| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 4:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up.
But you would then have to admit you were lied to.
Thats a tough nut to crack.
How tough is the nut going to be to crack when the hardware on the moon is photographed by the Japanese or Chinese?
So your entire theory rests on the Japanese or Chinese photographing the moon?
Your people cannot do it?
Interesting. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
If the US photographed it, would you believe it? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 4:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I think this is the time to ask the question.
What would it take to convince you the Apollo did in fact happen? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 4:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Getting your excuses ready ahead of time, I see. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
How many decades should we be prepared to wait? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 4:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up.
But you would then have to admit you were lied to.
Thats a tough nut to crack.
How tough is the nut going to be to crack when the hardware on the moon is photographed by the Japanese or Chinese?
So your entire theory rests on the Japanese or Chinese photographing the moon?
Your people cannot do it?
Interesting.
If the US photographed it, would you believe it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
I will await photos, please post.
But as previous posters have stated, we cannot take photos of the moon equipment from the Apollo missions.
It is either too far away, or too close.
Lets see some present day moon photos, the flag, the moon rover left behind, etc.
And lets send some astronauts to the moon today. Why not?
(We dont want to doesnt add up) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 4:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And lets send some astronauts to the moon today. Why not? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
Funding, motivation, reason. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And lets send some astronauts to the moon today. Why not?
Funding, motivation, reason. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Ahh yes . No funding. They can find a trillion dolars to go to war and kill each other. But no funds to seek the biggest of secrets.
No motivation. The biggest leap we could make is going to other planets. Seeing whats out there.
Reason?
Because space is the biggest reason. What is out there? A natural curiousity. Where did we come from?
What other life forms are out there?
We are curious, intelligent creatures. Those not dumbed down by Oprah and cnn and fox.
You are either a gatekeeper, or someone who is so brainwashed that the reality escapes you. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 5:04 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If men walked on the moon from 69 to 72, thier footprints would still be on the moon today. This is the incontrovertable evidence, one way or another. When I come to a conclusion and am positive about something involving science, it is my experience that I am very seldom proved in error, though my advesaries will continuously claim they have without any real eveidence of having done so.
In fact, a record of all of the astronauts activities would exist, imprinted in the lunar surface. Evidence would include the presence of some very large artifacts including the lunar landers' descent stage, experimental equipment, and on some missions a lunar rover.
The thing is, there is no errosion on the moon, no wind or rain or other force to change the scene or alter the evidence. Aluminum and plastic, and all the materials that were used should remain for the most part in thier original condition, with little degredation. Personally, I dont think this evidence will every be independantly confirmed, after al it has been 40 years and NO SUCH CONFIRMATION HAS EVER BEEN MADE. The Russians never DID say the USA went to the moon, they only never said it didnt until recently.
Here we are in 2007, and you know what, dispite the ESA looking in the particular places where the landers were supposed to be, NONE were ever actually found.
no independant investigation has ever revealed the presence of anything indicating such a mission took place.
The science against it, serious issues never addressed, DOZENS of them, and the physical evidence along with the circumstancial evidence and a lack of any incontrovertable proof all combine together into a certainty that Apollo was a hoax, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now Im going to tell you how the hoax was done. This is revealed for the first time in history, to my knowledge, and this is my personal conclusion about how the hoax was pulled off.
The Apollo spacecraft actually consisted of two main sections and totally independant spacecraft, the command/service module half, and the third stage/LEM.
[[[ NASA's version is that the command module seperated from the third stage, with the LEM on the top of the third stage remaining in place. Then the command module maneuvered itself around using its manevering jets, supposedly, and docked with the ascent stage of the lunar lander in the top of the third stage. None of this is impossible to imagine, NASA had limited success with rendevous and docking with the gemini program. All they would need to do is have the skills to thread a needle with a rocket reaction type manevering jet system, totally possible for men of Aldrins and Armstrongs capabilities. What Aldrin or Armstrong couldnt do, not that it is a fault, is survive the radiation of near earth and interplanetary space for the periods of time neccessary with any likelyhood, not in a virtually unshielded spacecraft,so a solution was thought out that would satisfy all of the onlookers that a mission to the moon by men had actually taken place. The third stage and the Lunar lander continued on to the moon while the manned section (Command/service modules)stayed in as high an orbit as possible to avoid detection.It did not totally succeed, either, as I will explain in greater detail when I publish my findings.
The manned section orbited in a high elliptical orbit to remain as high while traversing populated areas as possible, so as to avoid visual detection. The Soviets (if they wernt in on it themselves)would probably take the bait and follow the third stage /lunar lander to the moon, ignoring the much smaller target assuming it spacejunk left over from the seperation. The communications were smoke and mirrors, and they made dozens of mistakes faking it. Pre recorded telemetry, video and voice communications were relayed from the lunar bound space vehicle and responded to as in a script. There was no way to tell if it was real or not, just by intercepting the signal. This is why two lines of communucation were used, LAUNCH CONTROL and MISSION CONTROL. Launch control kept in contact with the actual manned mission, and Houston the faked lunar mission. The actual communications between the astronauts and launch control were never publically broadcast, only the scripted version coming from Houston. AS the 'missions' progressed, they got better at the fakery. Everyones eyes would be on the larger vehicle, talking and the astronauts bio telemetry, and video and all... This is why so many of the astronauts have mental issues or are angry, because they know they couldve done it but were never given the chance. I believe that. I believe it is possible to do what Kennedy pledged, just not in the rediculous time limit he set. I also believe that the hardware issues were solvable with the application of a different methodology, and the fact that this simple solution was never employed proves the intent was never to actually succeed, but merely appear to succeed and have plausable deniability when confronted by critics. A manned trip to the moon is no pittling task, only the best of ideas could have been successful, and the best idea inexplicably wasnt employed. The solution of course was employing the use of two or more launch vehicles , and to assemble the properly shielded and much heavier spacecraft in orbit by rendevous and docking. The neat little take the whole house packed in the trunk idea just couldnt work. And to accomplish a manned mission to the moon, a tremendous leap in ability from what had been done only few years before, it just defies all reason. Youre talking going from a suborbital 15 minute flight to landing a man on the moon , all in 8 years, and 6 missions without the loss of a single life?
Quoting: IDW 310267 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 5:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And lets send some astronauts to the moon today. Why not?
(We dont want to doesnt add up) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
How simplistic can you be? In the 1960's, we spent roughly 5% of the gross domestic product over a decade to get to the moon for what was mainly a globally political goal (although it was certainly worthwhile for scientific reasons, that alone would have never convinced Congress to make the commitment of that level of funding.) Other than as a stepping stone in a long term planetary exploration plan with a comensurately liesurely budget, what would be the reason today that would motivate Congress to commit trillions of dollars for a fast return trip? The mission today will cost much more comparatively than it did back then. Risks that were taken for granted in the first steps of space exploration wouldn't be tolerated today. Look at the money that has been expended in making the shuttle a safer flying machine. And then compare it to the Saturn 5 Apollo missions that had MANY possible single points of failure. Do you think that in today's Congressional funding environment with the public scrutiny on safety that a lunar model that absolutely depended on the perfect firing of a single rocket engine to return two astronauts from the surface would be tolerated? Absolutely not. Therefore the new missions will have to incorporate many more safeguards and backup systems than Apollo did...with a corresponding increase in cost.
We had a grand political goal to go in the 1960's...and we met it. Our ultimate competitors, the Russians, would have been more than happy to expose our success...not just once, but SIX times, as a fake. They certainly had the wherewithal to do it since they monitored our missions every step of the way. Their spies even had our plans...look at the nearly exact copy of the shuttle that they built a few years later. If we were faking it, it would have had to involve nearly a half million engineers and technicians in many companies in many countries around the world, and the Russians would have taken great pride in declaring that our success was faked...if it was. But it wasn't. And only those who know very little about the program, as you have so amply demonstrated here, still make the claim that it was.
Also, if we were faking it to simply meet Kennedy's goal and to beat the Russians, we would have stopped after the first trip to minimize the chance of detection. But we didn't. In all seven trips were made to the moon, six of which resulted in successful landings. If the first landing achieved the goal and settled the space race, why open yourself to detection if it was faked by doing it six more times...live on international television?
To say it was faked is completly ludicrous and only goes to indicate one's lack of education on the subject. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:24 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"We had a grand political goal to go in the 1960's...and we met it. Our ultimate competitors, the Russians, would have been more than happy to expose our success...not just once, but SIX times, as a fake. They certainly had the wherewithal to do it since they monitored our missions every step of the way. Their spies even had our plans...look at the nearly exact copy of the shuttle that they built a few years later. If we were faking it, it would have had to involve nearly a half million engineers and technicians in many companies in many countries around the world, and the Russians would have taken great pride in declaring that our success was faked""
Baloney.
The "Russians", or better labled the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Soviet were created by Wall Street.
Wall Street contols the USA. Bankers. Bankers control the US as hey contreol Russia. Wake up, dude.
Saying the "Russians" would have exposed the scam is nonsense.
All governments are crime families.
You actually think that there is a difference between governments.
It is all just a corporate plutocracy. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 5:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
How the bloody hell do the hoax believers get to take the high ground and argue for the future of space exploration? These are the same head-in-the-sand people who won't learn anything of science, read only selectively in history -- hell, they call the Apollo Project itself an expensive boondoggle!
Guess what? The people who know a little something about how the space sciences work are the ones who want to go out there, and to get humanity out there. They want to learn, they want to explore. Personally (which means they read, study, and never assume they know everything about a subject there is to know), and as a species.
Space flight is expensive and it is going to stay expensive, and governments have priorities. Some debatable, some stupid. It's the nature of the beast.
At some point, the costs will drop enough and the advantages will become large enough that private corporations will move in. Lower orbit is already much more the playground of business than it is of governments or military or scientists. Satellite communications is big money.
So far, though, there isn't that kind of big money in planetary exploration (robotic or human). Eventually, it will happen. At which point we trade the short-sighted policies of governments for the short-sighted policies of corporate boards beholden to stock-holders. Still no better support for science, or for interested individuals, but with more activity there are more cracks for real progress to take place in. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 5:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
the physical evidence in the form of lunar soil and rocks is at best highly questionable considering recent revelations that the samples do NOT represent the surface composition of the moon. Quoting: IDW 312662
"recent revelations"!!!??
We know for certain that they came from the moon.
100% certain.
They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldnt have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and NO water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made.
So how do we know they didnt just fall as asteroids?
NASA and ESA, among others, certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world. We can rule asteroids out, however, as they all have the scorching and oxidation inevitable from their fiery entry to Earth through the atmosphere.
The Apollo moon rocks, of course, show none of this.
I dont think film could survive the lunar enviroment in an aluminum bodied camera. Quoting: IDW 312662
This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moons surface reaches during the long lunar day.
(The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) Thats very, very hot. Fortunately, no one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.
The Apollo missions were timed to take place during lunar mornings. The temperatures are at their most hospitable then, so the astronauts themselves were at not going to overheat.
The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moons surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible. So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches.
I know this is asking alot from you, but....You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon.
So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldnt even pick up much conducted heat from them. So thats no convection, little radiation, little conduction.
If you didnt know this already...There are no other methods of receiving heat....now you do. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"NASA and ESA, among others, certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world."
And they wouldnt lie.
 |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 5:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"We had a grand political goal to go in the 1960's...and we met it. Our ultimate competitors, the Russians, would have been more than happy to expose our success...not just once, but SIX times, as a fake. They certainly had the wherewithal to do it since they monitored our missions every step of the way. Their spies even had our plans...look at the nearly exact copy of the shuttle that they built a few years later. If we were faking it, it would have had to involve nearly a half million engineers and technicians in many companies in many countries around the world, and the Russians would have taken great pride in declaring that our success was faked""
Baloney.
The "Russians", or better labled the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Soviet were created by Wall Street.
Wall Street contols the USA. Bankers. Bankers control the US as hey contreol Russia. Wake up, dude.
Saying the "Russians" would have exposed the scam is nonsense.
All governments are crime families.
You actually think that there is a difference between governments.
It is all just a corporate plutocracy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
If everyone is in on the conspiracy, who are they hiding the truth from?
If they control all world governments, why not announce it? Who the hell is going to be able to fight them?
Conspiracy theorists always keep adding organizations and peoples to the list, until they arrive at this absurdum in extremis.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Three people can keep a secret -- if two of them are dead?" |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
.
So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
See, heat isnt an issue on the moon.
"Chilliness" is the real threat. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Three people can keep a secret -- if two of them are dead?""
And that is why you are a believer. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 5:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"NASA and ESA, among others, certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world."
-----------------------
And they wouldnt lie.
It seems to me that a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.
BOTTOM LINE.
It is lack of understanding that is the source of the moonhoax theory.
Rather than finding out how the equipment worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldnt work.
Most of the theories that concern the photographs are due to a failure to understand how photography works.
Photographs are only two dimensional records of light falling on a chemically treated sheet of plastic. They can easily give a misleading picture of the nature of an unfamiliar three dimensional world, especially if have already decided what you want to see and have no understanding of photographys strengths and limitations. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 5:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"NASA and ESA, among others, certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world."
-----------------------
And they wouldnt lie.
It seems to me that a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.
BOTTOM LINE.
It is lack of understanding that is the source of the moonhoax theory.
Rather than finding out how the equipment worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldnt work.
Most of the theories that concern the photographs are due to a failure to understand how photography works.
Photographs are only two dimensional records of light falling on a chemically treated sheet of plastic. They can easily give a misleading picture of the nature of an unfamiliar three dimensional world, especially if have already decided what you want to see and have no understanding of photographys strengths and limitations.
Bottom line. Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 6:00 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
Logical fallacy. Please hang up and try again. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 6:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit.
Logical fallacy. Please hang up and try again. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
No need to.
You are a proponent of the moon missions.
38 years later, you should be able to reproduce an event from ancient history.
You cannot.
Ergo, fraud. |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/15/2007 6:09 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
the physical evidence in the form of lunar soil and rocks is at best highly questionable considering recent revelations that the samples do NOT represent the surface composition of the moon.
"recent revelations"!!!??
We know for certain that they came from the moon.
100% certain. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
>>We know for certain that they came from the moon.
100% certain. <<
Hazzard,
True scientists never say that. And you don't know that for certain either. You did not answer my question: "How many grams of lunar soil samples were given to the Soviet Union by the U.S.?" If you would know you would not dare to be saying what you are saying. For now please explain if you can the following quotes from "The Moon and the Planets. A catalog of astronomical anomalies" published by W. Corliss in 1985:
"All methods for dating lunar rocks and soils agree that the soils are considerably older than the rocks from which they were presumably derived"... If the data are correct, as seems likely, a first class anomaly would seem to exist, for it is impossible to have soils older than their source rocks..." (p.114)
"When the rocks from Apollo 11 were dated, they all gave an apparent uranium-lead age of 4.1. The unexplainable fact is that not one, but all of the rocks from the site had a 4.1 age, which means that the lead had to be boiled off in all of the rocks at a fixed rate. This, says Silver should not have happened, especially when one assumes that all the rocks would not have the same ratios to start with." (p. 116)
"Analysis of lunar sample 14163. The ratios of lead-207 to lead-206 were 1.2 to 1.3, giving apparent ages of up to 5.5 billion years. This isotopic composition has never been observed anywhere in the material of the solar system.[reference to "Dating of Moon Samples" by Driscoll Everly] (p.116)
There is more... Good luck! |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 6:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Rather than finding out how the equipment worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldnt work. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Well said, Hazzard.
And then they'll defend their crazy mechanisms with "it's only common sense to do it this way!" Meanwhile they will studiously avoid learning how NASA might have actually done it. "That's just dis-information," they cry. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 6:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Hazzard" you need to stop being so condescending at the saem time youre displaying ignorance, its pathetic,. There is no single person in on this planet who knows more about the Apollo fraud than I do. That includes yourself.
Your agruments prove you havent been paying attention.All of your arguements have already been debunked. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 6:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"recent revelations"!!!??
We know for certain that they came from the moon.
100% certain. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I dont know who "we" is, but I sure as hell aint convinced!
They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldnt have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and NO water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made. Quoting: HAZZARDOUS
Horseshit....Crack an asteroid open and what do you have? Unburned stone. Water may not ever have been present. Your last staement in this paragraph is a provable misrepresentation of the facts. These effects COULD be duplicated, or already present in meteorites.
So how do we know they didnt just fall as asteroids?
NASA and ESA, among others, certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world. We can rule asteroids out, however, as they all have the scorching and oxidation inevitable from their fiery entry to Earth through the atmosphere. Quoting: Hazzardous
And we also can tell real moon rocks that fell as asteroids from lunar amples brought back by apollo because the apollo rocks are not representative of the surface of the moon.
I dont think film could survive the lunar enviroment in an aluminum bodied camera.
{/quote]
No actually its not. At all. I have never used heat as an agrument against the athenticity of the photgraphs.
My argument is based on the contention that the radiation enviroment on the moon would have exposed the film, and most of it would be developed. This can be proved experimentally. Aluminum doesnt stop secondary radiation nor ionizing radiation. Radiation entering the camera body would develop the film. The radiation enviroment on the moons surface was MORE than sufficient by a wide margin of error to expose the film inside the camera. Quoting: IDW |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 6:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There is no single person in on this planet who knows more about the Apollo fraud than I do. That includes yourself. Quoting: IDW 312662
THIS from the man who doesn't know if there were batteries in the Rover. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 7:04 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"BOTTOM LINE.
It is lack of understanding that is the source of the moonhoax theory. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I agree , so long as we both understand what a hoax is and who is debunking a hoax here. Caliming a rediculous hoax is in fat a hoax IS NOT A HOAX, you fucking idiot!
A debunker does not attempt to disprove an alternate story, a debunker attempts to disprove a hoax. If you understood half of what you claim you do, you could not believe what you claim you do. Saying you do is not the same thing, is it? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 7:07 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There is no single person in on this planet who knows more about the Apollo fraud than I do. That includes yourself.
THIS from the man who doesn't know if there were batteries in the Rover. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
Yeah, I know. The thing is they called nuclear reactors batteries. Thats what i was getting though your head.I am sure there are many of you who know things about the hoax that I dont. I never said there wernt.
That isnt what I said, was it?
"There is no single person in on this planet who knows more about the Apollo fraud than I do." |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 7:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"BOTTOM LINE.
It is lack of understanding that is the source of the moonhoax theory.
I agree , so long as we both understand what a hoax is and who is debunking a hoax here. Caliming a rediculous hoax is in fat a hoax IS NOT A HOAX, you fucking idiot!
A debunker does not attempt to disprove an alternate story, a debunker attempts to disprove a hoax. If you understood half of what you claim you do, you could not believe what you claim you do. Saying you do is not the same thing, is it? Quoting: IDW 312662
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe!'"
"It is the same thing with you," said the Hatter, and he poured a little hot tea upon its nose.
[Pg 36] |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 7:16 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yeah, I know. The thing is they called nuclear reactors batteries. Thats what i was getting though your head.I am sure there are many of you who know things about the hoax that I dont. I never said there wernt. Quoting: IDW 312662
So now silver-zinc and potassium hydroxide are nuclear materials? Whatever next!
And just to clarify, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about the Apollo Project than anyone else on Earth?
Or, alternatively, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about how the "so-called Apollo missions were hoaxed" than anyone else on Earth? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 7:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yeah, I know. The thing is they called nuclear reactors batteries. Thats what i was getting though your head.I am sure there are many of you who know things about the hoax that I dont. I never said there wernt.
So now silver-zinc and potassium hydroxide are nuclear materials? Whatever next!
And just to clarify, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about the Apollo Project than anyone else on Earth?
Or, alternatively, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about how the "so-called Apollo missions were hoaxed" than anyone else on Earth? Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
. My statement stands without further clarification. I know more about the Apollo hoax than any other person on this planet.
I should, Ive put enough effort into it. You, on the other and, have resisted learning anything except the lies you were spoonfed. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 7:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yeah, I know. The thing is they called nuclear reactors batteries. Thats what i was getting though your head.I am sure there are many of you who know things about the hoax that I dont. I never said there wernt.
So now silver-zinc and potassium hydroxide are nuclear materials? Whatever next!
And just to clarify, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about the Apollo Project than anyone else on Earth?
Or, alternatively, DO you or DO YOU NOT claim to know more about how the "so-called Apollo missions were hoaxed" than anyone else on Earth? Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
Let me make it even more clear to you. I do not believe a lunar rover operated on any kind of power supply on the moons surface. And I did not claim it used a plutonium disintegration reactor either, did I numbnuts? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
