We never went to the moon.

[DaveC426913]

Tell us why you think the rocks are proof and not bogus.

No. You tell us why you think they're bogus.

 

[Michael 345]

I think the rocks from the Moon have better provenance than the rocks in the the deniers' heads.

By the way Sama did you get the promised increase in the government pay check. I was promised a 10% if I kept up "proving we went to the moon".

If it is not in the next paycheck I might just break ranks and let FF know that cave place where NASA obtained the moon rocks.

If you have hot been there I can give you the number of the geologist who can arrange

I'll send you a photo of my moon rock I "stole" later

:}

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By the way Sama did you get the promised increase in the government pay check. I was promised a 10% if I kept up "proving we went to the moon".

I asked about the increase and they gave me a number to call. The machine that answered said "There is No Such Agency."

But the money showed up any way. Spooky.

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry duplicate

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

FF, where did you get your geology degree?

 

[Michael 345]

Genuiiiinnn

 

[FatFreddy]

They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.

They cannot be from meteors. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.

That's what we read, but is it true?

First of all I'm going to link to this info that shows that we are lied to about science, news, and history.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

Tell us why you think the rocks are proof and not bogus.

Every geologist on this planet, who has examined them, says so.

How do we know how many objective geologists have examined them? Scientists can be paid to lie.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-19#post-3433538
(excerpt)
-------------------------------
If they feel the need to provide something purportedly more "substantial" than just claims, "debunkers" might point to the "moon rocks". They will say, "How could we have moon rocks if we didn't go to the moon?" Unfortunately, many who seek to promote the inquiry into the government's moon hoax are not bright enough not to be drawn in. Many say the moon rocks came from lunar probes that returned from the moon, at which point, the "debunkers" will say, "If we can send a probe and get it back, why can't we do it with humans?" In fact, the essence of that "argument" strays far from that track. Because, consider, did you ever see a "moon rock"? Did you ever hold a "moon rock" in your hands? If someone said they had a live Sasquatch but they refused to allow you to see it, how many wouldn't call that person a fake? Yet government has never allowed anyone to handle a "moon rock", but the people readily accept that as "proof" of a moon landing? True, the "debunkers" will assert, government did allow "moon rocks" to be seen, under glass and separated from the public, but if someone provided brown hairs under glass and said they were Sasquatch fur, they would be denounced in a second! And, let's be frank, even if they did allow an examination of a "moon rock", how many people know enough about geology to know they are from earth or not? And, besides, laboratories across the world have facilities for subjecting rocks to any number of different environments, meaning, they could manufacture a "moon rock" at will! Only the willingness to unquestioningly buy whatever you are told would lead someone to believe claims about "moon rocks"!
-------------------------------

There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks so they can't be used as proof. Anyway, the rocks don't make the anomalies that prove the hoax* disappear.


Here's something I forgot to post.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+rock+petrified+wood


*
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302

 

[David C]

That's what we read, but is it true?

Yes, it's true. This is the old "everything I say comes from genuine sources, but everything you say is a lie, because of reasons" bullshit! Followed by a section from the wall of spam, debunked already. Yes, really it has been, since you ignored all the responses, they stand.

First of all I'm going to link to this info that shows that we are lied to about science, news, and history.

Nope. Those links show a couple of pissed off scientists squabbling with each other.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/whistleblowers-governments-and-lies.html
"
Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters. The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum."

How do we know how many objective geologists have examined them? Scientists can be paid to lie.

Bullshit.

"Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program. To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum."

If they feel the need to provide something purportedly more "substantial" than just claims, "debunkers" might point to the "moon rocks". They will say, "How could we have moon rocks if we didn't go to the moon?" Unfortunately, many who seek to promote the inquiry into the government's moon hoax are not bright enough not to be drawn in. Many say the moon rocks came from lunar probes that returned from the moon, at which point, the "debunkers" will say, "If we can send a probe and get it back, why can't we do it with humans?" In fact, the essence of that "argument" strays far from that track. Because, consider, did you ever see a "moon rock"? Did you ever hold a "moon rock" in your hands? If someone said they had a live Sasquatch but they refused to allow you to see it, how many wouldn't call that person a fake? Yet government has never allowed anyone to handle a "moon rock", but the people readily accept that as "proof" of a moon landing? True, the "debunkers" will assert, government did allow "moon rocks" to be seen, under glass and separated from the public, but if someone provided brown hairs under glass and said they were Sasquatch fur, they would be denounced in a second! And, let's be frank, even if they did allow an examination of a "moon rock", how many people know enough about geology to know they are from earth or not? And, besides, laboratories across the world have facilities for subjecting rocks to any number of different environments, meaning, they could manufacture a "moon rock" at will! Only the willingness to unquestioningly buy whatever you are told would lead someone to believe claims about "moon rocks"!

Arm waving horseshit. The rocks have been examined by thousands of geologists over the last 50 years. PROVE what you claim!

There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks so they can't be used as proof.

Moron statement. They can't be from Earth, they can't be from meteorites. The only alternative is that they were brought back from the Moon. PROVE they were brought back unmanned! Once again we have a ridiculous claim that requires a MASSIVE secret space program to develop amazing equipment. This whole program has not one single solitary iota of proof, papertrail, pictures of equipment, tracking data, personnel accounts, or anything whatsoever. The word "plausible" means something that you don't understand.

Anyway, the rocks don't make the anomalies that prove the hoax* disappear.

They most certainly do and you have that back to front. The massive evidence of Apollo that you dismiss without any proof completely make stupid claims irrelevant.

Here's something I forgot to post.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon rock petrified wood

Spam. perfectly explained here:

"
After examining the facts, we've discovered that the Apollo 11 astronauts did not hand out any moon rocks on their Goodwill Tour. They did, however, present various heads-of-state with a number of gifts. Queen Juliana, the official head-of-state to The Netherlands, publically received three gifts from the astronauts. The astronauts were also the guests-of-honor at the opening of an exhibit on space technology at the RAI Congress Centre, the same venue that John William Middendorf II was supposed to have presented the "moon rock" to then-retired Prime Minister, Willem Drees. Strange they didn't run into each other while they were there.
It wasn't until November 1969 that Richard Nixon requested 50 grams of moon dust to construct 250 Apollo 11 gift displays. Each display contained four grains of lunar regolith in a Lucite button and 135 of these displays were given to various heads-of-state of foreign governments, including Queen Juliana of The Netherlands. Strange she didn't feel slighted by Nixon for giving Drees an 89 gram moon rock and all she got was 0.2 grams of moon dust."

 

[FatFreddy]

Yes, it's true. This is the old "everything I say comes from genuine sources, but everything you say is a lie, because of reasons" bullshit!

We should talk about something specific instead of making general rhetorical statements. I can cite lots of cases of the US government's lying to the people. Go to this post.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

Click on the link where it says that we are lied to about history. Here's a link from there with an excerpt.
https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm
(excerpt)
----------------------------
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.


I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
----------------------------

This guy was in a position to find out the truth and he found out that he was being lie to by the US government. Do you think what he says is right, or do you believe the US government version. Please don't lamely say this is off-topic; we're discussing the credibility of government sources as you seem to take government sources as fact.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/whistleblowers-governments-and-lies.html

The guy who wrote that also maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue so he's a known sophist.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-6#post-1068576484

Followed by a section from the wall of spam, debunked already. Yes, really it has been, since you ignored all the responses, they stand.

I've never seen it debunked. I've only seen disinfo agents try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked. I want to deal with one issue at a time so that we can talk about them in detail. We'll go on to the next issue when we've finished talking about the rocks.

Arm waving horseshit. The rocks have been examined by thousands of geologists over the last 50 years. PROVE what you claim!

That may turn out to be true but how can we verify it? If it turns out to be true, how do we know they weren't fooled as they would need some real moon rocks to compare them with to be sure they were real moon rocks.

They can't be from Earth, they can't be from meteorites. The only alternative is that they were brought back from the Moon.

Rhetorical dogmatic statements don't impress thinking people. Put some substance behind what you say.

PROVE they were brought back unmanned!

You know I'm not in a postition to be able to prove something such as that so it's silly to demand it. All I'm saying is that the scenario of a small portion of the rocks having been brought back by robotic craft is plausible. That small portion could have been shown to objective scientists and the fake ones could have been shown to the controlled scientists. Are you sayng that scenario is not plausible?


Anyway, there are so many anomalies that prove the hoax* that the rock issue isn't about whether the missions were faked. It's about how the missions were faked.

This is the next thing on your list from post #936. "video footage especially the digging a trench video and the lunar rover traverse"

This guy is an expert and he thinks the rover footage was faked.

Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)

Post some footage you think proves the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.


*
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Burden of proof is on you. University of Youtube is not an accredited school.

 

[David C]

We should talk about something specific instead of making general rhetorical statements. I can cite lots of cases of the US government's lying to the people.

My statement is not general or rhetorical. I can prove you lied about dozens of things, does that mean you lie about everything!

Go to this post.

Get lost. Already responded to and you ignored it.

The guy who wrote that also maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue so he's a known sophist.

Therefore you dismiss every single debunk because you are a hopeless coward. The Chinese spacewalk was real, Windley's analysis was not lame and you are a ridiculous person who has zero credibility. Betamax101 hands you your ass so many times it is laughable, your claim he is a known sophist is a lie, therefore you always lie.

I've never seen it debunked.

Liar. You just ignore it by claiming the author is not credible because they fail your idiotic circular logic tests.

I've only seen disinfo agents try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked. I want to deal with one issue at a time so that we can talk about them in detail. We'll go on to the next issue when we've finished talking about the rocks.

They have all been debunked, whatever idiotic reasoning you want to apply. You aren't the one controlling this exchange, you are the joke who runs away from it.

That may turn out to be true but how can we verify it? If it turns out to be true, how do we know they weren't fooled as they would need some real moon rocks to compare them with to be sure they were real moon rocks.

Such astonishing ignorance it is breath taking. The rocks have been analysed thousands of times, for an internet zero like you to suggest they are all mistaken is comedic nonsense. Tell me exactly how you compare rocks brought back from the Moon with "real moon rocks"?! The Soviet samples show perfect correlation with Apollo ones.

Rhetorical dogmatic statements don't impress thinking people. Put some substance behind what you say.

Being an evasive coward is what you do best. From above and ignored:

"The rocks cannot be from Earth. They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.
They cannot be from meteors. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.
That leaves the bullshit and impossible 842lbs of samples magically retrieved remotely with not a single scrap of evidence. Even now the technology to do this is ludicrously difficult."

You know I'm not in a postition to be able to prove something such as that so it's silly to demand it. All I'm saying is that the scenario of a small portion of the rocks having been brought back by robotic craft is plausible. That small portion could have been shown to objective scientists and the fake ones could have been shown to the controlled scientists. Are you sayng that scenario is not plausible?

A totally ludicrous claim. You don't know what the word plausible means. Hundreds of pounds of Apollo samples have been distributed for analysis!! Noting your total inability to provide one solitary scrap of evidence for your claims, that must also include the planting of science experiments, laser reflectors, thousands of pictures and video - it seems you are full of crap!

Anyway, there are so many anomalies that prove the hoax* that the rock issue isn't about whether the missions were faked. It's about how the missions were faked.

I could have sworn you just said that bullshit in your last post!

They most certainly do and you have that back to front. The massive evidence of Apollo that you dismiss without any proof completely make stupid claims irrelevant.

This is the next thing on your list from post #936. "video footage especially the digging a trench video and the lunar rover traverse"

Yep, proves they were on the Moon. Luckily I don't need you to confirm this as you are a known liar who cannot admit your errors.

This guy is an expert and he thinks the rover footage was faked.

He is not an expert. He is a made up bullshitter. If you seriously think that rover footage is a model, then you are even more ridiculous than you have so far demonstrated. Jay Windley is an accredited expert in photogrammetry, THE skill needed to assess the validity of any footage. As always, you have no response other than your customary ad hominem dismissal.

Post some footage you think proves the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

We are discussing the rocks. You keep going on about "so many anomalies". I will demonstrate how cowardly you are. List them in bullet points as a top 10 to go through. I have seen you avoid this dozens of times on various forums. Your pathetic excuse is a referral to your wall of spam. I then post debunking a moron blog that debunks them all and you ignore it because you can't answer any of it. You are so very, very sad.

 

[FatFreddy]

I was googling around and I found this.
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

Those two guys are experts.

The Chinese spacewalk was real, Windley's analysis was not lame and you are a ridiculous person who has zero credibility.

You just destroyed your credibility (again).
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(start at post #20)

I noticed you skipped the part of my post in which I asked you if you thought Smedley Butler was right and the government had lied to the people.


I don't have time to do any more posting today. I'll be back in a day or two.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, no, please don't rush on our account.

 

[David C]

I was googling around and I found this.
Those two guys are experts.

You went to a moron hoax site and found two "experts" did you? And your two bullshit made up or paid "experts" dismiss the millions of real experts who understand this whole thing properly. You really are an internet joke.

You just destroyed your credibility again.

Whoah there spammer. Your opinion doesn't actually count, you are a know liar. Mine does and I already said this:

"you are a ridiculous person who has zero credibility."

I noticed you skipped the part of my post in which I asked you if you thought Smedley Butler was right and the government had lied to the people.

I answered the premise. Proving governments lie is a straw man. It doesn't mean they always lie or that they lied about the rocks or anything related to Apollo.

I noticed you skipped the entire content of two debunking websites and virtually most of every debunking point raised on thousands of forum posts. You don't have any credibility to destroy. You are an object of derision wherever you spam.

I don't have time to do any more posting today. I'll be back in a day or two.

Answer my post properly, break a lifetime habit of evasion.

Edit: Just look what this delusional spammer wrote on the San Antonio Spurs basketball forum:

The shills are looking like horses' a---s so I think they're trying to think of an excuse to suspend me or ban me. I cited an example of government lies that weren't about Apollo and the moderators might delete the post for "Going off-topic" which has happened to me on some forums. Let's see what happens.

Pathetic troll is pathetic.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When the forum gives you lemons...

 

[FatFreddy]

And your two bullshit made up or paid "experts" dismiss the millions of real experts who understand this whole thing properly.

Are you referring to experts such as Jay Windley* who said that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

Start reading at post #20 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

Jay Windley also maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-44#post-3504006
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=50ad983d29142f13c1b4042e7479ab89

All of you pro-Apollo posters agreed with him on both issues or refused to comment on them. Those issues are too clear to obfuscate and any pro-Apollo poster who doesn't simply agree that Jay was wrong on the dust-free sand issue and that the Chinese spacewalk was faked just ends up looking silly no matter how authoritative and patronizing his attitude is. The viewers have seen your positions on those two issues so they all know that you're not serious posters.


(from post #951)

Tell me exactly how you compare rocks brought back from the Moon with "real moon rocks"?! The Soviet samples show perfect correlation with Apollo ones.

I've already posted this link more than once.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpts)
----------------------------------------------------
Why the "Soviet Union" confirmed the "authenticity" of the secret, "American" moonstones - moon theories and money making of the NASA with artificial "moon dust"
----------------------------------------------------
The stage-managed race for "moonstones"
According to the access into the falsification practice with the planet machinery "LOLA" at Langley and according to the possibilities of radio communication not over some 100 km all flights of the "moon probes" are a lie. And because the transport of "moonstones" was not a neutral, controllable procedure, and because according to the technical data of the little aberration of the landings from the landing points and because of the cosmic radiation (sun storms with many sunspots) the Apollo flights cannot have been performed, the official data about "moonstones" do not seem very reliable. By the "moonstones" one lie supports the other one, in case of the "moonstones" in cooperation with the "Soviet Union".
With the secrecy and with the term "conspiracy theory" against all critics the cock-and-bull story of the moonstones is defended successfully in the propaganda and in the media...
----------------------------------------------------
The "SU" legalizes the "American" "moon landings" and gets wheat for it
All in all the "Soviet Union" legalizes the "moon landings" of the "USA" by the declaration that the "moonstones" are the same. At the same time "SU" suffers bad harvests and is depends on wheat deliveries from the West. The "Soviet" regime has no other choice than to do the favour to the "USA" to recognize the "moonstones" and with it the "moon landings" (Wisnewski, p.212).
----------------------------------------------------

List them in bullet points as a top 10 to go through. I have seen you avoid this dozens of times on various forums. Your pathetic excuse is a referral to your wall of spam.

Your calling my bullet points "Spam" doesn't invalidate them.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302

I then post debunking a moron blog that debunks them all and you ignore it because you can't answer any of it.

I told you I'd do them one at a time so that we can go into detail. Now we're doing the rocks. You said the footage proves they were on the moon and I asked you to post some of that said footage so we could talk about whether it's really proof. If we talk about everything at once, we can't go into detail. We'll eventually get to everything you listed.

I noticed you skipped the part of my post in which I asked you if you thought Smedley Butler was right and the government had lied to the people.

I answered the premise. Proving governments lie is a straw man. It doesn't mean they always lie or that they lied about the rocks or anything related to Apollo.

You cite what the government says as proof on a lot of different issues. I pointed out a clear lie told by the government which shows that only a naive person would take what the government says as truth.



*
http://clavius.org/about.html

 

[David C]

Are you referring to experts such as Jay Windley* who said that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

He is one such expert. And that claim by him is perfectly reasonable. Not to mention all the dust from friction during transport, or that this moronic claim is a strawman anyway, since we never see circumstances where it applies!

Start reading at post #20 here.

Nope. We did this already spammer.

Jay Windley also maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real.

Yep, it was real. It takes a monumentally thick person to think it was faked, especially when we see flags rotate "in the water" with no impedance at all - totally impossible. In addition, when the flag is moved from side to side, the direction of motion makes no effect on the orientation of the flag, again completely impossible.

All of you pro-Apollo posters agreed with him on both issues or refused to comment on them.

Both of his claims are correct, you are wrong.

Those issues are too clear to obfuscate and any pro-Apollo poster who doesn't simply agree that Jay was wrong on the dust-free sand issue and that the Chinese spacewalk was faked just ends up looking silly no matter how authoritative and patronizing his attitude is. The viewers have seen your positions on those two issues so they all know that you're not serious posters.

Your opinion on the matter is probably as dumb as they come. Your claims and conclusions are circular and very stupid.

I've already posted this link more than once.

Yes, it's called spamming. The claim is called a bare assertion and is horseshit.

Your calling my bullet points "Spam" doesn't invalidate them.

I just asked you to SHOW these bullet points as a simple 10 point list. You cannot and will not do this. Your response tells me that you have reading and comprehension difficulties, that a supposed English teacher should not have!

I told you I'd do them one at a time so that we can go into detail. Now we're doing the rocks. You said the footage proves they were on the moon and I asked you to post some of that said footage so we could talk about whether it's really proof. If we talk about everything at once, we can't go into detail. We'll eventually get to everything you listed.

And I will get to the footage once you deal with the rocks!!

They aren't from Earth, no plausible scenarios there. They aren't meteorites, no plausible scenarios there. They could not possibly have been collected in secret from numerous sites with this secret and massive space program you plucked out of your butt! No plausible scenarios at all. They came from the Moon, because the entire geologist community agree on the matter. The evidence that they are from a low gravity, volcanic astral body, with micrometeorite impacts, dry as a bone, but with oxygen isotopes matching with the Earth, lead to the overwhelming conclusion that they cannot be anywhere else BUT from the Moon. You cowardly avoided my posts:

The rocks have been analysed thousands of times, for an internet zero like you to suggest they are all mistaken is comedic nonsense. Tell me exactly how you compare rocks brought back from the Moon with "real moon rocks"?! The Soviet samples show perfect correlation with Apollo ones.

"The rocks cannot be from Earth. They have no terrestrial weathering from atmosphere and water. They show evidence of formation in low gravity. They show billions of years of solar wind exposure causing solar isotopes. Their exteriors contain strong helium 3. Many have impact craters from micro-meteors. There are also numerous 3m long core samples.
They cannot be from meteors. There is no crust. The outside He3 is still intact, as are the zap pits. They again have no terrestrial weathering and are drier than anything found on this planet.
That leaves the bullshit and impossible 842lbs of samples magically retrieved remotely with not a single scrap of evidence. Even now the technology to do this is ludicrously difficult."

You don't know what the word plausible means. Hundreds of pounds of Apollo samples have been distributed for analysis!! Noting your total inability to provide one solitary scrap of evidence for your claims, that must also include the planting of science experiments, laser reflectors, thousands of pictures and video - it seems you are full of crap!

Now spammer, what have YOU got. Not moronic webpages or videos that you don't understand, where you don't understand why they are so ignorant and you don't understand the responses showing this! What have YOU got! Nothing is the answer.

We know men have been to the Moon, the colossal volume of evidence says so. You obviously don't believe in a hoax, so you must have some ulterior motive for claiming it. It is really very sad that as a human being, you have been cutting and pasting virtually the same bullshit posts, over and over again, literally hundreds of times. Really dude, get a life.

 

[David C]

To Mr Fat - where is your response to this?

"Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters. The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program. To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum."


Regarding the petrified wood Spam. Perfectly explained here:

"
After examining the facts, we've discovered that the Apollo 11 astronauts did not hand out any moon rocks on their Goodwill Tour. They did, however, present various heads-of-state with a number of gifts. Queen Juliana, the official head-of-state to The Netherlands, publically received three gifts from the astronauts. The astronauts were also the guests-of-honor at the opening of an exhibit on space technology at the RAI Congress Centre, the same venue that John William Middendorf II was supposed to have presented the "moon rock" to then-retired Prime Minister, Willem Drees. Strange they didn't run into each other while they were there.
It wasn't until November 1969 that Richard Nixon requested 50 grams of moon dust to construct 250 Apollo 11 gift displays. Each display contained four grains of lunar regolith in a Lucite button and 135 of these displays were given to various heads-of-state of foreign governments, including Queen Juliana of The Netherlands. Strange she didn't feel slighted by Nixon for giving Drees an 89 gram moon rock and all she got was 0.2 grams of moon dust."

 

[FatFreddy]

we never see circumstances where it applies!

It all started here.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1009/rover-footage-filmed-on-earth?page=1
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1094

Start reading at post #20 here.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

Nope. We did this already spammer.

You looked silly when we did this. You agreed with Jay Windley.

Yep, it was real. It takes a monumentally thick person to think it was faked, especially when we see flags rotate "in the water" with no impedance at all - totally impossible. In addition, when the flag is moved from side to side, the direction of motion makes no effect on the orientation of the flag, again completely impossible.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

As I said in the above thread, changing the speed from slow-motion to fast motion can make it look like there's no water.

This is the anomaly that's too clear to obfuscate.

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water. There's no movement of his hand that would make the flag move that way. Anyone who doesn't simply say that water made the flag move has no credibility.

Yes, it's called spamming. The claim is called a bare assertion and is horseshit.

You didn't address the actual issue. This response would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

Your response is a classic case of hand-waving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
(excerpts)
------------------------------------
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details.
------------------------------------
Handwaving is frequently used in low-quality debate, including political campaigning and commentary, issue-based advocacy, advertising and public relations, tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, Internet memes, and informal discussion and writing. If the opponent in a debate or commentator on an argument alleges hand-waving, it suggests the proponent of the argument, position or message has engaged in one or more fallacies of logic,[2] usually informal, and/or glossed over non-trivial details,[2] and is attempting to wave away challenges and deflect questions, as if swatting at flies.
------------------------------------

Here's the link.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html

Try again.

To Mr Fat - where is your response to this?

I told you that guy was a known sophist and I gave the proof of it. He maintains the Chinese spacewalk was real and he agrees with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. He gives a mere opinion. No thinking person would take him seriously after having seen the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked and taken the time to read Jay Windley's analysis.

Regarding the petrified wood Spam. Perfectly explained here:

That scenario might turn out to be true.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

First of all I'm going to link to this info that shows that we are lied to about science, news, and history.

master of suspense & intrigue...
are you renting some cult-like followers from another department ?

simple facts are simple
attempting to sway someones opinion toward factualised science prior to then attempting to use said science to prove science is trying to trick you is a bit .... cult-like to say the least.
probably works well on brain washed children raised by conservative religious parents whom have run into real world conflicts of facts Vs lies in a gray world that moraly does not fit inside the black and white dichotomy of morality that has been force fed to them from birth at pain of physical beatings and years of punishment for not believing.