So the moon landing was faked!

Glaucus said:
I'm stills airing for come backs on several matters, like why you think a calculation for a space ship that goes directly to the moon is important?
Click to expand...

Further research is needed on this point.

Glaucus said:
Why you disbelieve James van Allen.
Click to expand...

I don't. I believe that his original research was correct and that it was covered up by NASA.

Glaucus said:
Why you think wires are used.
Click to expand...

I have already conceded that point, please read the thread.

Glaucus said:
It's doubtful you can find anyone with enough detailed knowledge on the computer architect used at the time and enough knowledge of what each sub system actually does to get any response.
Click to expand...

Balderdash.

Glaucus said:
If you know physics, then explain why you thought you should get uniformed illumination and no dark shadows on the photo, or no illumination of the astronaught.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. You are deliberately misquoting me.

Again, please debunk the evidence presented, not the person that presented it, if you are able.
 
You haven't shower his original reserch.
Lets see this original reserch.
You have shown an extract from a book, that reported an interview with a CT which is knowen to have little understanding.

I have, quoted what you said, you said that the shadows should be even illuminated and therefore no shadow, the only way to achieve that is by bending light in a vacuume.
If you don't belive that, then explain why you posted that photo and which parts of the illumation is wrong. You posted that photo and said the illumation is wrong, not me.
So either you're wrong and don't understand physics, or you are talking about different illumation and as such need to make your post clearer.

Why do wire video mock ups never match the apollo videos?
Why are there shots where the supposed wires would have to move through matter?
Why did astronaught a fall down? If they were held up by wires? How did the falls correspond to lunar mavity? Etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
You haven't shower his original reserch.
Lets see this original reserch.
You have shown an extract from a book, that reported an interview with a CT which is knowen to have little understanding.

I have, quoted what you said, you said that the shadows should be even illuminated and therefore no shadow, the only way to achieve that is by bending light in a vacuume.
If you don't belive that, then explain why you posted that photo and which parts of the illumation is wrong. You posted that photo and said the illumation is wrong, not me.
So either you're wrong and don't understand physics, or you are talking about different illumation and as such need to make your post clearer.

Why do wire video mock ups never match the apollo videos?
Why are there shots where the supposed wires would have to move through matter?
Why did astronaught a fall down? If they were held up by wires? How did the falls correspond to lunar mavity? Etc etc.
Click to expand...

Please debunk the evidence presented, not the person that presented it, if you are able.
 
gillywibble said:
Please debunk the evidence presented, not the person that presented it, if you are able.
Click to expand...

I am and I have.

Why not respond to the points?

Lets see the original reserch you have read on James van Allen for a start?
And none of the pother points are attacking the person, they are all attacking you misconceptions.

Come on explain what you meant by posting that picture and saying the illumination should be even.

You belive they used wires, explain how wires can pass through matter, explain how and why they fell over at lunar mavity. Explain why no one can replicate the astronaught a on wires. Even though many have tried.

Or asking those things attacking the person and not the claims?
 
gillywibble said:
It's a book. Do your own research.



Argh. I didn't say that.

.
Click to expand...

I into its a book and taht how I know it's not his orginal reserch. It's why I know the quote wasn't made for the book and from an interview, I can not find any source material for.
So again if you've read his original reserch, please post it. That book you posted is not his initial reserch. The quote from the interview, isn't even first hand, or even referenced.

Ok, you didnt say that, now explain what you think is wrong with the photo.
 
I don't get this, your best?

I'm not interested in your best. You make it sound like an exam.

I'm (and im sure other) interested in why you belive this, and in most cases why you haven't thought about the source and reading into the opposite side.
 
issa.jpg

Check out that image. Not related to the Apollo 11/other conspiracies, but that is a fantastic image. Wow.

Must've taken ages to fake. ;)
 
Glaucus said:
I'm not interested in your best. You make it sound like an exam.
Click to expand...

I said and I quote

The following as far as I’m concerned have not been successfully debunked. If any of them have been, then please link to the research because I have not seen it.
Click to expand...

I conceded from the word go that some items may have already been debunked.

Again, we are back to belittling the author. It's quite sad really.
 
How is it bellitingly the author?

It's just taht statement made it like a general studies exam, where nothing can be wrong. And that you were trying to convince us, rather than just backing up your thoughts. To me it made it sound like you were talking the problem from the wrong end.

Anyway back to the photo, do you care telling us what you mean and why that photo proves fake lights were used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom