We never went to the moon.

Your responses are waiting for you in the Never-Never Land control center.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The rocks are not proof that there were people on the moon. There are scenarios that would explain them.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f



What Happened on the Moon

(3.14.38 time mark)

There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and there's zero proof that they were real.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andings-ever-happened.512081/#post-1067871432

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where were you when Apollo 11 launched?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any ideas about the time line of the waving flags?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They are total proof that man was on the Moon and the scenarios you spam are moronic.

The most perfectly named blog ever-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

It takes a jackass of monumental proportions to claim the rocks aren't proof. Let alone the lasers, LROC pictures, third party evidence, thousands of pictures, videos showing prints being made and fine soil being kicked, perfect lunar gravity, scientific data received from ALSEP placed on the Moon for years, thousands of hours of totally consistent audio received from the perfectly correct location.

But let's wave it all away because a bloody flag moved!! This dishonest joker won't list any more itemized issues, let alone one scrap of proof for how the rocks/lasers/LROC/ video etc. was faked!

it's a new year soon and this mad spammer is in to his 11th year of making virtually identical posts and responses. Sad is not the word.

 

Explanations for all of the above have already been given earlier in this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-4#post-3332838
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-4#post-3332534
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-35#post-3494991

Physics of the Moon Flag


Physics of the Moon Flag - part 2



You're trying to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to read the whole thread.

 

And you're just trying to mislead the viewers. Why the need to lie? C'mon, Fat, how about some facts?

 

No you liar. Or is it just delusion. When you make a claim, such as unmanned missions did it, the relevant plausibility requires at least some evidence. You provided zero. In the case of the rocks you provide moronic videos and ignore the peer reviewed evidence.

The irony. An idiot who claims he is a chemist tries and fails at physics. The flag, any flag or piece of fabric has multiple points about which it can pivot. In addition this gigantic eejit claims the flag moves around the top bar when quite obviously it is around variable distances along the diagonal!!

Idiot claims part 2. Summarise using YOUR words why this idiot has a case. You're just trying to mislead other viewers who believe YouTube crap when they are ignorant and poorly educated!!

No you poor spammer. It is you who makes the baseless claims. That statement is one of your cut and paste by numbers. You don't
have an original thought in that brain of yours.

 

Copy of my post #724

Any ideas about the time line of the waving flags?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This doesn't make the clear anomalies go away. Peers that do reviewing can be bought.


At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common.



Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

There are other scientists who say the opposite.
https://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1

When two groups of scientists say opposite things, the ones that side with the governement are usually being paid to lie.


Here's a scientists who says that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.

(00:16 time mark)


Here's another case of official mainstream journals publishing untrue information.

(1:36:40 time mark)


Nothing that's "Official" can be trusted. Check out this info on the media.

http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky media&aq=f


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html


We are lied to about history.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145531

In an environment such as this, only someone with a naive willingness to believe would take a "Peer-reviewed" report seriously. Peer-reviewed is synonymous with official.


Here's something else about the rocks.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
Q: What about Moon rocks brought back by astronauts, it’s proof the landings took place?
A: No it is not, and this is the most common tactic used by NASA and PAN’s, but proves nothing. NASAwere manufacturing simulated Moon rock, long before the Apollo missions, this is proven in an abstract published in 1966, 3 years before Apollo 11. This simulated Moon rock is reconstructed from basalt, and meteorite samples discovered in Antarctica. It is simulated Moon rock that is dispatched to universities around the globe as being the real thing. These simulated Moon rocks are, of course, totally different to any rocks found on Earth, and they were meant to be that way. This is why geologists claim they cannot be found elsewhere on Earth. No of course not because they are manufactured by NASA to be totally different to Earth borne rocks. NASA manufacture the simulated Moon rock and Moon dust so cheaply they do not even charge for it, other than transportation costs.
------------------------------------------------------


More on the flag here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15
(reply #21)


You people can pretend all you want; the info I've been posting blows you out of the water.

 

This is a quote from a link that I've already posted but I want to make sure that everybody sees it as it's important.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------
Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
-----------------------------------

 

Fat, you don't even science.

 

When your source can't even construct sentences using standard English sentence structure and grammar, you've lost before you started. It means you can't even find someone of average intelligence (and ability to write) to support your conspiracy theories.

 

What a moronic claim. Thousands of them and every geologist is bought? You fool!

I bellow with laughter at your stupid videos where a few individuals are used to undermine the entire scientific process. Only a jackass thinks that is a sound argument.

Total and hopelessly ignorant bullshit. The rocks have solar isotopes from solar bombardment. They have no terrestrial weathering whatsoever and have tiny indentations from micro-meteorite impacts. The volcanic beads evidence formation in low gravity and the crystalline structures show damage from solar isotopes.

You are too ignorant to understand replies. You have such a useless grasp of anything you post about, it is ridiculous that you actually think you are coming out on top. Absolutely nobody agrees with you. You must he totally deluded if you think your lunatic spamming is actually making any difference. The only ones you will reach, are equally useless people who believe any old crap!

 

This is a translation from German.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_mondgestein-von-der-erde.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------
Generell: Keine Beweisbarkeit von "Mondgestein"
"Mondgestein" ist nicht vergleichbar, weil zur Kontrolle neutrale Reisen zum "Mond" nicht möglich sind. Es kann also jeder behaupten, dies oder jenes Gestein stamme vom "Mond". Auch wenn gewisse "Mondsonden" auf dem Mond gelandet sein sollen, kann dies niemand kontrollieren, und ebensowenig kann man kontrollieren, ob diese "Mondsonden" Steine oder Staub vom "Mond" auf die Erde gebracht haben oder nicht. Schlussendlich behaupten die Supermächte "USA" und "SU" gemeinsam gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit, das "Mondgestein" sei dem "Erdgestein" "sehr ähnlich". Diese "Ähnlichkeit" wirft Fragen auf (Wisnewski, S.209).
-----------------------------------

It was probably translated by a German who had pretty good, but not perfect, English. A lot of very intelligent scientists are not native English speakers but hold their own in English although their Engish is not flawless.

Most of them are probably fooled. Most of the ones that aren't would be committing-career suicide by trying to come forward. It might also be downright dangerous for them to come forward.



Also, nothing mainstream would print their story (see above info). Our not reading that there are geologists that question the moon landings does not mean there aren't any who do.

 

This doesn't make the anomalies that prove the footage was taken in a studio go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andings-ever-happened.512081/#post-1067871432

There are scenarios that would explain this (if it's true). If the Surveyor program was real...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program

...NASA had the technology to soft-land robotic craft on the moon (see video "What Happened on the Moon" in post #722.); it's plausible the rocks were collected by an unmanned probe.


This might turn out to be true.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------
since 1972NASA has stored officially 382 kg "moonstones"
The storing of the 382 kg "moonstones" at the NASA is in boxes filled with nitrogen (Wisnewski, p.214). Nobody has an access, and all is kept "secret" (Wisnewski, p.215).
-------------------------------------


You seem to have a lot of faith in the official stuff that you read. You should check out some of the info in post #730.

 

Wow, it's megaspam night. We're getting the full cut and paste bullshit. You really are so very clueless if you think isolated and probably slighted examples dismiss the entire scientific community. You are that dumb you don't see the inherent contradiction. Providing scientists to prove all other scientists are corrupt. Kind of stupid don't you think? Maybe the few mad ones who can support your mad claims are the only virtuous ones. Yeah right!

Stupid. Your implication that there are, is not proof that there are. There are literally thousands of people who have examined the Apollo samples. Not one questions their authenticity. Your idiotic self reinforcing crap is not even remotely plausible. Media outlets are like piranhas. If they even get a sniff of a sensational story they will tear the subject to bits. We can add that to the huge list of things that you have no idea about.

 

Tell us what you think if the info I posted about the media in post #730.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-37#post-3495628

 

The debunk sites make your idiotic wall of spam go away. You have no answer to any of them.

It's not plausible at any level. The Soviets returned a few ounces. The Americans brought back 842lbs. There is not one shred of evidence for this secret space program. No paper trail, no witnesses, no design plans, no testing, not one thing. Apollo included 3m core samples as well.

Provable and complete bullshit. Any geologist on the planet can request a sample for testing. Your ignorance on this matter is profound.

 

Bullshit spam. I already addressed it. Using scientists to discredit other scientists is moronic. Claiming a few examples proves the entire process is corrupt is even more moronic.

You have Dunning Kruger syndrom.