Really? You think this irrelevant and rather tedious exchange is about the Moon landings? I asked you quite specifically - WHERE is your response to my first post. The totally on topic post that refutes your original post. Your failure to do this is because you did NOT reply to it. I understand maybe with all the 911 posts you keep making, that maybe you missed it. Post number 3. No lie being told by me! Post number 3. Does scrolling back and verifying this confuse you? For your information, this is where you stop acting the goat and admit that you were wrong. Surprise me. What I believe about qualified people is irrelevant. Clearly you DO routinely call anyone qualified who contradicts your 911 claims as liars. You even made the post that anyone who defends it is a shill or a fool. Numerous fully qualified people debate 911. I couldn't care less about verifying with you, that I question events. There is nothing skewed about your quote. If I gave you my name and my qualifications, it would make no difference. As we have already seen and proven, you routinely call known experts liars. Your meaningless rhetoric and evasion doesn't alter that fact. If it isn't about quantity, why did you give it a quantity, as in "mountain"? My understanding of evidence is just fine. I also have a keen eye for logic and critical thinking that is woefully lacking in conspiracy theorists. Bob, you are afraid to admit your errors. Period. There are many more like you and they belong to a group who are conspiracy theorists. Work out the obvious link. Declined. I have a challenge for YOU. Post something on topic!
There are scenarios that would explain this. If the Surveyor* program was real, they had the technology to land unmanned remote-control craft on the moon at that time. An unmanned craft with adjustable reflectors attached to its sides could reflect the signals. Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon. What Happened on the Moon (3:26:03 time mark) Sites such as that one are written by sophists who know the missions were faked; they only deal with the vaguer anomalies that are easy to obfuscate. They don't mention the clearest anomalies such as the flag moving without being touched. Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings. http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15 (reply #21) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
Regarding the original subject of this thread: https://www.yahoo.com/news/moon-landing-truthers-swear-photo-ultimate-proof-faked-171844599.html This seems to be a mistake made by a hoax-believer that was corrected. Paid sophists who probably work for public-relations agencies use these cases as "Debuniker food". They post a mistake that has been corrected and then act as if they'd debunked the whole hoax theory. This can sway viewers who haven't seen the rest of the hoax proof. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andings-ever-happened.512081/#post-1067871432 The bottom line is that there is plenty of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real. Most of the pro-Apollo posters have discredited themselves by saying lame things... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-33#post-1068295062 ...so they aren't to be taken seriously. They fact that they're here is circumstantial evidence of fakery.
Of course, I could have predicted that from your contradicting post of my claim that you question NOTHING of any US government narrative. I post that challenge to all those who rabidly defend official government narratives in all forums and the answer is always the same. They claim they question these narratives but never support their claims with any evidence. I have yet to come across one who actually does question any government narrative, all dishonest ... so far. But yet they all expect me to trust their maniacal defenses of US government narratives. And therefore, that's why I'd much rather this thread be: For those who don't believe the US sent humans to the Moon
I don't see how there could be so many "sophists" in on this conspiracy. Not only all the astronauts (and their families---none have come forward yet), but the thousands of people building the "fake" lunar equipment and all of the ground crew going along with the "faked shows." Since you believe that no man has set foot on the Moon, then what did all the fake Apollo missions from 11 on do? Did any of them actually circle the Moon or put unmanned equipment on the Moon. Or were they all faked? Where did all the Moon rocks come from? And were all the scientists who verified them in on the game as well?
It must really confuse you with the revelation that people can question things without the need to go on useless and futile public forums. 911 occurred 16 years ago and there is still just noise coming from the conspiracy theorists. The same with the lunar landings, 50 years on and we have isolated pockets of spam making the same debunked to death claims As for rabidly defending government incidents, I issue the same challenge to you! Show me where I have done this?
Telescopes orbiting the moon, yes. This involves a whole new perpetually ongoing group to magically and invisibly alter data transmitted from the Moon. The counter claim almost verbatim is that "pictures are fakeable therefore it doesn't prove anything". Those who spam such a claim never provide any evidence of this supposed fakery!
Could you please link to where you got that info? All I can find all sites that say it's impossible to see the landing sites from Earth with a telescope. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/ Pictures are fakable so the pictures that they say were taken by unmanned craft orbiting the moon aren't proof that the Apollo equipment is really there. The press is controlled. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-ever-happened.512081/page-2#post-1067872758 If someone were to try to come forward, the press wouldn't report what he says. All the footage made public is consistent with its having been taken in a studio and there are loads of anomalies in it so it kind of looks like it was all faked. If some of it had been real, they would have made it public. Their telling us that they collected moon rocks doesn't make the anomalies go away. There are plausible scenarios that would explain 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. NASA were 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. ---------------------------------------- https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f
Sorry, but basic logic does your theories in. There are too many people involved with too much oversight. And not a single person involved with these missions has come forward to say they were faked. It's just too bad that you are unable to give credit to America and the World's best and brightest for their great achievements. Your theories and evidence are as ridiculous as those of the Flat Earthers.
If the U.S. faked the moon landings why didn't the Soviets ever call them out on it? It would be a staggering propaganda blow to the U.S. and I can't believe the Soviets in the 1970s or 80s would've forgone the opportunity to reveal it. Nor can I believe the Soviets wouldn't have known at that time.
Show where they corrected this. A pathetic argument that primarily makes unsubstantiated claims of paid posters, as a means to avoid responding to their arguments. All of the puerile claims are debunker fodder! This "theory" you allude to has had the crap kicked out if it, ever since it first reared its ugly head. Answered completely here:- http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1 Itemize your best evidence. Your wall of spam has been addressed. We both know you won't do this, as you have refused on numerous occasions! Your normal response is to refer to your wall of spam and say THAT is a list. If you were that confident of this hoax it would be dead easy to make a short bullet point list. But then you know the debunks for all those bullet points are already out there. It's obvious you know your claims are nonsense. That's why you avoid responses. You keep using the word "lame", which you epitomize yourself by using inept, biased and opinion driven "credibility tests" to then dismiss every single response. Total cowardice and very much not a truther! As for there being zero proof of a landing, that is one of your most idiotic claims. The Apollo lunar samples are 100% proof. The LROC pictures, the laser reflectors, the tens of thousands of pictures all solid proof. The visual record shows footage that displays perfect lunar motion that cannot be reproduced by a speed change. You avoid footage like that because you cannot explain it. In addition to the above, there is numerous 3rd party correlation. Not least from Jodrell Bank tracking and Kaguya imaging that 100% matches surface photography. Furthermore, the volume of written data and reports from the Apollo missions is in the terabyte region. Spammed and answered. You are a serial forum spammer who disregards evidence and has no formal education in any discipline related to Apollo. Your opinion is worthless, biased and invariably wrong. Epic example of an insane circular argument! People argue against stupid hoaxes because they can. What your limited ability is able to take seriously is irrelevant. You have no concept of the total claim you are making. If you did you would know how dumb it was.
Somewhat, but more by editorial content. If there were anything that brought in revenue to the publication, by way of controversy or long running content, the news media would be like rabid dogs! Your claim that it is all censored because it was faked is pathetic, inaccurate and used as a means to explain away the impossible. That would be not one single verifiable and trustworthy whistleblower in the whole Apollo program. Not a single one. Hogwash. All this from a person who has barely watched any of the actual footage. Explain this video:- Visible prints, visible fine dust not suspending, lunar gravitational motion from the astronauts and the soil being dug and when speeded up to make the soil move correctly, the astronauts move at crazy speeds. You are cornered on just that small snippet of film. Your saying there are anomalies when there are not, doesn't make the proof of the rocks go away! No there are not. 1. They are from Earth? No, the lunar samples show evidence of solar isotope impregnation, have no water in the substance of the rock(within volcanic beads/crystals), show no terrestrial weathering, have impact craters from tiny meteorites. 2. They are meteorites? No, there is no terrestrial weathering at all, no water, no fusion crust, the outer layer has stronger helium 3 that a fusion crust and entry to atmosphere would burn away - and many more items. 3. They were brought back unmanned? No, this involves a completely parallel space program involving development, testing, tracking. landing and return. Not one single witness testimony to that. It involves also, creating something that at that time and even today would be extremely difficult to do. The Apollo samples include 3 metre core drillings. It would take quite some piece of hardware to do that! Furthermore, for the unmanned landers to return to Earth with such large payloads, requires very large rockets to get the hardware to the Moon, and also launch windows that allow a lunar landing in the places that correspond to where Apollo landed. NONE of these scenarios is remotely plausible. A pack of lies. None of the simulated Moon rocks have solar isotopes, volcanic beads formed in low gravity, no zap-pits, all have terrestrial weathering and all have ambient water content within them. Cornered. Casual viewers can see this serial forum spammer avoid all of this.
No Bob, that is my opinion on the sum total of the 16 years discussion of 911. It is not rabidly defending anything. Perhaps you need me to explain the difference.
You don't need to explain your own confirmation of my assessment of you. The pattern is quite familiar and therefore quite predictable. A litany of rabid defenses and not one single question.
People who tout photographs as "evidence" of a fake moon landing ignore something very big. Until the late 1990s or so, the technology did not exist to take and reproduce photos from the moon, or Mars or Jupiter where ever to a "looking out the window that is what you would see quality". The most famous NASA photographs that dominate the news, textbooks what have you are composite photos. Or enhancements. Or false color composite/enhancements.
What a tedious individual you are, off topic in your own thread and "discussing" like a child. You don't know the difference between rabid defense and expressing an opinion. You also failed to respond to the only real on topic post in response to your article. An article that was spoon fed to you by a mainstream source, you didn't question it and it was hopelessly wrong on all accounts. None too impressive Bob.
Still not one question about any official narrative, huh? It's all settled in your world and the truth is what the US government says is the truth, as it always is, case closed. Those who disagree are conspiracy theory wackos. And you are also here defending these stories 24/7. Sorry, but I'm much more interested in posts from those who have questions and contradictory theories, they are much. much more interesting to me. Why? Because I have many questions and I know we're always being lied to and these people you hate are wide awake and not the enemy. Like I said, maybe humans set foot on the moon, maybe they didn't but I sure as **** will never ever spend 24/7 defending any US government narrative 24/7 and question none of it. I'm not a fool or a shill and certainly not gullible. And to be sure, whenever I can and with whatever medium I have access to, I will spend my remaining days exposing government lies and crimes because I agree with the founders: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson Unfortunately the Constitution never prevented the second from becoming the legalized version of the first (see the latest news: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/welcome-to-amerika-land-of-the-free.520104/ ). Back to the OP, I posted it primarily for the reason already emphasized multiple times and because I expected posts from both sides of the issue anyway and I find the posts quite interesting, even some of your defenses.
Huh? Didn't you see my post? I don't need to ask questions about official narratives, especially on internet forums. I am perfectly capable of assessing whether something stinks the place up or not. You seem obsessed with whether I automatically believe everything presented by media and government. No Bob, making baseless claims like that are inflammatory. I certainly do not believe everything the government presents, but am not as obsessed about "discussing" it as you are. Somewhat. Don't lie Bob. I defend the Moon landings because I have tons of free time and deplore the fools who claim it was faked. I don't tend to discuss a whole lot else. Certainly not 24/7 as I need my sleep! No problem, I'll let you get on with your quest for the truth. I don't hate you Bob, having an opinion that contradicts yours enables the discussion in the first place! I did question it in the most in depth way I could. I found total consistency throughout and the so called proof a load of hogwash. People performed Apollo, so labelling it as a government thing is both inaccurate and misleading. Good for you, be that man. Labelling your opponents as shills is a get out clause. They aren't fools, shills and they aren't gullible. One group is mainly wrong with probably a little grey area in between. Then let's leave it at that. I have nothing further to say on 911.
But you feel the need to defend them, especially on internet forums. Biased much? Exactly what I mean. You've already made your position quite clear.
Is it possible for you to quit being a jerk? You seem intent on continuing this pathetic aside with nothing more than your inept claim that I defend government "hoaxes". I don't care where you obtained this notion, but it is bullcrap. I've already expressed my opinion. We've already established that "an opinion" and 'rabid defending" are confusing terms to you! Your persistnce in this meaningless drivel does nothing to dissuade me about conspiracy theorists being "whack jobs". It's almost as though you class yourself as a warrior for the truth just because there ARE people who DO argue against your claims.
What's bullcrap is your claim. Once again you pervert what I posted. I never said anything about government "hoaxes", I used the term NARRATIVES. There is a world of difference between the 2 terms. 1. If it's "drivel" to you why bother responding? 2. I wouldn't want to dissuade you from calling yourself a "whack job" as a result of YOU defending US government conspiracy theories without question. A conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy theorist if it's an adherence to any conspiracy, whether it's a government theory or not. There are tens of thousands of people mostly in the intelligence and criminal justice systems who make a very lucrative living based on conspiracy theories. So in your world they're all "whack jobs"? Or is it that you just don't understand what a conspiracy theory(ist) is? It's not even remotely true, never mind "almost". A liar is a liar is a liar. And when the consequences of those lies result in crimes against humanity (as with 9/11), one is either complicit for defending those lies or a coward for not speaking out against those lies. I don't care if no one or the entire planet argues against these claims, it's irrelevant to what I do.
I asked you to stop being a jerk. Your response is to double down? I'm not the one making the damn claim! You are. I'm denying it. I don't defend anything by the American government, Apollo was performed by a space agency and anyone who thinks that the government somehow orchestrated this idiotic hoax, is themselves an idiot. What else do I defend? You are a liar if you claim I do 24/7 when clearly I don't. Your weasel semantic use of "narrative" instead of "hoax" is irrelevant to me. I find it really bizarre that you make an accusation about me defending "narratives" then complain when I say I don't defend hoaxes, when to me there is little difference! Because you don't know how to shut up? Bob, you are a liar. I don't defend things without question - you just made that up. I don't defend 911 at all, I just express my opinion on it. Only the very dense cannot see the difference. Maybe you need to use the same thesaurus for the two as you did for "narratives" and "hoaxes"! You are the conspiracy theorist, whether you like it or not. Sure, you can play your puerile games and attempt to turn it round, but it matters not. If you say so. I understand the term perfectly, I just reject most of the nonsense you spout. Including your definition of it. Whatever. Tell me about the lies. Are they about there being no planes at the WTC? Or no plane at the Pentagon? Or space weapons? Or nukes? Or demolition charges impervious to flames that fire and give way at the very floor the planes hit? Or maybe it's building 7 that is supposedly rigged to explode, on fire for most of the day. You brave virtuous warrior. You aren't a delusional sanctimonious person at all.
