The moon landings were a HOAX

[Faun]

If it smelss like a hoax, acts like a hoax, looks like a hoax, talks like a hoax well..


Then it is ratner certain it is a hoax, eh.

^^^ still no evidence ^^^

 

[ObligationLaunch]

If it smelss like a hoax, acts like a hoax, looks like a hoax, talks like a hoax well..


Then it is ratner certain it is a hoax, eh.

^^^ still no evidence ^^^

you should realy get some real 'education' I think:

Better would be

still no evidence, according to me.

That will give us the right persepctive

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is.


If it smells like a hoax...

 

[konradv]

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is. If it smells like a hoax.

I'm starting to see this for what it is..., a troll. You aren't really saying anything and definitely not providing us with what could be considered evidence. Feelings aren't facts.

 

[Faun]

If it smelss like a hoax, acts like a hoax, looks like a hoax, talks like a hoax well..


Then it is ratner certain it is a hoax, eh.

^^^ still no evidence ^^^

you should realy get some real 'education' I think:

Better would be

still no evidence, according to me.

That will give us the right persepctive

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is.


If it smells like a hoax...

^^^ still no evidence ^^^

 

[Faun]

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is. If it smells like a hoax.

I'm starting to see this for what it is..., a troll. You aren't really saying and definitely not providing us with what could be considered evidence. Feelings aren't facts.

That's why conspiracists are generally regarded as crazy loons. They maintain an irrational belief despite the inability to demonstrate any semblance their concocted stories are related to reality.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Well, why are you not critical about the lack of evidence for the moon-landings?

There really is none. So, How can you ask me for evidence , while he people perpetrating the hoax, have even less evidece, or better, NOT AT ALL.

Why don't you ask for that. I think I know You are a firm believer in the
moonlandingsreallyhappened fairy tale.


Nobody can show any evidence people were there.

 

[konradv]

Well, why are you not critical about the lack of evidence for the moon-landings? There really is none. So, How can you ask me for evidence , while he people perpetrating the hoax, have even less evidence, or better, NOT AT ALL. Why don't you ask for that. I think I know You are a firm believer in the moonlandingsreallyhappened fairy tale. Nobody can show any evidence people were there.

The truth is that you ignore all the evidence, not that there isn't any.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Well, why are you not critical about the lack of evidence for the moon-landings? There really is none. So, How can you ask me for evidence , while he people perpetrating the hoax, have even less evidence, or better, NOT AT ALL. Why don't you ask for that. I think I know You are a firm believer in the moonlandingsreallyhappened fairy tale. Nobody can show any evidence people were there.

The truth is that you ignore all the evidence, not that there isn't any.

wel then, tell me what I ignore.

Yiou simply can't because there is no evidence.

But you see wearing the Naked Emperor Clothes where there are none

Not my fault.

 

[konradv]

The truth is that you ignore all the evidence, not that there isn't any.

well then, tell me what I ignore. You simply can't because there is no evidence. But you see wearing the Naked Emperor Clothes where there are none Not my fault.

You ignored evidence for mirrors on the moon where the landings occurred without giving a reasonable alternate explanation for their being there.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

The truth is that you ignore all the evidence, not that there isn't any.

well then, tell me what I ignore. You simply can't because there is no evidence. But you see wearing the Naked Emperor Clothes where there are none Not my fault.

You ignored evidence for mirrors on the moon where the landings occurred without giving a reasonable alternate explanation for their being there.

O I did for sure, but I think you conveniently forgot.

Anyway.

First of all those mirrors aren't needed at all
for measuring distance.
They could already do that in 1962.
Furthermore, they can very easily been put there
by unmanned vehicles, just as the russians have done.
So, it doesn't prove a thing. UNLESS you already believe we have send men to the moon. But that makes it nothing more then circular reasoning, and hence no evidence at all.
And the whole moon landing thingie is filled with circular reasoning
in which that what has to be proven, that we have send men to the moon, is assumed from the start.

It is really all bogus.

 

[konradv]

First of all those mirrors aren't needed at all for measuring distance. They could already do that in 1962. Furthermore, they can very easily been put there by unmanned vehicles, just as the russians have done. So, it doesn't prove a thing. UNLESS you already believe we have send men to the moon. But that makes it nothing more then circular reasoning, and hence no evidence at all. And the whole moon landing thingie is filled with circular reasoning in which that what has to be proven, that we have send men to the moon, is assumed from the start. It is really all bogus.

Who said they needed mirrors to measure distance? A laser can be pointed at a certain spot and receive back a coherent beam making the measurement easier AND proving they're there. Secondly, how can you prove the Russians have put mirrors on the moon during unmanned missions? What makes that more believable? I'm afraid your answers leave much to be desired. You seem to believe only what you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts it. The most bogus things in this thread are your arguments.

 

[hadit]

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is. If it smells like a hoax.

I'm starting to see this for what it is..., a troll. You aren't really saying and definitely not providing us with what could be considered evidence. Feelings aren't facts.

That's why conspiracists are generally regarded as crazy loons. They maintain an irrational belief despite the inability to demonstrate any semblance their concocted stories are related to reality.

And every time one of their cherished arguments is reduced to rubble, they simply claim that yet another group of people are in on the conspiracy. Push them hard enough and long enough, and eventually virtually the entire world is in on it, except them, of course.

 

[paulitician]

You seem to be incapable of recognizing for what it is. If it smells like a hoax.

I'm starting to see this for what it is..., a troll. You aren't really saying and definitely not providing us with what could be considered evidence. Feelings aren't facts.

That's why conspiracists are generally regarded as crazy loons. They maintain an irrational belief despite the inability to demonstrate any semblance their concocted stories are related to reality.

And every time one of their cherished arguments is reduced to rubble, they simply claim that yet another group of people are in on the conspiracy. Push them hard enough and long enough, and eventually virtually the entire world is in on it, except them, of course.

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

 

[konradv]

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

Watched it on TV and there's never been anything convincing since to indicate it's a fake. It's as near a certainty as we can get in this world, IMO.

 

[paulitician]

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

Watched it on TV and there's never been anything convincing since to indicate it's a fake. It's as near a certainty as we can get in this world, IMO.

Seeing isn't always believing. Especially when it comes to TV.

 

[konradv]

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

Watched it on TV and there's never been anything convincing since to indicate it's a fake. It's as near a certainty as we can get in this world, IMO.

Seeing isn't always believing. Especially when it comes to TV.

But I'll take it as long as you can't come up with something believable to debunk its reality.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

=Who said they needed mirrors to measure distance?

The Mythtbusters did. They lied as they do a lot.

A laser can be pointed at a certain spot and receive back a coherent beam making the measurement easier

Well, they could to that in 1962. And making measurement easier?
That remains to be seen.

AND proving they're there.

Of course not. There is your circular reasoning again.
Your logic is very flawed.

Secondly, how can you prove the Russians have put mirrors on the moon during unmanned missions?

n 2010, nearly forty years after the 1971 loss of signal from Lunokhod 1, the NASALunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed its tracks and final location, and researchers, using a telescopic pulsed-laser rangefinder, detected the robot's retroreflector.[2]

Lunokhod programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviets landed two rovers on the moon, called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, on the Luna 17 and Luna 21 missions in 1970 and 1973, respectively. These rovers were equipped with small retroreflector arrays each consisting of 14 corner cubes of triangular configuration (not cut into a circle—imagine slicing off the corner of a cube with a knife). Each reflector is 11 cm on a side for a total package 44 cm long and 19 cm across. The picture at right of the Lunokhod rover shows the reflector jutting out in front (left). Lunokhod 1 was successfully ranged during its maneuvering phase, but then was not seen for almost 40 years until our project (with the help of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) re-discovered the reflector in April 2010. Now both Lunokhod reflectors are routinely used, though the large size of the cubes makes them more susceptible to thermal distortions, so that the return is about 30 times weaker in lunar daylight than in lunar night. On the other hand, the larger size makes for a tighter diffraction pattern during lunar night, so the effective cross-section becomes slightly larger than the Apollo 11 and Apollo 14 arrays during these periods. Lunokhod 1 plays by this rule, but Lunokhod 2 has become about five times weaker than its twin reflector.

Lunar Retroreflectors

What makes that more believable?

Duh?

I'm afraid your answers leave much to be desired. You seem to believe only what you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts it.

Well, here you are blaming me for what you do yourself.
You wrote that I ignored the mirrors. I did not if you check my postings.
So the one who is provable ignoring is you, not me.

The most bogus things in this thread are your arguments.

This is a kind of ad hominem. You are attacking my arguments
without saying what exactly is wrong with them. Shouting that my arguments are wrong is of course not very convincing now, is it?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Actuall

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

Watched it on TV and there's never been anything convincing since to indicate it's a fake. It's as near a certainty as we can get in this world, IMO.

Seeing isn't always believing. Especially when it comes to TV.

But I'll take it as long as you can't come up with something believable to debunk its reality.

Actually you are giving it away. You camm something 'believable'
but doesn't define it.

So, if someone comes up with something you can always claim it is 'unbelievable'

It is a convenient cop out for you.

 

[konradv]

Actually you are giving it away. You camm something 'believable' but doesn't define it. So, if someone comes up with something you can always claim it is 'unbelievable'.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're asking us to accept your thesis on sketchy evidence.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Do you really know for sure? Can you really say you do?

Watched it on TV and there's never been anything convincing since to indicate it's a fake. It's as near a certainty as we can get in this world, IMO.

Seeing isn't always believing. Especially when it comes to TV.

EXACTLY! Just look at propaanda movies. e.g.