Any clear proof that no one has ever landed on the moon?

Can anyone give a few good reasons that prove that the missions to the moon were fake? Convincing reasons that can persuade a person to believe that no one has ever stepped foot on the moon.

 

Nope. Actually, not believing in the moon landing is even nuttier than not believing in evolution, and it happens for the same couple of reasons in each case: An opposing ideology and a lack of awareness of the mounds of evidence in favor of these things.

 

There's a mountain of proof that they faked the moon landings.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

There's a thread on that here but I can't update post #1. The info in post #1 of the above thread is updated.

 

Sorry about the repeated post.

 

No,there is NOT a 'mountain of proof'.......there MIGHT be a mountain of conjecture...

 

Yep, a mountain of bunk, we might call it. Again, it betrays a mindset of ideology and severe bias. Their favorite tactic is often to dump a bunch of bunk into a debate and claim that it proves their claims, and of course demand that their opposition debunk it all as a debate tactic.

What can I say? Debunk it yourself, Scott et al. You can if you try. It's not even very hard. Here are a couple of good sites to get you started:

http://www.clavius.org/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/universe-today/

 

The Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are government damage-contol sites and all of the posters on their forums know the moon missions were faked. Here's some info on those two sites.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

Check out what Jay Windley says here.

I asked Jay to address this issue.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Here's his response.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

He pretty much destroyed his credibility when he made that post. Look how he and those other pro-Apollo people dealt with this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8459545&postcount=8622

Most of those posters are the regular posters at Clavius, Bad Astsronomy, and Unexplained Mysteries; it's pretty clear that they know the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-belivers do.

 

Wow, Scott.

This seems to be really important to you, sir;
This business of everyone else being wrong, and everyone else not having any credibility.
This perception that everyone knows that the moon landing were faked (or 911 was some sort of government inside-job deal, etc), but aren't willing to admit it.

It's like it's an, uh.... OBSESSION with you.

Get help, buddy.
Or call me.
I can help you.

256-679-5567 cell

 

Maybe you and the other woowoos should try a "dust-free sand" experiment to verify how well it works before you pretend that the idea is some kind of trump card?

 

I've never heard the Russians claim the US moon landings were faked and they certainly would have done in that era if they had evidence to prove it.

 

I dealt with that issue here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

Please read what I said about that issue and then get back to me.

You're not going to sway anybody with any brains unless you actually show why what the Apollo truthers call hoax proof isn't proof of a hoax. On this other thread you refused to analyze the actual evidence put forth by the hoax-believers.
http://www.politicalforum.com/consp...ce-conspiracy-theorists-6.html#post1061410150

Let's hear you analyze it now.

The people who really need help are people who have seen the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

...and the evidence that the Apollo moon landings were faked and still go with the official story. They should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

Tell us what you think of that video Sparky.

 

No thanks. I don't swap between forums for your benefit or that of anyone else.

 

It is clear that I swayed YOU with my brains, young Scott.
Otherwise you would not have mentioned them.

Let down your guard, Scott.
Release yourself from the shackles of anger and ignorance and hysteria.
Allow yourself to become centered and sane.

Listen to reason.
I can help you.
All you have to do is call.
I'm here for you, buddy.

 

The USSR never claimed it was fake.

Plus more than just the US was involved in the Moon landing. For example, Australia helped with tracking and communication since there was that whole problem with the Earth not being flat and the US not always facing the Moon.

So, Bill Clinton couldn't get his dick sucked without everyone finding out, and that involved two people, but the tens of thousands of people involved in the Moon landings, in multiple countries, have not spilt the beans?

Yeah, right.

 

Not to mention thousands of amateur radio operators,some with homemade yagi antennas,listened to the mission as it was proceeding

 

The anomalies in the footage and the pictures show the missions were faked. There are plausible explanations for all of the stuff you two mentioned. These two video series explain a lot of them.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...18.8.5.0.0.0.2.93.280.4.5.0...0.0.NNmgCI1M1dU
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.4078.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..1.0...0.0.6P6uBDZmuBQ

I dealt with that issue in this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1087

 

You haven't 'dealt' with jack......all you've done is spammed the same debunked crap you've been spamming on other boards for years....even on one dedicated to basketball!.....there is something very wrong with you if you feel the need to spam your conspiracy BS there.

 

Anyone who actually clicks on this link and looks at the info will see that it addresses the issue that was raised.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1087

Saying something isn't there when it's obviously there is a pretty desperate tactic. Are you trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to click on the link by misrepresenting what it's about?

 

No one is misrepresenting the BS spam you post scott,cosmored,fatty88

None of it clearly explains why you think the moon missions were faked,all they use are lies and conjecture to come to an 'opinion'


20 tons of horsecrap is still horsecrap

 

I think you have the idea a bit backwards here.

Ordinarily I don't like to join into a gangbang because I like that person to be able to keep up and have a chance to address the existing things without quitting their 9-5.

But here it's okay because you're not doing that you're just spamming links and excerpts, which I'm going to go out on a limb and imagine you've got saved on a wordpad doc stored on your desktop and copied on your clipboard to facilitate spamming it everywhere you can by using two keystrokes and three clicks per post, meaning you could have the whole of the English speaking www sufficiently spammed in less than a half hour, so half hour a day every day and you've got all of the web spammed.

This should theoretically leave you more time to study, and actually say what you mean and why, your own arguments, in your own words, like a normal conversation like a normal person. Try it in my following post. Use other web sites for fact checking, research etc. all you want but just say your arguments in your own words.

Yet you expect other people to sit there and debunk all this? We should put in effort while you don't reciprocate the common courtesy? Just say what you think

Occasionally someone might click a link and then debunk it.. And then that link is done, and you can't rebut because that's all you've got. The link. So you just post the links again and then lie claiming you did debunk it or it's debunked on that site when you've actually not done that at all, YOU have not done anything at all, and I have yet to see a single argument you've put forth in your own words. So you'd rather you went back to square one and just spammed the link again in what must be a very tiring, mundane circle, and this must be a very boring hobby of yours.

If you enjoy it, I recommend you putting the skills to work in a data entry job. Or be a transcriber or do amazon turks or something.

I have no doubt about your claims to being "censored".. None. I can imagine a lot of these sites are probably getting sick of this continuous spam. These people are running discussion sites and debate sites, they have every right to remove posts that are devoid of any semblance of discussion or debate.

To be honest I'm not even sure you're a human. Bot programs are out there that can do what you're doing and more. I'll find out on the next post.

 

Let's establish burden of proof. No debunking your links required.

If someone says something is impossible, it's a VERY hard stance to back up, because once someone proves it actually happened, it disproves your claim of its impossibility. It can't be impossible, if it happened.

So people offer what they consider proof that it happened. In order for you to uphold your claim to impossibility, you have the necessity to disprove the alleged proof that it happened. Redirecting focus off this proof and onto other websites, Chinese water bubbles, waving flags, radiation fields, Sputnik, or whatever else won't accomplish this, unless they specifically address the proof offered.

Now here's one to start that I think is convincing. Please don't respond with links. Take all the time and research this:

1) The astronauts actually set up a reflector on the moon, in order that their presence can be verified by bouncing lasers off this, and many many astronomers and even other scientists have done this and concluded the results. They are diverse and varied. Not hundreds of NASA employees but around the world for many different places.

If the verifications weren't true, there should be a report about inability to replicate experimental results, which is what happens in the scientific world when further tests fail.

How can you explain their positive results if there were no laser bounced back?

 

I've seen this brought up in 'debates' of this sort before, and the quick 'n easy HB response was that the reflector was placed there robotically.

Now, I wonder if the HBs ever stop to consider how this particular excuse doesn't jive so well with their "1960s technology wasn't advanced enough to send men to the moon" / "computers weren't powerful enough at that time to be used in the spacecraft" - type arguments.. I'm thinking no, they just come up with whatever satisfies their own *ahem* intellects in each individual case and don't worry about how inconsistent their own hoax claims are with one another. They worry about "inconsistencies" with the mounds of evidence we have from the moon landing missions, yet they're blind to their own logical inconsistencies.

 

I never said no lasers bounced back. I said it could be explained by a robotic craft that had soft-landed on the moon earlier. Start watching this video at the 3:26:10 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKainIQiaKA

If the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology to soft-land robotic craft on the moon back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_Program

The laser-reflectors-on-the-moon arguement is one of the weakest ones that pro-Apollo people use.

 

IF a frog had wings........that's a mighty big contradiction you have going there,scotty/cosmored/fatty88....the reflectors were real on robotic spacecraft,ONLY if the surveyor program was 'real'...

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/members/rtwngafraud.html#vmessage65205

Everything is a conspiracy. Eeeeeeeeeverything.