moon hoax information index.

This is exactly what the satanists at NASA want for you to believe.

This is exactly what the satanists at NASA want for you to believe.

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:01:40 AM

This is exactly what the satanists at NASA want for you to believe.

Me worshiping Satan has nothing to do with it. And a guy at NASA can worship an uncooked potato chip, for all I care. All that matters is the evidence and if that evidence holds up to scrutiny.

So far it has without fail.

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Quote from: SpJunk on August 28, 2016, 12:13:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:52:47 AM

It's been proved beyond any doubt that the moon landing shenanigans were just impossible to pull off even if the moon was a real satellite.
The fact that some people don't want to believe it was a hoax does not change the fact that it was.

People DO accomplish impossible things.

It was "proved beyond any doubt" that if man or animal travels faster than 60 miles per hour,
the air pressure on lungs will suffocate them.

Or was it 60?
Maybe it was less?

Some old crazy beliefs.

That's what denpressure told people back then!

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Perhaps you should open your eyes or get the que-tips out of your nose?

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 10:19:38 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Perhaps you should open your eyes or get the que-tips out of your nose?

I haven't seen one, too.
You're outnumbered

Well, I did not want you either.  How does the truth feel now?

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Russians have put retroreflectors on the moon. It doesn't take a human to do that. Robots can do it to.

The evidence presented was that lasers and radio signals where allegedley bounced and received off the moon before man claimed to have golfed there.

The soviets are also supposed to have retro reflectors on the moon,

Allegedley receiving radio or laser signals from the moon do nothing to support the idea men were leaving bags of poo up there.

Sorry man.

Quote from: markjo on September 01, 2016, 06:10:08 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2016, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on August 31, 2016, 08:25:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2016, 08:21:53 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on August 31, 2016, 08:16:01 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2016, 08:10:33 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on August 31, 2016, 08:06:42 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2016, 08:03:16 PM

You don't get to just make up the laws of economics in order to try to support your world shape.

Then stop trying it.

And since you are expert in English, you will know where to find translation for words "already there".

You might want to look up the definition of "allegedly."

Ok, you are trying to say that those reflectors are "allegedly" there?

You seem to have just had an epiphany.  Did you take a smart pill or something?

Maybe you should take one.

People use them, and you are trying to convince them that they don't.

People are trying to convince you that light only reflects off of retroreflectors.

No, they are trying to convince you that light reflects more efficiently off of retroreflectors than off of the lunar surface.

And, just a few photons returned. 

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Ha ha ha ha......comedy gold 

Quote from: feuk on September 01, 2016, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

It's interesting how you start running into nonsense again when being opposed.

I quote myself
"My "indoctrination" can provide evidence. Can yours?"

I'm waiting.

Does your evidence consist of fake NASA photos?

Still haven't seen a single fake NASA photo yet....

Ha ha ha ha......comedy gold 

You have a weird sense of humour......

I had some time, so feuk can try and dismiss these.

This is Apollo 14's landing site as shown by Chandrayaan:



It does not show hardware, it shows disturbed ground caused by human activity around the LM and during the EVAs, and it matches exactly what can be seen in the LRO image.

Here is Apollo 16's landing site as shown by Chandrayaan:



Again, it shows not hardware but human activity between hardware, specifically the LM and the LRV. It matches the locaiton of the same disturbances in LRO images.

You won't find India crowing about finding those, because they didn't, I did. I downlaoded the raw images from their website and processed them myself.

They do refer to Apollo 15's site, but not so much in terms of the human ctivity but the change in surface reflectance as a result of the LM exhaust. You can, however, see where the LM is, as you canin teh Japanese Kaguya image. Kaguya's also shows a path created during EVA activity:



(Chandrayaan on the left, LRO centre, Kaguya right).

Feuk also misses an important point I made, namely that the surface images (including live TV) show not just Apollo hardware and human activity around that hardware, it shows details such as craters and rocks - details that were not known about prior to the landings. On Armstrong's approach to the Tranquility Base he had to land long because of a large boulder field that they didn't know about, but LRO images confirm that this is exactly what he flew over. I show many other examples of this, but feuk doesn't seem interested in proving me wrong.

As for the weather satellites, all I see there ismore armwaving and "I don't believe it" - no attempt to prove that any of the images taken by Apollo don;t contain the exactly the same weather systems shown in images from multiple satellites that could only have been taken at the time they were always claimed to be taken. Is he really going to claim that this Apollo Earthrise:



Does not show exaxtly the same weather systems as in these satellite images?

When you say disturbed ground are you really saying the lunar surface is not all one uniform colour ?

There are many examples of what you are calling "disturbed ground" not listed as "landing sites",
Is this a problem ?
Any before and after images ?

Ever wonder why mental gymnastics is a requirement with all of your "evidence" ?

Ever wonder why something as simple as a zoom lens is beyond the wit of man when it comes to imaging Apollo debris ?

Also swirly clouds happened before July 1969 daily and have happened every day since.
Hardly the convoluted smoking gun you make it out to be.

So, why does someone think that he can uncover a decades old conspiracy by surfing the web and look at Youtube?

How crappy would a conspiracy be if you can just find out about it by looking at a couple of videos?

Seriously. What makes you, the conspiracy 'theorist', so special that you can find out a truth that, according to you, is hidden by a multi-billion dollar organization?

If you are that skilled in finding ultra top secret information on the internet, show me some pictures of the 2018 model of the iPhone.