CHAPEL END CHARLIE

But we all thought you agreed with us - oh well you're not much of a loss.

It's also a damp papery mush - which coincidently sums up your argument very nicely.

The above post has been edited for reasons of sense.

But Pulp, the forum finds your so called answers to be evasive or grossly inadequate - so no change there then. 2/10 While you try ever more desperately to come up with something remotely convincing, here is your kind of proof that Japan is as empty as your silly theory: QED

.. and on that the Forum reached a complete state of unanimity. Now as you're obviously so keen to continue I hope you will not be forgetting your 'to do' list: 1 - Answer why you no longer have any apparent interest in the 'independent supporting evidence' of Apollo you once wanted. 2 - Explain how large scale low gravity & vacuum like conditions are (practicably) recreated here on Earth 3 - Tell us how NASA managed to fool the international scientific community into believing that Moon Rock samples are genuine. 4 - Provide some/any evidence of your alternate Lunar reflector design 5 - Expand on your brilliant NASA=NAZIS argument. 6 - Show us proof that your mate Jarrod has overcome his acne problems and no longer lives with his mum 7 - Provide a logical explanation why NASA sent a rover to the moon when this only makes the conspiracy harder to get away with. 8 - Name the manufacturer of the invisible 'wires' NASA makes such widespread use of. 9 - Tell us if you join in with the other conspiracy theorists who claim that Stanley Kubric made all those 'fake' Apollo movies. 10 - Ponder on the question why no reputable peer reviewed scientific journal has ever published a pro lunar conspiracy paper. But nil desperandum my evidence averse friend - if you forget again I'll be back to remind you

As we are now up to about 500 outstanding awkward questions you have 'forgotten' to answer (how careless) I think you'd be well advised to get to work on that. Still can't see all that many forum members jumping to your defence by the way. I wonder why?

Are you editing my posts now - how strange.

Nah the Mirror is more your level than mine. Although I suspect the Sunday Sport would be more in your line.

Oh his one's a absolute classic! I think I'll have printed and framed, so that the next time I start to think that there might be intelligent life in the Universe I need only glance at the wall and know it's a myth.

I suspect that even had the NASA Astronaut filming the LRV first took a pointless close-up shot of the moondust beneath his feet, then pulled a micrometer out out his pocket and demonstrated on camera that they were indeed standing upon fine powdery dust, oh and only then started to film the action (without any edits naturally) you'd still be on here spouting the same nonsensical claptrap anyway. Of course in reality (foolishly) he didn't realize that 40 years after he shot one of the most remarkable films in all Human history - a film that was demonstrably made in extra-terrestrial conditions - that a bunch of adolescent fruitcakes would dare to suggest he was a liar and a fraud. But as we are going around in circles, why don't you prove to me that millions of people live in Japan and we can waste the weekend arguing about that.

consistent [kənˈsɪstənt] adj 1. showing consistency; not self-contradictory. 2. in agreement or harmony; accordant

Look closer at the LRV film - the moondust depicted is entirely consistent with both the Surveyor 3 and Apollo 11 stills. Now if you want to claim some sort of deception is evident here then it's up to you to prove EXACTLY how this incredible effect was achieved. But the truth is you have no viable explanation that explains the behavior of the moondust - this truth should be quite clear now to everyone reading this.

But don't you remember - you accepted that moondust was this fine powdery substance because the early Surveyor 3 probe image - a machine you are on the record as accepting - showed exactly the same composition too.

That would be differcult as the photo comes from Apollo 11 - which did not come equipped with a LRV!

Famous NASA image of Astronault's footprint in Moondust: Note moondust is clearly a very much finer substance than any "dry beech sand" I'm familiar with. Also please note this characteristic powder-like dust is known to cover all the Apollo sites. The dust depicted would seem to conform with all available scientific descriptions of moondust in the record. Pap seems unsure of his argument, but apparently he would now have you believe that the LRV is moving (at speed) over either some (unidentified) superdense material, or alternatively his 'dry beech sand' - here on Earth remember. He has no explanation as why the dust refuses to form a cloud, or be blow away on the Nevada desert wind. The elegant manner the moondust falls in a perfect parabolic arc behind the rover is also unexplained. Other good questions include, how are his "wires" that are supposedly attached to the astronauts (in order to simulate low gravity) kept in position as their drive the LRV around?

Hilarious Have you ever even been to a beach? Have you ever seen a beech buggy drive over "dry beech sand" - the results are quite spectacular. Oh and please explain on which of Planet Earths many beeches the sand refuses to conform to the known laws of physics? And it s not sand but dust of course ... apart from that a good post.

I see a very elegant demonstartion of moondust reacting as it would in a low gravity/vacuum environment. I expect everyone else on here sees the same because this is obviously true. You on the other hand see 5000 tons of finely ground Uranium particles so massively heavy they refuse to form a cloud I take it. About as convincing a argument as all the other bullsh1t you have posted on here ......

My reply to the bullsh1t above:

So there we have it, you have no explanation at all for the non existence of any sustained dustclould when one would surely have been generated in the situation depicted - but only if this film been shot on Earth that is. Ignoring all the other evidence - and god knows there's plenty of it - the Apollo LRV film is incontrovertible proof that man not only visited the Moon - he even drove a bloody car on it! I called you a 'Horses Ass' on here a while ago - is there anyone left who disagrees with that assessment?

Someone help be out here I'm really struggling to explain it.

Maybe they made a top secret 'vomit comet' aircraft so huge you could set up a film studio inside it? Even more silly methinks.

Did they film it all underwater? Nah, too silly for even PAP to believe.

I have it! NASA watered down the set beforehand filming so no dustclould could form ......... But there's no sign of any mud on the tyres either ....bugger

But there is no evidence of any wires, or that the film speed has been tampered with. So are you really asking this forum to believe that the film - film I will remind you that conclusivly shows no sustained dust cloud forming behind the LRV - was all done with wires? Did NASA suspend a billion moondust particles on a mass of tiny wires no one can see perhaps?

If there really is anyone on here bored enough to want to revisited the tiresome 'reflector question' they need only scroll back a few pages and see for themselves. I have nothing more to add on that and as far as I'm concerned that matter is closed. A more open question is just how NASA managed to recreate so brilliantly the Moons evident low gravity and zero atmospheric conditions, either in a studio or out in the open desert for that matter. I say this is for all intents and purposes a practical impossibility, but if you have a cogent argument then don't be shy present it.