Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You have yet to demonstrate your own ability to do that. See my previous post.

Are you still standing by your nonsense claim that all images of Earth taken by Apollo are identical?

Not ALL images, per mission. There are anomalies that just don't make sense. But those topics have been discussed to death. WHAT?!? About the craft? We still haven't gotten past that.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You have yet to demonstrate your own ability to do that. See my previous post.

Are you still standing by your nonsense claim that all images of Earth taken by Apollo are identical?

Not ALL images, per mission. There are anomalies that just don't make sense. But those topics have been discussed to death. WHAT?!? About the craft? We still haven't gotten past that.

Which images show anomolies? Can you at least post a link to them?

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
...then it's an endless debate.

Having just read the last four or five pages, yes, it certainly seems like an endless debate. I'm not sure I would call it a 'debate' though, since on one side we have multiple members backing up their positions with sources and evidence, and on the other we have you, with your fingers in your ears, screaming "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!". Whatever it is, though, it certainly seems endless. And tedious. And embarrassing (for you).

Edit: the links TerryDon79 provided work fine for me, on mobile and on my PC.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87


Not ALL images, per mission.

Ah, a goal post move.

Then I'll move mine: Your claim that all images of Earth taken outside LEO in any given mission are identical is complete BS.

If you bothered to read the BOMEX link I posted from site, or even my entire study of Earth images taken by Apollo, you wouldn't be making that ridiculous suggestion.

I challenged you earlier to post examples - I'm still waiting for you to do that.

There are anomalies that just don't make sense.

Ah anomalies, the favourite word of people who know nothing about a subject. Find some.

But those topics have been discussed to death.

Not by you.

WHAT?!? About the craft? We still haven't gotten past that.

What about those images of Earth? You still haven't got past that?

Did they ever find any photos or video transmissions of the deployment of the 3 lunar rovers on the moon? They documented everything but no so much the deployment of the LRV. Just curious.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Yes.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

moon machines did a great piece on the rover as well

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

It's not your claim. I searched, and there are plenty of contradictions. If you don't see them, then it's an endless debate.

I get that you have dove head first into this belief. Please man, show us the evidence that has convinced you so thoroughly. There has to be something, anything that triggered this is you, please share. Spouting claims and just saying it isn't enough. Spend a moment and post some links. Direct us to this information that is so convincing.

I'm up for being proven wrong on anything but.....ya got to PROVE it.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

All you've said is for the most part [paraphrasing you]:

"Transistors are affected by space radiation. The Apollo spacecraft had transistor. Therefore the Apollo spacecraft can not possibly work in space."

I'm sure there are sources out there that can tell me that transistors can be affected by radiation. However, that is hardly evidence to prove that the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation systems could not possibly work. Please cite some sources that SPECIFICALLY give sound and verifiable evidence that the systems on Apollo could not possibly work.

Please give evidence that there is no way to harden a spacecraft's systems enough that it works in the environment of deep space.

Come to think of it, using your argument, then no space probes should be able to have working navigation and guidance systems. Were the Voyagers fake? What about the Lunokhods or the surveyors? What about Chang'e lander or the Kaguya probe or the Chandrayaan probe? What about Venera or Venus Express? What about SOHO?

Did all of these have have systems cannot possibly work due to space radiation?

a reply to: Box of Rain

I already asked that. They responded by saying space isn't what we've been told it is or some nonsense. Although for his argument, it's exactly what we say it is and the equipment won't work in it. A whole bunch of circular double talk.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

I don't have evidence,

that much is evident.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

All you've said is for the most part [paraphrasing you]:

"Transistors are affected by space radiation. The Apollo spacecraft had transistor. Therefore the Apollo spacecraft can not possibly work in space."

I'm sure there are sources out there that can tell me that transistors can be affected by radiation. However, that is hardly evidence to prove that the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation systems could not possibly work. Please cite some sources that SPECIFICALLY give sound and verifiable evidence that the systems on Apollo could not possibly work.

Please give evidence that there is no way to harden a spacecraft's systems enough that it works in the environment of deep space.

Come to think of it, using your argument, then no space probes should be able to have working navigation and guidance systems. Were the Voyagers fake? What about the Lunokhods or the surveyors? What about Chang'e lander or the Kaguya probe or the Chandrayaan probe? What about Venera or Venus Express? What about SOHO?

Did all of these have have systems cannot possibly work due to space radiation?

Yeah they're all fake. None of them have gone anywhere.

a reply to: RockofTruth

do you have a smartphone by any chance?

a reply to: choos

Nobody has a smart phone, smart phones are the same as the Apollo computers and since they can't exist neither can smart phones, and since all computers are identical (as has already been proven in this thread) then computers don't exist, therefore the internet doesn't exist and your comment is a hoax.

a reply to: captainpudding

I just imagined you saying that in one breath, really quickly, then gasping for air at the end lol.

a reply to: RockofTruth

Seeing as you insisted on posting that lunar transit video as proof of something or other, are you still going to insist that there is no cloud movement on the Earth and no rotation of the moon?

I'd check back over the thread before you answer that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: RockofTruth

Seeing as you insisted on posting that lunar transit video as proof of something or other, are you still going to insist that there is no cloud movement on the Earth and no rotation of the moon?

I'd check back over the thread before you answer that.

I don't need to check anything, the moon doesn't rotate. If you think by some magical coincidence that the moon rotates and for thousands of years it just happened to do so whenever no one on earth can see it... Even though the moon can be seen at night and during the day sometimes, you have issues. I have some oceanfront propert in Arizona to sell you.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: RockofTruth

Seeing as you insisted on posting that lunar transit video as proof of something or other, are you still going to insist that there is no cloud movement on the Earth and no rotation of the moon?

I'd check back over the thread before you answer that.

It's fake cgi. If you look at that garbage and think that's the moon you go outside and look at with your own two eyes your delusional!

a reply to: RockofTruth
The moon does rotate. At the rate of one rotation per month.
If it didn't we would see all of it from Earth at one time or another. But, there is one "side" we never see from here.

It's fake cgi.

As opposed to real CGI?

All you guys have are fake pictures and the belief that a few astronauts and scientist are telling you the truth.

I have NO MEASURABLE CURVATURE anywhere on earth!!!

And the fact that no matter how high anyone can go the horizon is ALWAYS FLAT!

You have no scientific proof of a globe, only your own faith in it. Whereas those who don't share your faith don't share it because of actual science and observations that disprove your globe.