Next time they show up on the moon, the flag will be in a hanging down position. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet another idiotic post, talk about preposterous. -------------------------------------------------------------------- LOLOL. Sorry dude, the flag will be down on the pole. They may not have air, but they do have gravity. Or maybe that's just a false claim by the government.
Lots of things come from the government are true, in spite of what you say. some stuff has to be hidden for many reasons. Yours are blanket statements, I always trust the government, You don't know that. Obviously you never trust the government. You should find a country you can trust, and move there.
Yeah everything you fear and don't want to know. You haven't ever shown otherwise, in fact you've always shown you do. Give me one reason I ever should. The founders didn't, that's why they created a new government. They also recommended everyone should when it no longer serves them, that it is their individual right and duty. At your age you should have realized long ago that country and government are not one and the same. Perhaps you're not as old as your profile claims you are, your posts display a juvenile mentality. Countries are simply pieces of land that have borders created on paper. Governments are made up of a small group of individuals, often striving for power and wealth at the expense of many. "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine (or Edward Abbey)
You are speaking of two incidents. the moon landing, which actually did happen. The plane crashes on 9/11, which actually did happen.
The point is you haven't posted anything to show you don't trust the US government. There is not one post from you that questions anything you've been fed. All your posts indicate you believe official US government stories in every detail without question. And whenever any poster indicates there are serious problems with these stories or suggests alternate theory, you either defend the official story, ridicule the poster (including troll) or any combination. You're not the only poster here who does that though, there are many like minded posters. The way I see it is if you (or others) truly believe what you've been fed is accurate and anything else is absurd, why are you posting in this section of the forum daily responding to "nut cases", "troofers", "conspiracy theorists" (as you regard them) or whatever silly label you place on posters who don't believe these stories? It certainly sounds to me like you really are not as confident as you pretend to be that these stories are what the US government claims they are.
You have a vivid imagination, and are quite less than truthful. Why should I not trust the government in these situations. I have also posted that there are many unanswered questions, for several reasons, National security, First time in a panic situation, possible war, things are overlooked. But just because a question is not answered, does not mean you can invent one. I suspect the one plane over Penn, may have been shot down, but so what. I never said I believe everything the government says, you made that up. There are many things going on, the general public just cannot know about. Especially in a free society where there are all the groups present.
I haven't imagined anything, your next statement confirms exactly what I posted. Why should you? What reason do you have to trust government in ANY situation? Where were they on 9/11? Where were they after 9/11? In fact they were MIA prior to 9/11 too, at least Bush was. You ask really idiot questions about trust when they are obviously untrustworthy. That's only one. So now you also trust the US government to tell you it's for "national security" purposes that they don't want you to know about "these situations", the one called 9/11. And you're ok with that? Yeah like the fact that there were never any WMDs, that was "overlooked". So they "panicked" and went to war massacring innocent men, women and children because shyt got "overlooked". I can ask and "invent" any question I want, who are you to say I can't? Like you mean questions to NIST such as why they concocted the data and failed to interview hundreds of eyewitnesses who claimed to have heard explosions and saw molten steel, iron or metal? Such as why they failed to make their work available for peer review? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to mention WTC7 or Rodriguez's testimony or Mineta's or Edmonds in their report? Why did they rely on and use testimony as key evidence that was taken 3rd party from a detainee who was mercilessly tortured and was not allowed to read the "confession" he signed? Those kinds of questions I am prohibited from inventing? Because you say so? So what? So you were LIED to that's so what. And if you were LIED to about that, what else were you LIED to about? What about those hundreds of thousand of documents you have no clue about and neither does anyone else? You trust that they're keeping all that from you for your own good? That's what NIST said when asked to share their data, models and methodology, just because there were basic physics questions about their theory, that to open up for show and tell would "jeopardize public safety". They didn't even want to discuss physics implications of their own work. And you're ok with that, you "trust" these charlatans? You're right, for the first time you question the Shanksville incident. Congrats, you actually think they're lying to you but that's ok for you, no problem. Like 9/11? Where does it say that in the Constitution? So in a "free society" you believe government should hide information such as 9/11? Like for those groups who want to know the truth about 9/11 because they know they're being lied to? Those groups? They "just cannot know about" 9/11? And I have a "vivid imagination"? I would rather have a vivid imagination than be a trusting complacent robot, any time. At least I can "imagine" questions you would never ask because you're a real trusting character.
Start watching this at the 1:17:00 time mark. What Happened On the Moon? Part 2 - Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets If they had the technology to soft-land unmanned robotic craft on the moon, they could have sent one that had adjustable reflectors attached to it. If the Sureyor program* was real, they had that technology. Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were men on the moon. Here's some more stuff for the viewers to check out. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUPX7KGp1cjY5HQqbjeoyC4Q * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
Here's more on the stars issue. http://www.aulis.com/stars.htm (excerpt) ------------------------------------- "Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." Melvill was amazed by the stars, whereas the Apollo astronauts were not. While defenders of NASA might say that the Apollo astronauts were simply emphasizing the blackness of space, and not the stars – we do know that the stars are indeed visible from the lunar surface. Of course the Apollo astronauts would have seen stars from the lunar surface as clearly and as vividly as did Mike Melvill. ------------------------------------- More stuff here. http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
I have no intention of responding to a page long rant. If you want to address things one at a time, so we can make a resolution, we can do so.
I don't "rant", I posted a response to your post. Just because you don't want to respond to it doesn't make it a "rant". I seriously doubt there is any resolution to be had with you nor do I care if there is or isn't, I'm only interested in adult intelligent discussions, regardless that they resolve anything or not. I wrote a post, it's your call how you want to respond to it or not. You also failed to answer my questioning your claim that I made something up. I am truly not concerned if you respond or don't, that's also your call. Often I just get some childish trolling silliness from you as a response and that garbage doesn't interest me.
All of the moon landing debunkers have been debunked. I'll go mano a mano. YOu tell me why you think it's fake, one item per post, and I'll rebut it. the moon landing could be shot in a studio, but that doesn't mean it was shot in a studio, let's get that one straight, you'll need a lot more than that to debunk the moon landing. one item per post, please.
We at least know the footage that NASA made public was faked in a studio but why would they show us fake footage if they really went? Only real footage would prove they went and there's none of that. The Apollo footage was filmed in air. Check out the movement of the flaps in this video. Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue (Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark) The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down. This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon. http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/ More proof of air. Air makes the flag move in this video. Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings. (2:35 time mark) These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it. Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement The flag that moved This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere. windyz.wmv (00:50 and 1:50 time marks) Here's some more stuff on the flag. Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+The+Flags+Are+Alive https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Flagging+The+Dead+Horses The anomalies that show that they were in air prove the hoax all by themselves.
No, they don't, and that point has been thoroughly debunked. Nevermind, there is overwhelming third party scientific confirmation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
I've never seen it debunked. Show us where and how it was debunked. Here's more on the flags and proof of air on the moon. AMERICAN MOON, 2017 https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/ (2:06:30 time mark) Wikipedia is part of the mainstream press which is under establishment control. IS WIKIPEDIA RELIABLE? - QUESTIONS FOR CORBETT #056 https://www.bitchute.com/video/XX0fcjS75zE/ You seem to have faith in the mainstream press. Here's some stuff for you to read. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+media The people who control the US government also control the governments of some other countries so they can give instruction to those governments on what positions they have to take on certain issues. https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=Bilderberg&x=22&y=16 A bunch of countries saying they have confirmed the moon missions don't prove anything because they might be lying.
? Why would the Soviet Union which was extremely opposed to the U.S. for the last 20 years of the Cold War keep such a secret of the U.S. that would be extremely embarrassing to the U.S.?
Wikipedia's reliability, like any source, is on a case by case basis, it's all about the annotations The annotations point to external source, none of which are 'written by wikipedia'. and this is just a partial list. "The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE (KAGUYA)" (Press release). Chōfu, Tokyo: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. May 20, 2009. Retrieved May 20,2008. ^ drbuzz0 (November 7, 2009). "Apollo 15: Confirmed Times Three". Depleted Cranium (Blog). Steve Packard. Archived from the originalon September 17, 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2013. ^ Chauhan, Prakash; Kirankumar, A. S. (September 10, 2009). "Chandrayaan-1 captures Halo around Apollo-15 landing site using stereoscopic views from Terrain Mapping Camera" (PDF). Current Science. Current Science Association in collaboration with the Indian Academy of Sciences. 97 (5): 630–31. ISSN 0011-3891. ^ Lina, Yang, ed. (February 6, 2012). "China publishes high-resolution full moon map". English.news.cn. Beijing: Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on May 27, 2013. Retrieved May 2, 2013. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m Keel, Bill (August 200. "Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions". Bill Keel's Space History Bits. ^ Scott & Leonov 2004, p. 247 ^ "The Moon Programme That Faltered". Spaceflight. London: British Interplanetary Society. 33: 2–3. March 1991. Bibcode:1991SpFl...33....2. ^ Hansen 2005, p. 639 ^ Perry, G. E. (196. "A school satellite tracking station as an aid to the teaching of physics" (PDF). Physics Education. 3 (6): 281. Bibcode:1968PhyEd...3..281P. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/3/6/301. ^ Roberts, G. (1986). "The Amateur and Artificial Satellites". Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa. 45: 5. Bibcode:1986MNSSA..45....5R. ^ Christy, Robert D. "Kettering Group Timeline". zarya.info. Retrieved May 9, 2013. ^ Liemohn, Harold B. (1969). "Feature Optical Observations of Apollo 8". Sky and Telescope. No. 3. p. 156. ^ Swaim, Dave (December 22, 196. "Apollo 8 Mission Leaves Earth on Historic Voyage". Independent Star News. Pasadena, California. p. 1. Retrieved May 9, 2013. The TLI firing was begun at 7:41 a.m. (PST) while the craft was over Hawaii, and it was reported there that the burn was visible from the ground. ^ "Apollo 10 Optical Tracking". Sky and Telescope. No. 7. 1969. pp. 62–63. ^ Hynek, J. Allen (April 1976). "The Corralitos Observatory Program for the Detection of Lunar Transient Phenomena". NASA Technical Reports Server. NASA. 76: 23125. Bibcode:1976STIN...7623125H. ^ Jump up to:a b "Bochum". A Tribute to Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. ^ "Observations of Apollo 11". Sky and Telescope. No. 11. 1969. pp. 358–359. ^ Portillo, Michael (June 2, 2005). "The other space race: Transcript". OpenLearn. Retrieved February 6, 2006. ^ "Recording of Russia's lunar gatecrash attempt released". Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics. 3 July 2009. Retrieved July 20, 2009. ^ Brown, Jonathan (3 July 2009). "Recording tracks Russia's Moon gatecrash attempt". The Independent. London. Retrieved July 20,2009. ^ Rutherford, Glenn (23 July 1969). "Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians Hear Moon Walk Talk on Homemade Equipment". The Courier-Journal. Louisville, KY. p. B1. Retrieved May 14, 2013. ^ "Otter Creek-South Harrison Observatory". Lunar Eavesdropping in Louisville, Kentucky. ^ "Optical Observations of Apollo 12". Sky and Telescope. No. 2. 1970. p. 127. ^ Inc, Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science (1 April 1971). "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. p. 33. ^ "Some Optical Observations of Apollo 14". Sky and Telescope. No. 4. 1971. p. 251. ^ Wilson, P. M.; Knadle, R. T. (June 1972). "Houston, This is Apollo...". QST. Newington, Connecticut: American Radio Relay League: 60–65. ^ "432 Record, W4HHK Apollo 16 Reception". QST. Newington, Connecticut: American Radio Relay League. June 1971. pp. 93–94. ^ "K2RIW Apollo 16 Reception & 2300 EME". QST. Newington, Connecticut: American Radio Relay League. July 1971. pp. 90–91. ^ Kaminski, H. (October–November 1972). "Sternwarte Bochum beobachtet US-Apollo-Mondexperimente" [Bochum Observatory Observed U.S. Apollo Moon Experiments] (PDF). Neues von Rohde & Schwarz (in German). 57. Munich: Rohde & Schwarz. pp. 24–27. Retrieved April 25, 2011. ^ Grahn, Sven. "Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida". Sven's Space Place. ^ Jump up to:a b James Papike; Grahm Ryder & Charles Shearer (199. "Lunar Samples". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 36: 5.1–5.234. ^ Pearlman, Robert (September 27, 2000). "House Passes Bill to Award Apollo Astronauts Moon Rocks". Space.com. New York: TechMediaNetwork, Inc. Archived from the original on October 17, 2000. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
Have you even looked? It's been debunked from number of sources. Many of those sources are listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
I dealt with this in the other thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-7#post-1071849067 They don't accept the clearest proof. A few years ago I posted this link on a page about the moon hoax in ¨Wikipedia. https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487 It was gone in less than a minute. When Neil Armstrong died it was front page news on Yahoo. All of the comments in the comment section said he was an American hero. It was all celebratory. I tried to post that same link in the comment section and it duly didn't appear. That's all been written by sophists who know the moon missions were faked. They don't address the clearest evidence such as what I posted in post #165 because it's too clear to obfuscate. Show me where those anomalies are addressed in Wikipedia.
Please look up the term, 'ignorance', then Meditate on the word, 'ignorance'. there really is nothing anyone can do for you. Ignoring the overwhelming facts, the salient one being independent confirmation tracking from several countries, well, there is only one valid thing to do in such a case, and that is to meditate on the word 'ignorance' until you have an epiphany, and not lose sight of the old adage: They can take a horse to water, but they can't make it drink See, the mind is very cunning, it is so cunning that it will trick you out of the very thing you want the most. What is the thing that you want the most? Well, Truth. What kind of mind would trick a thirsty mind out of an opportunity to drink the water that has been placed in front of him? A very cunning mind, indeed. Ahhh, Sophistry becomes you. It becomes YOU. Ahhh, the cunning mind will accuse others of that which it is. A cunning mind projects. See? I guess not, well, I tried. Cya
I gave a reply to this. It's at the bottom of this post. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-7#post-1071851819