Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

So you can prove it wasn't live can you? You can prove that the live TV was speeded up can you? You have evidence right? You can prove that Harrison Schmitt was miming to a pre-recorded script on this live TV broadcast at about 7:30 onwards right?



Harrison was known as Jack, which is pretty much what you have.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Where did you prove this phenomenon exists?

The paper does not claim this phenomenon exists.

All the papers that specifically refer to the phenomenon that I linked to? Those papers that you keep referring to as if it was one paper?

The paper refers to a theoretical scenario which would account for this.

Account for what? The thing that doesn't exist? They invented something to explain something that doesn't exist? Just in case? How can you not realise how stupid this sounds?

The change in surface reflectance has been observed at sites for Soviet, Chinese and US craft. You denied it existed, yet researches have found it for everything that landed on the moon.

Get over it.

There is nothing to support this theory, it is only taken as 'proof' by you, of the Apollo flock..

Why don't you describe this magical lunar soil, then?

What did they discover in lunar soil that exhibits this unique, never known to exist before, but conveniently discovered it, at the moment it explains the problem away??

Read the papers. It's all there. I'm not doing your leg work for you.

Your argument is based on the properties of lunar soil.

Progress.

'Unique' means you have nothing but excuses.

Where did I say unique?

You demand evidence, you get evidence, you pretend it never happened. Round and round we go.

Some more papers for turbonium to ignore

ntrs.nasa.gov...

www.researchgate.net...

www.researchgate.net...

www.hou.usra.edu...

asu.pure.elsevier.com...

scholarsmine.mst.edu...

openscholarship.wustl.edu...

www.academia.edu...://archive.org/stream/NASA_NTRS_Archive_1970002365 7/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19700023657_djvu.txt

cfpl.ae.utexas.edu...

arxiv.org...

cfpl.ae.utexas.edu...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you honestly saying that this is moving at "normal" speed? NASA should have switched to decaf

youtu.be...

ETA: You'll have to manually change the speed to 2x (click the gear in the lower right corner and change speed to 2x)

a reply to: turbonium1

I'm sorry you are the one making the claims of fake, it's up to you to prove it, the which you have not done...not even remotely have you done so. Stop moving the goalposts and prove your claims/opinions.

But you can't, can you?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1
Where did you prove this phenomenon exists?

The paper does not claim this phenomenon exists.

All the papers that specifically refer to the phenomenon that I linked to? Those papers that you keep referring to as if it was one paper?

The paper refers to a theoretical scenario which would account for this.

Account for what? The thing that doesn't exist? They invented something to explain something that doesn't exist? Just in case? How can you not realise how stupid this sounds?

The change in surface reflectance has been observed at sites for Soviet, Chinese and US craft. You denied it existed, yet researches have found it for everything that landed on the moon.

Get over it.

There is nothing to support this theory, it is only taken as 'proof' by you, of the Apollo flock..

Why don't you describe this magical lunar soil, then?

What did they discover in lunar soil that exhibits this unique, never known to exist before, but conveniently discovered it, at the moment it explains the problem away??

Read the papers. It's all there. I'm not doing your leg work for you.

"..not doing your leg work for you."??!?

Are you serious?

This is YOUR argument, not mine. I asked you to support your argument, by explaining what specifically in lunar soil causes this phenomenon.

I didn't find an explanation for this in your sources, so that's why I asked you about it.

You say "it's all there", so you should have no problem pointing it out, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

Oh the irony.

Demanding evidence from someone to counter your case when you haven't got any to prove your case.

That's just hilarious.

Are you EVER going to be posting any evidence or are you just going to be posting your opinion?

a reply to: turbonium1

No. The thread premise is that the moon landings were faked. You are in agreement with that thesis. It's up to you to prove it.

Stop moving the goalposts. Obfuscation isn't serving you well in this instance.

State your case. Provide your proofs. ...or do you not have any?

Prove all of us who dare to disagree with the premise wrong. C'mon, you're so sure of it, prove us wrong. After all we're just "apollo-ites", deluded into believing a falsehood for the past near half-century.

The onus is on you. Not us.

While waiting for your reply on the soil....

They claim to have collected samples of lunar soil, on every mission, at and around every landing site.

They further claim to have thoroughly studied and analyzed these lunar soil samples, down to its molecular structure.

They have studied the soil for over 40 years, by thousands of scientists, experts, et al.

Of course, they have also studied the reflectance...

It is truly incredible that none of them had a clue about it, ever....don't you think?

However, let's assume this absurd scenario is true, for argument's sake...

They now have suggested the lunar soil caused this, or may have caused it, at least.

As I said, I didn't find any mention of specifics on the soil, in their
papers.

They - being scientists of integrity and honor - would try to prove their theory, if possible...

Yet they have not tried to prove it, with the soil samples...


You would declare such tripe as proof, when it comes to defending your precious Apollo

a reply to: turbonium1

Still no evidence that man hasn't been to the moon?

You must have SOMETHING other than opinion. No?

a reply to: turbonium1

Evidence to support your claims?

This is getting a tad bit tedious, don't you think? Ignoring our pleadings for some form of evidence to support your claims of a moon landing hoax.

97 pages of chances to prove us all wrong. Are you waiting for something in particular?

Here, try this...

...or have you tried this one already? It'll at least give us something to chew on while you post your evidence.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yet they have not tried to prove it, with the soil samples...

Prove what to whom?
You?
There's an expression about the direction one urinates on a blustery day. That would apply.

a reply to: seagull

That was a very interesting read. Thanks

Also, it looks like turbo has used all of those "arguments" in that article.

Still, was a very good read, especially the final 4 word sentence

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh the irony.

Demanding evidence from someone to counter your case when you haven't got any to prove your case.

That's just hilarious.

Are you EVER going to be posting any evidence or are you just going to be posting your opinion?

You don't get it...

The first claim is from you, the Apollo group..

Your claim is that the LM landed on the moon, causing a disturbance of soil, that cannot be seen from the lunar surface, yet can be seen from lunar orbit.

Do you agree, or disagree, that this is the original claim?

If not, please tell me what you believe is the original claim...


I'll wait for your reply, and follow up...

a reply to: turbonium1

but this thread isn't "Why I believe the moon landing are real", is it?

The onus is on the people who "believe the Moon landing may have been faked". (That means YOU, and all "moon landings are fake" believers, have to prove it was fake)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Yet they have not tried to prove it, with the soil samples...

Prove what to whom?
You?
There's an expression about the direction one urinates on a blustery day. That would apply.

Applies to your lame excuses, anyway...

Prove what? Prove the original claim, that's what..

Do you know what the original claim is?

That images from lunar orbit show a disturbance of soil, caused by
the LM, but that this disturbance cannot be seen in surface images, because of the disturbed soil only reflecting upwards.

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to prove it.

To whom? To everyone, that's who...


A very simple concept to understand, is it not?

a reply to: turbonium1

This is YOUR claim.

It is?

YOU have to prove it.

Why?

To whom? To everyone, that's who...

I have read the documentation. I find no obvious flaws in the methodology or reasoning.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

but this thread isn't "Why I believe the moon landing are real", is it?

The onus is on the people who "believe the Moon landing may have been faked". (That means YOU, and all "moon landings are fake" believers, have to prove it was fake)

No, the title of the thread describes the topic, it doesn't attach burden of proof.

Nice try, though!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

but this thread isn't "Why I believe the moon landing are real", is it?

The onus is on the people who "believe the Moon landing may have been faked". (That means YOU, and all "moon landings are fake" believers, have to prove it was fake)

No, the title of the thread describes the topic, it doesn't attach burden of proof.

Nice try, though!

Dude! You haven't provided a shred of proof for us to even come up with counter proof. It's been ALL opinion.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

This is YOUR claim.

It is?

YOU have to prove it.

Why?

To whom? To everyone, that's who...

I have read the documentation. I find no obvious flaws in the methodology or reasoning.

Thanks for your opinion. You think it has no obvious flaws, yet it proves nothing...

I agree