I am new to the group and I joined in search for an answer to this question: Were all the moon landings fake or only the 1969 one?None of them were fake. You can still detect the stuff they left behind (retreoreflectors), and see the stuff they brought back. (moon rocks)
I am new to the group and I joined in search for an answer to this question: Were all the moon landings fake or only the 1969 one?None of them were fake. You can still detect the stuff they left behind (retreoreflectors), and see the stuff they brought back. (moon rocks)
No. I am referring to moon rocks.I am new to the group and I joined in search for an answer to this question: Were all the moon landings fake or only the 1969 one?None of them were fake. You can still detect the stuff they left behind (retreoreflectors), and see the stuff they brought back. (moon rocks)
By moon rocks, are you referring to petrified wood?
No. I am referring to moon rocks.I am new to the group and I joined in search for an answer to this question: Were all the moon landings fake or only the 1969 one?None of them were fake. You can still detect the stuff they left behind (retreoreflectors), and see the stuff they brought back. (moon rocks)
By moon rocks, are you referring to petrified wood?
They don't. They give moon rocks away.
I don't need to, cause I never say dumb things. ;DThey don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
I don't need to, cause I never say dumb things. ;DThey don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
Why would I search for fake moon rocks? The astronauts didn't bring those back with them. They brought moon rocks back with them.I don't need to, cause I never say dumb things. ;DThey don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
You could probably try a simple search on Google and find out all about fake moon rocks. Just a suggestion.
Why would I search for fake moon rocks? The astronauts didn't bring those back with them. They brought moon rocks back with them.I don't need to, cause I never say dumb things. ;DThey don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
You could probably try a simple search on Google and find out all about fake moon rocks. Just a suggestion.
Then why do your scientists present petrified wood as evidence of a moon landing?They don't. They present moon rocks as evidence of a moon landing.
Then why do your scientists present petrified wood as evidence of a moon landing?They don't. They present moon rocks as evidence of a moon landing.
Yes. I have done research. They definitely presented moon rocks as a result from them going to the moon.Then why do your scientists present petrified wood as evidence of a moon landing?They don't. They present moon rocks as evidence of a moon landing.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you. Have you done any research yet?
Yes. I have done research. They definitely presented moon rocks as a result from them going to the moon.Then why do your scientists present petrified wood as evidence of a moon landing?They don't. They present moon rocks as evidence of a moon landing.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you. Have you done any research yet?
They never gave away petrified trees. They gave away moon rocks.
I am not calling anybody a liar. I am just correcting your misinformed statements.
Correct. They never gave away petrified wood as moon rocks. They gave away moon rocks as moon rocks.
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
They don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
They never gave away petrified trees. They gave away moon rocks.
So yeah, back to the original question, none of the moon landings were fake. ;)
So yeah, back to the original question, none of the moon landings were fake. ;)
There was no dust on the LEM landing pads though, that is a bit weird. On 16mm footage you can see a lot of dust being blown away when the Apollo 11 LEM descents. No dust clouds are formed by this blowing, why not?
So yeah, back to the original question, none of the moon landings were fake. ;)
There was no dust on the LEM landing pads though, that is a bit weird. On 16mm footage you can see a lot of dust being blown away when the Apollo 11 LEM descents. No dust clouds are formed by this blowing, why not?
Ironically, this is one of the POSITIVE PROOFS of the apollo landing. Only in a pure vacuum could you land and expel dust in a parabolic trajectory out from the landing site without an atmosphere forming clouds.
Yet another proof.
No, they just went to the moon instead.So yeah, back to the original question, none of the moon landings were fake. ;)
There was no dust on the LEM landing pads though, that is a bit weird. On 16mm footage you can see a lot of dust being blown away when the Apollo 11 LEM descents. No dust clouds are formed by this blowing, why not?
Ironically, this is one of the POSITIVE PROOFS of the apollo landing. Only in a pure vacuum could you land and expel dust in a parabolic trajectory out from the landing site without an atmosphere forming clouds.
Yet another proof.
They made a vacuum chamber for this? the view was pretty narrow, and you only have to do it for one scene.
They don't. They give moon rocks away.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, said the museum will keep the relic as a curiosity.Read more: Embarrassment as 'moon rock' in museum turns out to be just a piece of petrified wood (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209445/Fake-dutch-moon-rock-causes-embarrassment-museum.html#ixzz4IxGZf83F)
'It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered,' she said. 'We can laugh about it.'
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Dreesman in 1988.
Dreesman received it as a private gift in 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf who accompanied the Apollo 11 astronauts on a visit to The Netherlands after the first moon landing.
Mr Middendorf told how the rock came from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
'Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection,' Ms Van Gelder said.
The rock is not usually on display at the museum, which is primarily known for fine art by masters including Rembrandt.
'It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone,' said Geologist Frank Beunk from Amsterdam's Free University. He said he could see at a glance the rock was not from the moon.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, to support the claim that the Apollo 11 astronauts gave any moon rock to anyone on the post-mission goodwill tour.Probably because the astronauts gave the rocks back to NASA, and didn't just throw them at people at the parade.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the petrified wood was part of an art exhibition by two Dutch artists who specialise in thought provoking stunts, combined with the fading memories of elderly politicians.
Why would they fake only one?
Why would they fake only one?
Better yet, if they faked it before why haven't they faked an even bigger feat by now? As to OP shalom and welcome to the forum.
Why would they fake only one?
Better yet, if they faked it before why haven't they faked an even bigger feat by now? As to OP shalom and welcome to the forum.
its a good point. If you can 'fake' a moon landing 47 years ago using computers less powerful than your digital watch, then a mars landing and Neptune landing should have occured by now.
Why would they fake only one?
Better yet, if they faked it before why haven't they faked an even bigger feat by now? As to OP shalom and welcome to the forum.
You can do better than that. you can actually pay to go to the ISS via the Russians. Costs $40M-80M so it probably excludes you and the vast majority of people. Plus you have to be fit and... sane.
its a good point. If you can 'fake' a moon landing 47 years ago using computers less powerful than your digital watch, then a mars landing and Neptune landing should have occured by now.
Low orbit private space flights should have occurred by now as well.
You can do better than that. you can actually pay to go to the ISS via the Russians. Costs $40M-80M so it probably excludes you and the vast majority of people. Plus you have to be fit and... sane.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, to support the claim that the Apollo 11 astronauts gave any moon rock to anyone on the post-mission goodwill tour.Probably because the astronauts gave the rocks back to NASA, and didn't just throw them at people at the parade.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the petrified wood was part of an art exhibition by two Dutch artists who specialise in thought provoking stunts, combined with the fading memories of elderly politicians.
You can do better than that. you can actually pay to go to the ISS via the Russians. Costs $40M-80M so it probably excludes you and the vast majority of people. Plus you have to be fit and... sane.
Even Russia has not pretended to send a paying customer to space since 2009.
You can do better than that. you can actually pay to go to the ISS via the Russians. Costs $40M-80M so it probably excludes you and the vast majority of people. Plus you have to be fit and... sane.
Even Russia has not pretended to send a paying customer to space since 2009.
That could have something to do with their crippled economy and diminished currency.
Why would they fake only one?
Better yet, if they faked it before why haven't they faked an even bigger feat by now? As to OP shalom and welcome to the forum.
its a good point. If you can 'fake' a moon landing 47 years ago using computers less powerful than your digital watch, then a mars landing and Neptune landing should have occured by now.
Low orbit private space flights should have occurred by now as well.
You can do better than that. you can actually pay to go to the ISS via the Russians. Costs $40M-80M so it probably excludes you and the vast majority of people. Plus you have to be fit and... sane.
Even Russia has not pretended to send a paying customer to space since 2009.
(http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/russianameri.jpg)In this Thursday, July 7, 2016, file photo, the Soyuz-FG rocket booster with Soyuz MS space ship carrying a new crew to the International Space Station, ISS, blasts off at the Russian leased Baikonur cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. The capsule carrying astronauts from Russia, Japan and the United States has docked with the International Space Station Saturday after a two-day voyage. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, File)
Read more at: Russian, American, Japanese astronauts board space station July 9, 2016 (http://phys.org/news/2016-07-russian-american-japanese-astronauts-board.html#jCp)
Is it cheaper for me to pretend to drive to California, or to drive there?
Why would they fake only one?
Better yet, if they faked it before why haven't they faked an even bigger feat by now? As to OP shalom and welcome to the forum.
its a good point. If you can 'fake' a moon landing 47 years ago using computers less powerful than your digital watch, then a mars landing and Neptune landing should have occured by now.
Low orbit private space flights should have occurred by now as well.
Is it cheaper for me to pretend to drive to California, or to drive there?
Is it cheaper to drive to California or orchestrate a worldwide conspiracy set into motion with the sole purpose of convincing the world you drove to california?
Real ???
::)
You can sooOOOOOOO obviously see that some kind of front or back screen projection was used to mix per-recorded slow-mo footage with a set. Look how translucence the astronauts are! and sometimes they completely disappear in the background. :-[
---- Hey
wait aminute... why would they deliberately do such a crap job when much better is possible, like on 2001 a space odyssey.
Thatdoesn'tmake sense...
Maybe they left hints for future generations to show that it was fake? each generation gets smarterer, we now have the brain power to catch the hint, while back in the day our eyes and brains weren't evolved enough to notice it.Weak argument/pseudo p-rrrr-o-o-f without any evidence or knowledge on the subject,
It would be odd IF it were true. But it isn't. The astronauts did not give petrified wood away.No. I am referring to moon rocks.I am new to the group and I joined in search for an answer to this question: Were all the moon landings fake or only the 1969 one?None of them were fake. You can still detect the stuff they left behind (retreoreflectors), and see the stuff they brought back. (moon rocks)
By moon rocks, are you referring to petrified wood?
Kind of odd, then, that your astronauts give petrified wood away as moon landing evidence, would you not say?
Correct, they never gave away petrified wood as moon rocks. See previous post.I am not calling anybody a liar. I am just correcting your misinformed statements.
So, the astronauts never gave away petrified wood as moon rocks? Please, good sir, do a little research.
Whether the "moon rocks" are real or not, showing moon rock is not proof of landing on the moon. Unmanned missions can achieve that also.They can. But compare the Russian unmanned probes. Multiple probes returned a few grams of surface dust. On the other hand the US has over 800 pounds of dust, rocks and core samples. Core samples could not be retrieved unmanned.
Leaving stuff on the moon. Again, that can be done unmanned. Whether it's there or not is not relevant proof of man landing on the moon.Many of the experiments had to be manually setup
The only actual "proof" the American government (who was at war with the soviet at the time) gave till today were the photos and the live stream controlled by NASA who despite having higher res video feed from the claimed 130,000 miles approaching lunar orbit and did not allow a direct feed and only provided an outdated 2nd generation lower res black and white projected feed so no details are visible.And the rocks, and the tracking, and the testimony, and the eyewitnesses that saw the rockets leaving earth orbit, and the warehouses full of documentation, etc.
1. Live video feed.... very strong evidences of fakery.Nope. None of it stands up to scrutiny
2. Photos.... too many inconsistencies and scientifically incorrect data... no I won't list anything as it's all online if anyone is genuinely interestedNONE of it stands up to scrutiny. Everything hoaxies present only shows their ignorance.
I guess the 2 biggest evidences of never landing on the moon is the Van Allen Belt (also confirmed by NASA weirdly)which they went around
and the leaked video dated where they staged the distance from Earth orbit.not leaked. It was broadcast live at the time. And it doesn't show that it was from Earth orbit. Sibrel wants you to believe that so you'll buy his stuff. He cut out the part of the footage that proves him wrong.
All astronauts flipped when approached about this and refused to answer. If anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon otherwise I feel sorry for all.Another lie from Sibrel. The astronauts reacted to him not the supposed fake footage. He was a known and convicted stalker. He admitted in court that he would call them liars no matter how they reacted. He had multiple astronauts that did swear on the bible as he requested but he doesn't like to show you that footage.
Whether the "moon rocks" are real or not, showing moon rock is not proof of landing on the moon. Unmanned missions can achieve that also.
Leaving stuff on the moon. Again, that can be done unmanned. Whether it's there or not is not relevant proof of man landing on the moon.
The only actual "proof" the American government (who was at war with the soviet at the time) gave till today were the photos and the live stream controlled by NASA
who despite having higher res video feed from the claimed 130,000 miles approaching lunar orbit and did not allow a direct feed and only provided an outdated 2nd generation lower res black and white projected feed so no details are visible.
1. Live video feed.... very strong evidences of fakery.
2. Photos.... too many inconsistencies and scientifically incorrect data... no I won't list anything as it's all online if anyone is genuinely interested
I guess the 2 biggest evidences of never landing on the moon is the Van Allen Belt (also confirmed by NASA weirdly)
and the leaked video dated where they staged the distance from Earth orbit.
All astronauts flipped when approached about this and refused to answer. If anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon otherwise I feel sorry for all.
You should probably perform at least the slightest bit of research before you say dumb things.Coming from you that's pretty funny.
... why would they deliberately do such a crap job when much better is possible, like on 2001 a space odyssey.Because of the equipment.
side effect of the camera used. You did know there was more than one mission though, right? And the later missions with better cameras don't show that?t
You can sooOOOOOOO obviously see that some kind of front or back screen projection was used to mix per-recorded slow-mo footage with a set. Look how translucence the astronauts are! and sometimes they completely disappear in the background.
... why would they deliberately do such a crap job when much better is possible, like on 2001 a space odyssey.2001 had scenes that were not lunar gravity and which showed signs of an atmosphere with clouds of dust.
... why would they deliberately do such a crap job when much better is possible, like on 2001 a space odyssey.Because of the equipment.
They can. But compare the Russian unmanned probes. Multiple probes returned a few grams of surface dust. On the other hand the US has over 800 pounds of dust, rocks and core samples. Core samples could not be retrieved unmanned.Quantity is irrelevant when there's no guaranteed method to differentiate the moon rocks from some volcano rocks scientists tested to be the same. It's a claim vs another claim. Also, core samples can be retrieved unmanned. NASA has done amazing things in space and retrieving a core sample and lots of it too is most likely (in my opinion) an easy task for NASA.
Many of the experiments had to be manually setupAny information or evidence on this? I mean about the experiments
Further, there is no evidence of an unmanned program to do these things. Who built the probes? Who operated them? Who retrieved them? There is no evidence of any of it but there is evidence of a manned program.
And the rocks, and the tracking, and the testimony, and the eyewitnesses that saw the rockets leaving earth orbit, and the warehouses full of documentation, etc.Rocks... not proof as mentioned
You do realize there were more landings than just Apollo 11, right? The problems you mention ONLY apply to Apollo 11
As for the high res video, that was taken with a camera in the CM. The video from the surface was taken with a different camera with lower bandwidth requirements. And the video quality improved on later missions.
Nope. None of it stands up to scrutinyThere's no more to this then.. you believe the photos and I don't.. https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=76620 here's just some of the things and believe me there's so much more it's hard to keep track
NONE of it stands up to scrutiny. Everything hoaxies present only shows their ignorance.
which they went aroundNo they didn't.. they went through it. The astronauts (scientists) didn't know much about it either did they?
not leaked. It was broadcast live at the time. And it doesn't show that it was from Earth orbit. Sibrel wants you to believe that so you'll buy his stuff. He cut out the part of the footage that proves him wrong."It doesn't show that it's from Earth orbit" - exactly.. that's the whole point of faking it. I watched the video you posted. Practice camera control? They flew into orbit to practice how to hold the camera against a window? And the fact this practice video was dated during the moon mission doesn't mean anything?
Another lie from Sibrel. The astronauts reacted to him not the supposed fake footage. He was a known and convicted stalker. He admitted in court that he would call them liars no matter how they reacted. He had multiple astronauts that did swear on the bible as he requested but he doesn't like to show you that footage.I'm not going by his video entirely. I saw the astronaut's reactions to the question. Not the retaliation upon being harassed and stalked and being called cowards etc coz anyone would punch him in the face for that whether right or wrong.
Except when you have live TV footage of them putting it in place exactly where they claimed it is, and when you have images in the photos, 16mm and live TV footage that were not visible in any pre-Apollo images, and when you get data sent back from the equipment they installed as soon as they installed it, and when amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth monitor transmissions from the moon, then it all becomes a little more difficult to dismiss. You can do marvellous things with unmanned probes, but nothing like as much as you can with people.This information again doesn't prove that it was not done with unmanned missions.
NASA don't offer anything as 'proof' - they don't have to answer to people who don't believe them. The offer results. If you want to look at what else they offered as proof, maybe take a look at the many scientific papers resulting from the data and collected by Apollo. I have 8 thick volumes from lunar science conferences, not to mention numerous lunar geology texts, that all analyse NASA's data from Apollo. Photos and other imagery are just scratching the surface.
There are enough details visible in the TV broadcasts to pick out surface features visible in LRO photographs of the landing site. The live TV broadcasts from cislunar space show images of Earth that can only have been taken on the date and at the time of broadcast. Images from those broadcasts were published in newspapers and books at the time, not years later.
So you think geologists can't tell the difference between a rock formed in 1/6 gravity, never exposed to liquid water, and exposed to millions of years of cosmic rays from a volcanic rock? Sorry, but you'd be wrong.QuoteThey can. But compare the Russian unmanned probes. Multiple probes returned a few grams of surface dust. On the other hand the US has over 800 pounds of dust, rocks and core samples. Core samples could not be retrieved unmanned.Quantity is irrelevant when there's no guaranteed method to differentiate the moon rocks from some volcano rocks scientists tested to be the same.
It's a claim vs another claim. Also, core samples can be retrieved unmanned. NASA has done amazing things in space and retrieving a core sample and lots of it too is most likely (in my opinion) an easy task for NASA.No, they couldn't at the time. They are still struggling with that task today IIRC.
There were many experiments performed during Apollo that returned data even after they left. I'm not going to track it all down for you.QuoteMany of the experiments had to be manually setupAny information or evidence on this? I mean about the experiments
Further, there is no evidence of an unmanned program to do these things. Who built the probes? Who operated them? Who retrieved them? There is no evidence of any of it but there is evidence of a manned program.
Except you were wrong.QuoteAnd the rocks, and the tracking, and the testimony, and the eyewitnesses that saw the rockets leaving earth orbit, and the warehouses full of documentation, etc.Rocks... not proof as mentioned
You do realize there were more landings than just Apollo 11, right? The problems you mention ONLY apply to Apollo 11
As for the high res video, that was taken with a camera in the CM. The video from the surface was taken with a different camera with lower bandwidth requirements. And the video quality improved on later missions.
Testimony... not proofSure just call them all liars. ::)
Eye witness of rockets leaving earth orbit... eye witness of leaving earth only, not earth orbit.. doesn't prove the landings eitherNo, there were witnesses of the rocket leaving Earth orbit. The translunar burn was observed. Where else would they go?
Faking ONE mission is sufficient.. why would they make the same error twice?Are you saying the others weren't faked? ???
From the linked post there is the usual about the shadow angles. NONE show multiple shadows which would be seen with multiple lights. ALL can be explained with perspective and terrain. Then there is jpeg compression and dusty lens. Then Jack White's ignorant claim that the rover is packaged when what is in the photo was NOT the rover. It was stored in the other quad and in the photo is a pallet of scientific experiments. The supposed reflection of a studio light in the visor is in the EXACT same position in multiple images. Impossible for a reflection but not for a smudge on the glass. It goes on with much of the same ignorance.QuoteNope. None of it stands up to scrutinyThere's no more to this then.. you believe the photos and I don't.. https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=76620 here's just some of the things and believe me there's so much more it's hard to keep track
NONE of it stands up to scrutiny. Everything hoaxies present only shows their ignorance.
Nope. Their trajectory took them around it. Always has. As for your other statement, ONE astronaut didn't know much about the belts. So what? It was a preplanned trajectory, it wasn't like they had to steer Buck Rogers style around obstacles. They didn't have to know because it wasn't that important.Quotewhich they went aroundNo they didn't.. they went through it. The astronauts (scientists) didn't know much about it either did they?
YOU claimed it showed them in Earth orbit. It does not. It shows them where they claimed to be halfway to the Moon. It happened during the mission which is why it is dated during the mission.Quotenot leaked. It was broadcast live at the time. And it doesn't show that it was from Earth orbit. Sibrel wants you to believe that so you'll buy his stuff. He cut out the part of the footage that proves him wrong."It doesn't show that it's from Earth orbit" - exactly.. that's the whole point of faking it. I watched the video you posted. Practice camera control? They flew into orbit to practice how to hold the camera against a window? And the fact this practice video was dated during the moon mission doesn't mean anything?
They ALL knew he was scum. They'd heard of him and how he had treated others. They knew who he was. They were reacting to him.QuoteAnother lie from Sibrel. The astronauts reacted to him not the supposed fake footage. He was a known and convicted stalker. He admitted in court that he would call them liars no matter how they reacted. He had multiple astronauts that did swear on the bible as he requested but he doesn't like to show you that footage.I'm not going by his video entirely. I saw the astronaut's reactions to the question. Not the retaliation upon being harassed and stalked and being called cowards etc coz anyone would punch him in the face for that whether right or wrong.
Then show evidence for these unmanned missions.QuoteExcept when you have live TV footage of them putting it in place exactly where they claimed it is, and when you have images in the photos, 16mm and live TV footage that were not visible in any pre-Apollo images, and when you get data sent back from the equipment they installed as soon as they installed it, and when amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth monitor transmissions from the moon, then it all becomes a little more difficult to dismiss. You can do marvellous things with unmanned probes, but nothing like as much as you can with people.This information again doesn't prove that it was not done with unmanned missions.
There are no identical backgrounds from 3 different locations. There are SIMILAR distant mountains that don't change much due to perspective but that is to be expected. There is also a third-party documentary that used two clips from the same EVA of one mission at the same location but the voiceover made a mistake and claimed a separate EVA. NOT a NASA claim.QuoteThere are enough details visible in the TV broadcasts to pick out surface features visible in LRO photographs of the landing site. The live TV broadcasts from cislunar space show images of Earth that can only have been taken on the date and at the time of broadcast. Images from those broadcasts were published in newspapers and books at the time, not years later.
Does this include identical backgrounds from 3 different locations on the moon?
For the rest of it..... I do not claim they did or didn't land. But the landing evidence is not strong and the hoax evidence are stronger. I dreamed of feeling the moon missions and how wonderful it would have been. I'm not a deluded flat earther but I can deduce from evidence provided from both sides to sadly realise that moon landings were political and not scientific in nature.There is no evidence of a hoax.
If anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon
QuoteQuote from: observer on Today at 05:36:09 PMThere is no evidence of a hoax.
For the rest of it..... I do not claim they did or didn't land. But the landing evidence is not strong and the hoax evidence are stronger. I dreamed of feeling the moon missions and how wonderful it would have been. I'm not a deluded flat earther but I can deduce from evidence provided from both sides to sadly realise that moon landings were political and not scientific in nature.
I guess thisNot at all. No one answered about the fake video.. the only answer I got was that it was training but that's already debunked since it was dated during the moon missions.QuoteIf anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon
was a lie then. They DID go around the belts in addition to the guy who discovered them said they weren't a problem, and the video was not only not leaked but doesn't show what Sibrel claims it does.
As all the initial points are pretty going in circles I'll not bother as I've said what I had to say. You can consider it a win for yourself if that makes you happy. It doesn't bother me because only information is important to me.
I'll address the last two points though:QuoteThere is no evidence of a hoax.
There's plenty. Just like there's plenty of claims about the humans landing on the moon.
QuoteNot at all. No one answered about the fake video.. the only answer I got was that it was training but that's already debunked since it was dated during the moon missions.
You can look at this website
http://www.apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html
or mine
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1a.html
to see just how short of reality Sibrel's claims fall.
Thank you for proving you didn't read the links provided or really watch the videos. It occurred during the mission. It was partially broadcast live at the time. What is the problem with practicing how to use the camera on the mission itself? Nobody claimed it was a different time.QuoteI guess thisNot at all. No one answered about the fake video.. the only answer I got was that it was training but that's already debunked since it was dated during the moon missions.QuoteIf anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon
was a lie then. They DID go around the belts in addition to the guy who discovered them said they weren't a problem, and the video was not only not leaked but doesn't show what Sibrel claims it does.
You're welcomeThank you for proving you didn't read the links provided or really watch the videos. It occurred during the mission. It was partially broadcast live at the time. What is the problem with practicing how to use the camera on the mission itself? Nobody claimed it was a different time.QuoteI guess thisNot at all. No one answered about the fake video.. the only answer I got was that it was training but that's already debunked since it was dated during the moon missions.QuoteIf anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon
was a lie then. They DID go around the belts in addition to the guy who discovered them said they weren't a problem, and the video was not only not leaked but doesn't show what Sibrel claims it does.
how can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
its a concentrated light source that gives off light just like the sun,the stars in the firmament(the dome,the lense) produce the light and then its focused down through the lense giving us the sun and moonhow can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
Why did you get the idea that this would work?
its a concentrated light source that gives off light just like the sun,the stars in the firmament(the dome,the lense) produce the light and then its focused down through the lense giving us the sun and moonhow can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
Why did you get the idea that this would work?
ask your god if you have got one and leave your books aloneits a concentrated light source that gives off light just like the sun,the stars in the firmament(the dome,the lense) produce the light and then its focused down through the lense giving us the sun and moonhow can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
Why did you get the idea that this would work?
Can I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,
That is incorrect. There is no dome. The sun and stars are fundamentally the same things, just the sun is much closer.its a concentrated light source that gives off light just like the sun,the stars in the firmament(the dome,the lense) produce the light and then its focused down through the lense giving us the sun and moonhow can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
Why did you get the idea that this would work?
yes there is a dome and yes the sun and moon are the same,you just said the sun is much closer and your very right,its much closer to us than the moon is,yeehaaaThat is incorrect. There is no dome. The sun and stars are fundamentally the same things, just the sun is much closer.its a concentrated light source that gives off light just like the sun,the stars in the firmament(the dome,the lense) produce the light and then its focused down through the lense giving us the sun and moonhow can they land on a light,its just a light,they might have been through it but definately not on itThey can't, since light moves at the speed of light.
Why did you get the idea that this would work?
Can I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,
ask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
who took the photos of them landing on the moon,dont tell me they dropped someone off first then came back down,or the sent out a big arm with a camera on,hahahaCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
That question is so absurdly stupid... please go see a doctor.who took the photos of them landing on the moon,dont tell me they dropped someone off first then came back down,or the sent out a big arm with a camera on,hahahaCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
hahaha your crazy,wake up,dont you think the russians arnt in on it too,omg theres no hope for you your to far gone and they have got youThat question is so absurdly stupid... please go see a doctor.who took the photos of them landing on the moon,dont tell me they dropped someone off first then came back down,or the sent out a big arm with a camera on,hahahaCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0uzcrrqb7lqieh/yes-1.jpg?dl=1)
I am not going to answer a question that shows you have done no research AT ALL. The Apollo 11 LEM landing was filmed from inside the LEM.
How else do you think they recorded the moon from inside the LEM? through its windows!hahaha your crazy,wake up,dont you think the russians arnt in on it too,omg theres no hope for you your to far gone and they have got youThat question is so absurdly stupid... please go see a doctor.who took the photos of them landing on the moon,dont tell me they dropped someone off first then came back down,or the sent out a big arm with a camera on,hahahaCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0uzcrrqb7lqieh/yes-1.jpg?dl=1)
I am not going to answer a question that shows you have done no research AT ALL. The Apollo 11 LEM landing was filmed from inside the LEM.
hahahahaha have you been drinkingHow else do you think they recorded the moon from inside the LEM? through its windows!hahaha your crazy,wake up,dont you think the russians arnt in on it too,omg theres no hope for you your to far gone and they have got youThat question is so absurdly stupid... please go see a doctor.who took the photos of them landing on the moon,dont tell me they dropped someone off first then came back down,or the sent out a big arm with a camera on,hahahaCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0uzcrrqb7lqieh/yes-1.jpg?dl=1)
I am not going to answer a question that shows you have done no research AT ALL. The Apollo 11 LEM landing was filmed from inside the LEM.
How else do you think they recorded the moon from inside the LEM? through its windows!
hahahahaha have you been drinkingYou asked how they recorded the LEM landing of Apollo 11. This was done with a 16mm film camera pointed at a window facing towards the lunar surface.
ok send a rocket and land on it,the endCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
ok send a rocket and land on it,the endCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
omg please please come from this grasp they have on you,one life youve got please for your sake not godsok send a rocket and land on it,the endCan I have links to your sources of information please? so I can research your theory,Quoteask your god if you have got one and leave your books alone
OK... send a rocket to the supposed 'moon' and show it is a light, by sending a rocket straight through it for example, while taking photos.
We have already landed on the RE model of the moon in the RE model of the solar system.
If you do not believe this, feel free to ask questions.
We have already landed on the RE model of the moon in the RE model of the solar system.
If you do not believe this, feel free to ask questions.
omg please please come from this grasp they have on you,one life youve got please for your sake not gods
dont you have any fun left in your blood pal,stop being so serious fella,at the end of the day we have only got eachothers,chill manQuoteWe have already landed on the RE model of the moon in the RE model of the solar system.QuoteIf you do not believe this, feel free to ask questions.Quoteomg please please come from this grasp they have on you,one life youve got please for your sake not gods
No question or argument received. Nothing that I can really try to answer.
Please come back when you have something meaningful for this topic to add.