact that a theory exists proves you wrong with your claim that it does not exist.

When will you realise that if it didn't exist as you claimed, you wouldn't be here arguing about it being a theory.

So will you admit you were wrong or carry on your long winded rant??

I admit I was wrong, and so are you....

They are not theories, at all. They are only hypotheses


Each BZ consists of an area of lower reflectance (LR-BZ) compared to the surroundings that extends from beneath the lander up to a few meters out from the lander, as well as a broader ‘halo’ of higher reflectance (HR-BZ) that extends tens to hundreds of meters away from the lander (Fig. 1). Kaydash et al. (2011) first discussed the basic phenomenon of BZ reflectance changes; here we present an in-depth analysis of several hypotheses to test possible causes of the reflectance changes.

Hypotheses that we consider in this paper to explain the reflectance differences between the HR-BZ and background regions..


In what follows we will consider several hypotheses to account for the HR-BZ increased reflectivity..


www.researchgate.net...

What is a 'hypothesis?...

A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.

www.vocabulary.com...


So, as they state several times, they are assessing various hypotheses.

They are making a guess, in other words.


Back to the paper...

Ongoing efforts are aimed at quantifying our understanding of how the changes in physical properties associated with either smoothing or roughness at different scales and redeposition offines in a very thin surface layer would affect the photometric properties of the regolith, and how these can best be treated in photometric modeling. We are also testing our photometric model using a wider range of emission angles.

Trying to explain it, one day.


I'm quoting all of this from a paper YOU cited, as supporting YOUR argument.

You never even quoted anything from the paper, though.

Now that I have, it's very obvious to see why you didn't....

a reply to: turbonium1

Excellent you finally admit that there is a disturbance on the lunar surface caused by the lunar module.

Now you are arguing that you don't like the reasons given for the reflectiveness.

However Our understanding of the reflectance is more or less irrelevant, because a disturbance has caused it. A disturbance of when man landed on the moon.

So effectively by admitting that this phenomenon exists you admit that man has landed on the moon. Good job you have proven man has landed on the moon.

P.s the papers are explaining WHY the regolith acts the way it does. perhaps then you will understand why I don't need to quote from it

originally posted by: choos


Excellent you finally admit that there is a disturbance on the lunar surface caused by the lunar module.

If you can't prove your claim, then you're obviously lying.

Which is it going to be, then?

originally posted by: choos
Now you are arguing that you don't like the reasons given for the reflectiveness.

They are hypotheses, or guesses. Not reasons.

I've explained this to you, already.

originally posted by: turbonium1

If you can't prove your claim, then you're obviously lying.

Which is it going to be, then?

you just admitted that this phenomenon existed.. what?? do you have short term memory issues??

do we have to get you to admit again that this phenomenon exists???

They are hypotheses, or guesses. Not reasons.

I've explained this to you, already.

do you understand that the hypothesis of this phenomenon is asking WHY the regolith acts the way it does after it has been disturbed and not what disturbed it???

which is why i keep saying that you complaining that its a hypothesis ie. you not liking the explaination. is irrelevent.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you can't prove your claim, then you're obviously lying.

Would that be like those high resolution photos you claimed to have of the Apollo landing sites from before the landings?

originally posted by: choos

you just admitted that this phenomenon existed.. what?? do you have short term memory issues??

do we have to get you to admit again that this phenomenon exists???

Nice try, but here is what you said...

originally posted by: choos
Excellent you finally admit that there is a disturbance on the lunar surface caused by the lunar module.

I asked you to QUOTE me on this.

Either you can quote me on this, or you can't.

If you can't, then everyone will know you're lying.

So which is it?

originally posted by: choos
do you understand that the hypothesis of this phenomenon is asking WHY the regolith acts the way it does after it has been disturbed and not what disturbed it???

which is why i keep saying that you complaining that its a hypothesis ie. you not liking the explaination. is irrelevent.

The problem is that they ALREADY PRESUME it is disturbed soil, from the very start.

Why do they already presume it is disturbed soil?

Because, they already presume Apollo landed on the moon, and that an Apollo LM landed at that exact spot, and that an Apollo LM disturbed the soil as it landed on the lunar surface, at that exact spot.

Not that they actually know any of this is true, not that any of this is proven, and not that any of this CAN be proven...but they accept it as if it is true, that it is proven, and that it is provable.

It is all based on NASA's claim. The agency that claimed to land men on the moon, claims this is where they landed, without independent verification to those claims...

NASA's unsupported claims are taken as if true, without question, so let's all move along now, folks!...

From that point, it has to be disturbed soil, caused by the lander, and nothing else.

So the lander disturbed soil, while the disturbance cannot be seen from the surface, or in any surface images,

That's where they need to think of a 'hypothesis'.



.....

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Would that be like those high resolution photos you claimed to have of the Apollo landing sites from before the landings?

Please show my quote, or quotes, as you must know what you're talking about here, right?

Go ahead, then...

a reply to: strongfp

... you are talking about "one" pic... that is the problem... fake... cos no other freeeee astronomers did any second... i call it BS ... it was fake... the fight is not needed anymore... not important... "the thing" is losing D ... no space, all hoax fantasy my fart is more real then space program... that's why no # on the Moon ever in my 40 years of life... xxxxx

a reply to: turbonium1

I am not trawling my way through this thread trying to refresh your memory for you.

I am stating as a fact (as I have many times) that no images existed of the Apollo landing sites that showed the level of detail in either modern probe images or in the Apollo imagery itself.

You claimed that you had seen images that had such detail. I called you out on it when you claimed it as I have many times. If you just made that **** up and no such images existed the I am correct, which means there is no possible way that Apollo photographs, live TV of 16mm images could have recorded the details in advance of the modern probes that confirmed their details.

So do you have the images or am I right?

a reply to: ZakOlongapo

Do you want to try that again in English when the meds have worn off?

An unidentifiable feature on the lunar surface that is magically 'identified' as Apollo's LM, with a disturbance of soil it caused.

Scientist A: 'This feature is at the exact same spot NASA said the Apollo 15 LM landed!'

Scientist B: 'But, why is the spot so much bigger than the LM?'

Sc. A: 'NASA said it's because the LM disturbed the lunar soil, during the landing'

Sc. B: 'Of course, that would explain it.'

Sc. A: 'Right. So we can agree that this feature is the LM, and disturbed soil it caused from landing?'

Sc. B: 'There is no other possibility. It is an absolute fact.'



This is like taking a square peg, and trying to fit it in a round hole. Because you assume the square peg can fit into the round hole, after some 'experts' said it fits.

And there is no way the 'experts' were not telling you the truth. You know it is possible. You just need to figure it out...


S

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not trawling my way through this thread trying to refresh your memory for you.

I am stating as a fact (as I have many times) that no images existed of the Apollo landing sites that showed the level of detail in either modern probe images or in the Apollo imagery itself.

You claimed that you had seen images that had such detail. I called you out on it when you claimed it as I have many times. If you just made that **** up and no such images existed the I am correct, which means there is no possible way that Apollo photographs, live TV of 16mm images could have recorded the details in advance of the modern probes that confirmed their details.

So do you have the images or am I right?

I've already explained this to you...

I said - Iirc, earlier images show the same features claimed to be Apollo gear. I didn't say I'd seen these images.

Do you get this, finally?


How would you know if they didn't already have images showing the same features later claimed to be Apollo sites?

Oh, right...because they never showed us such images, right? And if they ever had taken such images, they' would certainly have shown them to us...right?


As if.

a reply to: turbonium1

You're complaining about showing images when you've shown squat for the last few months?!

How about this. Show us some evidence, rather than your opinion.

a reply to: turbonium1

As everyone keeps pointing out to you, it isn't just the LM, it is the LM, all the equipment that has been installed, the tracks between this equipment and the rocks and craters photographed and filmed by astronauts on the surface.

You act as if people are talking about a couple of blobs, when in fact it is this:



and let me remind you how India's shot of that compares:



All anyone can see from your posturing is you sticking your fingers in your ears and ramming your eyelids shut.

Don't we mean it's actually just the base platform section of the Lunar Module?

A hoax should look as real as possible - that's the whole point!

It is the small mistakes which give it away, as not being real... as a hoax.

You point to the landing sites, and claim that it all matches up, perfectly...

But it does NOT all match up. That gives it away as not being real, as a hoax.


Obviously, your side is still trying to deny the mistake. But there's simply no excuse.