Jump to content

Comedy Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Comedy Time

  1. 18 minutes ago, alexa said:


    It isn't "THEY" it is a single item and I was referring to the two POSTS b flat has ignored. Sharp as a tennis ball - this was extensively covered on the previous page and of course ignored:



    The rock was given by the US Ambassador as a private gift to doddering ex-prime-minister Drees. It was never given by NASA and it is insanity for anyone to think that they would be handing out such large and irreplaceable samples to a complete nobody. They gave the queen a tiny fragment enclosed in resin and gold embossed plaque.


    The rock was given as a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969 by the U.S. ambassador to The Netherlands, J. William Middendorf II



  2. 34 minutes ago, amy G said:

    If I were you would be far more concerned with nasa mouthpieces on here claiming this is real:


    But that is just my take.


    Spamming the forum with the same video as above that has been responded to and yet another personal accusation. BC - out of order?


    I posted two very large posts that OWN you 100%. The petrified wood and the rocks. You are afraid to answer anything and all you can do is scream faaaaaaake at things that would involve unbelievable numbers of people! I have trouble understanding how anyone can be so blinkered from reality.

  3. 2 hours ago, amy G said:


    I just posted this:

    Pretending that is real is utterly ridiculous.


    Claiming that is fake when we are listening to the commentary of an imbecile is utterly ridiculous.


    He talks about imaginary lines around the LM. There are none.  The yoootub buffoon then talks about the manoeuvering not realising that this whole sequence is running at about 4 to 5 times faster than actual. The moon movement is the big clue. The eejit mentions the petrified wood ....which is hoax dipshittery by numbers.


    All he is doing is this.....



    I can see why you would find such ignorance believable given that you think space is faaaaake.

  4. 12 minutes ago, amy G said:

    And yet another obviously scripted response.


    You failed to answer MY own crafted response. I wrote all of that none of it was scripted.


    Are you afraid to watch the informative videos?


    All you did was cut and paste some stupid conspiracy shit without looking into it and ignored a well crafted response that did look into it. I've forgotten more about space travel than the entire flat earth community. All you lot have is denial and bluster - zero chance of you ever debating honestly.

  5. 17 minutes ago, amy G said:

    62 pages of freemason lies and no outside researchers can examine any of it



    Wow, noise generation at full blast. Thousands all lying because the flat earther says so.


    ANY accredited geologist can examine an Apollo sample. You are lying.


    17 minutes ago, amy G said:

    The only 'moon' rocks that we have actually examined are fakes.


    Really, this is your claim to knowledge is it, the biggest whackamole crap ever. I answered this utter horseshit about a dozen times on the now disappeared old forum and about 3 times on the now hacked new one. It was ONLY discovered to be a piece of petrified wood when an actual geologist examined it.


    17 minutes ago, amy G said:

    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....





    Piss poor reporting….but this time the conspiracy theorist has no problem believing the MSM account!!

    The rock was given by the US Ambassador to a former Dutch prime minister. It was a gift that Drees had seen in the US inventory and liked the look of it. It was never given as a Moon rock. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that NASA would hand out such a massive rock to a complete nobody, weeks after they brought back such invaluable samples.

    On the Goodwill Tour, astronauts handed tiny fragments encased in plastic on mounted wooden presentations with Gold inscriptions. They handed one such fragment to Queen Juliana.



    Drees died in 1988, the rock was donated to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and put on display: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

    The whole thing was a balls up by the people who were given the gift. No way was it from NASA…all 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.




    1. NASA would not hand out valuable lunar samples to a complete nobody.

    2. They handed out tiny fragments to Queens and prime ministers

    3. They handed out gold embossed engraved plaques with each sample not some crusty comp slip.

    4. It was a gift from the US Ambassador - he confirmed it.

    5. Drees had seen it long before and commented on it, that was why it was given to him.

  6. 1 minute ago, amy G said:

    You've been going on for pages about how you don't have handlers or work off of a script and you just literally cut and pasted a page of nonsense that freemasons claim as truth.


    That was all  my own work. Prove it's nonsense. You just armwaved away close to a ton of samples analysed by 62 pages of personal references - geologists. It's FUCK ALL to do with da freemasons. 


    1 minute ago, amy G said:

    None of those "firsts" happened.


    Yes they did. A cast of thousands were involved and you from suddenly being the curious "mathematician" are now the full blooded believer in faaaaake space and rockets.


    1 minute ago, amy G said:

    And if you think this is real with all the little "space sounds" that were put in after during post production, then there is nothing left to discuss with you... ever.


    Wow, the noise generator has spoken. So there is nothing to discuss.....run along then.


  7. Apollo samples prove beyond any doubt that Man has been to the Moon. Over six missions, 842lbs of samples, including 3m cores were retrieved. Lunar samples that have been peer reviewed by thousands of the world's finest geologists and petrologists. The samples have substantial solar isotope impregnation, many contain large volumes of micro-meteorite impact craters. They collectively are devoid of any contamination from oxygen, water or nitrogen found on Earth, have no evidence of fragmentation or fusion crusts from entry through atmosphere. They show evidence of formation in a lower gravity environment. They are entirely dry as a bone, with the only hydroxyl/water type substances existing within low gravity formed volcanic beads or apatite crystals. They cannot by any possibility be meteorites. They cannot be from Earth. This leaves the only explanation as retrieval off world.


    "Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government “ could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. "


    1. Geologists have been examining Apollo samples for 50 years, there is complete agreement that they are authentic and from the Moon.

    2. The samples are impregnated with billions of years of solar exposure causing isotopes impossible to produce on Earth.

    3. It is impossible for a rock to reside on Earth without it interacting with the gasses or liquids it comes into contact with.

    4. It is impossible for a rock to enter the Earth's atmosphere and still retain its outer layers. Apollo rocks have strong Helium 3 on their outer layers.

    5. Lunar samples have in some cases been older than any known Earth rock.

    6. The Apollo samples contain only water encased within volcanic beads showing formation in lower gravity.

    7. The Apollo rocks contain tiny craters far smaller than any man made gun could produce! They also show redistribution effects called "gardening".

    8. The Apollo samples have no terrestrial weathering they simply cannot be from Earth.

    9. Apollo samples show evidence for a whole variety of meteorite impact damage.

    10. They are bone dry with water-type material encased within volcanic beads formed in low gravity and apatite crystals.

    11. It's been suggested that zap pits were created by guns that have limitations of 0.1mm projectiles when the zap pits are in the region of 50 microns (2/1000 inch) in diameter!

    12. It's also been suggested that micrometeorites hitting the Earth could have done this. Yes really:classic_rolleyes:

    13. Apollo samples show evidence of formation with essentially no free oxygen.

    14. Isotope ratios on Apollo rocks are different to anything found on Earth.

    They cannot be meteorites for the reasons given and they cannot be from Earth. They had to have arrived within a sealed environment from off world.


    62 pages of references for those who have looked at the Apollo Moon rocks and soil:



    6 hours ago, Eva Braun said:

    The landing on the Moon was the first big victory of the Americans, who were far behind the Soviet Union in the space race: Soviet scientists and engineers had time to put the first man first into Earth's orbit (Yuri Gagarin), and then into open space (Alexei Leonov). 


    That is completely wrong and often spouted without any understanding or research.


    Some USA firsts:


    First piloted flight Alan Shepard 1961

    First active telecomms satellite 1962

    First planetary flyby 1962

    First Geosynchronous satellite 1963

    First Geostationary satellite 1964

    First piloted orbital change 1965

    First Orbital rendezvous 1965!!

    First Orbital rendezvous and docking 1966!!

    First extended spacewalk 5.5 hrs  1966

    First direct-ascent rendezvous on first orbit 1966!!

    First crewed flight to the Moon Apollo 8 1968!!


    From 1965 America started moving ahead and all the records they set were the ones that enabled the Moon landing. In addition to all those significant firsts they established a whole series of repeat flights to improve the process and identify issues for each successive one. Meanwhile Russia couldn't get their heavy launch vehicle N1 off the ground. THAT is why they didn't get to the Moon first. I have no doubt that they would have "cut a few corners" to do that.


    6 hours ago, Eva Braun said:

    Since then, a total of 12 American astronauts have been on Earth's natural satellite, not Russian cosmonauts. 



    "Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed; during the second launch attempt the N1 rocket crashed back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and exploded, resulting in one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history. The N1 program was suspended in 1974, and in 1976 was officially canceled. Along with the rest of the Soviet manned lunar programs, the N1 was kept secret almost until the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991; information about the N1 was first published in 1989."


    6 hours ago, Eva Braun said:

    An important argument for the supporters of this theory was the death in 1967 of three astronauts who were preparing for the first manned flight to the Moon - but burned to death during ground tests a month before the scheduled start. They allegedly intended to tell the world the truth about the impending falsification, for which they were killed by the American authorities.


    Yeah great theory - not one single piece of proof for it. Let's potentially sabotage the whole program for a few years! The Command Module wasn't built by NASA. If they were planning falsification at that period why make them the prime crew before they had agreed to do it?


    6 hours ago, Eva Braun said:

     There are a lot of circumstances prove that they never landed on the Moon


    No there aren't. There is not a single piece of undebunked nonsense surrounding any mission. What there is, is a steady stream of people blundering upon youtube videos and gossip, having zero idea of what was involved, mainly with no intention of ever being reasoned with or open to the possibility they are wrong.


    6 hours ago, Eva Braun said:

    ...and the same amount proves that the landing is true and it is up to you whether believe it or not. No one actually will blame you for that.


    Everything about the evidence proves the missions landed on the Moon.


  9. On 9/21/2020 at 10:22 PM, Golden Retriever said:

    Photos from Ernest Shakleton's expedition to Antarctica in 1914 were faked.


    In 2004 there was a doumentary about the photographer Frank Hurley called Frank Hurley: The Man who Made History,  but I have

    never been able to find the entire video (free) online.  Can anyone help me here.


    "Frank Hurley: The Man who Made History is a 2004 documentary focusing on the work of photographer Frank Hurley. The documentary, written and directed by Simon Nasht  describes the highly controversial work of Frank Hurley after the discovery of his fabrication of many photos which were previously thought of as extremely significant."




    The Guardian ran a piece about the faked photos in 2004.

    They are the photographs that show what is perhaps the greatest story of endurance and valour ever told, the epic narrative of Ernest Shackleton's near-fatal Antarctic expedition of 1914.

    Antarctic survivor says famed cameraman fabricated scenes and doctored images


    The explorer's desperate bid to save the lives of his crew has been hailed as the epitome of human achievement against the odds, while the arresting images captured by Frank Hurley's camera have ensured that the historic events have kept an icy grip on public imagination.But now it has emerged that the iconic photographs, among the most valuable ever taken, are not all they seem. New evidence and testimony from a surviving eyewitness reveal that Hurley, the pioneering Australian cameraman and adventurer, fabricated scenes and doctored images.




    I believe this is one of the photos, but there were many others when I researched the topic a few years ago.  Now I can't find the relevant websites.




    Hurley alleges they faked some photography during the voyage to Antarctica - if he says so. But the point is he is not questioning that they went and were stranded.

  10. 56 minutes ago, alexa said:


    I do deny it's existence, like dollazNdiamond said, Antarctica is a wall of of ice that surrounds earth 360%. It is God's boundary that holds in all the oceans from spilling out.

    Makes sense really when you think about it!


    It makes no sense and the idea of you "thinking about it" won't happen. You picked up this utterly ludicrous claim and have absolutely zero concept of the implications.







  11. Another gibberish post with a stupid meme.


    Just now, dollazNdiamond said:

    the fes are handled by the same people who do you



    Uhuh, personal implication noted. I am not handled by anyone. Sometimes the wife but that's another story.


    Evasion noted. You're afraid dude. You armwave it away and fail to offer corrections.


    Just now, dollazNdiamond said:

    you are arguing with yourself


    Kind of true since you are running away from any debate. But fence sitters won't get influenced by this brand of lunacy.


    Just now, dollazNdiamond said:

    stop baiting me to answer your posts from other threads


    OK. Answer the posts from other threads. 


    @Basket Case Please open the flat earth thread. If it causes moderation work then so be it. This person needs to be shown they are wrong or at least others see that they are afraid to debate.


    Just now, dollazNdiamond said:

    this thread is fake moon landing are you a boomer? did you watch on your tv nixon call the astronots on the moon?


    again you only bring irrelevance


    And? Nixon connected via a telephone network to an s-band radio transmitter that sent a signal to the Moon. What daft youtube video have you watched that says that can't happen?


    Irrelevance? Dude you are just posting horseshit. When you get around to posting the same old same old that has the arse kicked out of it, you'll ignore all the replies. It is impossible to reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to. 



  12. 1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    no facts just attacks ways to stifle without a rifle as you deny whats in front of your eye



    EVASION, EVASION, EVASION. Your post is gibberish.


    1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    antarctica is a wall of ice that holds our ocean water




    Hahaha, no it isn't. According to flat earth gibberish it would be 50,000 miles around. Who stops anybody from getting a boat and photographing it?


    Do you have any evidence for any of this? 


    1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    how many posts will it take for someone to show otherwise?


    You'll arm wave them all away dude, that's what flat earthers do because they are afraid to look silly.















  13. 1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    your denial of stars seen through the moon is comedy time


    Provide evidence for this ridiculous claim!


    1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    your maths are based on false assumptions


    Name the false assumptions and correct them.


    The flat earth society and the people who make all the online noise tell us the Sun is 30 miles across(guffaw) and 3000 miles away(ludicrous). If that is wrong what should it be!?


    Sunrises and sunsets are logged online and verifiable by the people who actually live in the damn paces they reference! If you claim they are wrong prove it and tell me why.


    I am anticipating further evasion from you since you are afraid to be proven wrong. You have invested so much energy on this it would be too much for your ego to contemplate.


    1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    funny too how you constantly whine about ad homs


    I don't "constantly" whine about anything. You don't know what an ad hom is do you? It isn't an insult it is where the content of a post is avoided and the target is the poster.


    I do not do that. I ALWAYS address the content with an occasional whinge about people evading the posts. Since these are part of the available emoticons on this website I determine they are available to be used:




  14. 3 hours ago, alexa said:


    Beats me how they can land in a place that doesn't exist 🙄


    Gibberish. Everything appears to "beat" you. You must have some cloud cuckoo concept of the world if you are now denying a whole continent.

  15. 1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    because of irrelevancy


    you believe stars can be seen through something that spaceships have landed on hahahaha


    You people are all the same. Not one of you has the integrity to respond properly. You're just making noise!


    I posted numerous rebuttals to your daft claims and you come back with gibberish about seeing stars through the Moon. Comedy time.


    I posted some simple maths putting the setting sun 85000 miles away. And you are afraid to answer. Flat earthers are the joke of the planet.




  16. 11 hours ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    and an emergency landing in the ocean makes sense? that was an original thought that you were insulting flat earthers about?


    I gave you the acronym to google it and broaden your knowledge vacuum on this subject.  The routes need backup contingency for emergency situations. It is nothing to do with crash landing, it is the ability of the craft to land at an alternative place.



  17. 13 minutes ago, alexa said:

    Yes I believe you will. Yes it will.


    Girl, that is seriously pathetic. Seriously.


    Explain why you ignore things even when they have child proof explanations. It can only be to wind people up. The whole point of discussion is to arrive at a common agreement or disagreement by analysing evidence. If it is an objective discussion like the existence of the sky fairy / God it is easy to see such disagreement, but when it's flat earth/space or the Moon landings when there is visual and verifiable proof you are wrong - it is a ludicrous person who refuses to engage in the actual evidence for fear of being wrong. 

  18. 2 hours ago, alexa said:


    Your right I would.


    So C/T, you actually believe we went to the moon & Landed on it ? Lol'zzz


    So if I showed you rock solid proof this Bart Sibrel was a lying SOB you wouldn't believe it? Seriously sad.


    I don't "believe " we went to the Moon. This is MY subject and I KNOW we went. Not one thing you have to present will be new, it will be a whackamole fest. I will destroy every single inept argument you can present. You have ignored every single thing showing how your world view is based on piffle. No space, flat earth. So I don't anticipate any progress in educating you on one of mankind's greatest achievements.


    I guarantee two things. I will debunk every SINGLE thing presented. Every piece of proof I present will be ignored.

  19. 55 minutes ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    stars have been seen through the moon many times across the ages and is why those flags exist


    Who told you that crock? Hearsay of the lowest order from people who you really SHOULD question.


    The flags exist because of the reason I showed you. Venus and the Crescent Moon.


    Why are you continually avoiding large parts of my posts?

  20. 8 minutes ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    you are being destroyed by memes

    your handlers are pulling their hair out


    I don't have any handlers, if I did they would be long haired hippies with no hair loss. Your memes are piffling shite and you are evading every single difficult rebuttal to your repetitive nonsense. You really should change key - maybe go from "b flat" to "a minor" 🌎

  21. 6 minutes ago, dollazNdiamond said:

    you can't see through rock


    I actually agree with you here. Yes, amazing observation. You can't see through rock.


    What now, some daft youtube video where a bloke sees the Moon "in front" of clouds or "sees a star" in the shaded part of the Moon?

  • Create New...