Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

Now I know you're bflat. Mr freemason this and freemason that.. I feel quite disappointed . Never mind. I'll learn to discern who is for real and who is a paid disinformation person.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, kj35 said:

Now I know you're bflat. Mr freemason this and freemason that.. I feel quite disappointed . Never mind. I'll learn to discern who is for real and who is a paid disinformation person.

Stop buying the latest conspiracy theory.

 

If our posts seem similar, it is because the flat earth community shares information and many, if not all of us have come to the same conclusions for many of the same and obvious reasons. Our atmosphere cannot exist next to 'space.' If we lived on a ball I would not be able to shoot a laser over a lake. Water lies flat on top regardless of the container. All of nasa's documents are based on a flat and non-rotating earth. Freemasons are behind it all and I have the evidence to prove that as well.

 

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

 

But that is just my take.

Edited by amy G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Sharp as a tennis ball:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yeah yeah, if you say so, this is why it's in the Dutch national museum ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Yeah yeah, if you say so, this is why it's in the Dutch national museum ?

 

Read the data and watch the highly informative videos. It's STILL in the damn museum after they found it it wasn't actually a moon rock, or given by NASA. 

 

The Earth is a planet, space is real and we landed on the Moon with men 6 times. Everything you believe in to the contrary is messing up your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Read the data and watch the highly informative videos. It's STILL in the damn museum after they found it it wasn't actually a moon rock, or given by NASA. 

 

Quote

At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article

.

Got found out more like...........🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Got found out more like...........🤣

 

No, read the data and watch the informative videos. You are just waving your arms in the air like a classic hoax believer. I've never come across one who is able to use logic and critical thinking. I dare you to answer some questions - hey at least be brave enough to answer them honestly in your head!

 

1. Would NASA give a fairly sizeable and unbelievably valuable moon rock to a complete nobody ex prime minister of the bleedin' Netherlands?

2. Would they then give a tiny fragment to the QUEEN of the same country?

3. All Goodwill Tour gifts had a display, were encased in resin, tiny fragments of one single rock and a gold embossed carved plaque - the piece of wood had none of that - seem right?

4. The US ambassador says HE gave the gift why is it so hard to believe him?

5. He says Drees had previously seen the rock in the State Department collection - why would he lie?

6. When the Museum took possession of it they assumed it was a Moon rock - why is that so out of the question.

7. NASA had nothing to do with any of it, what possible reason could they have for handing that out anyway!?

 

"Tests" were where a geologist took one look at it and told them right away what it was! So geologists who took MANY looks (thousands of them) have no trouble with ANY Apollo sample.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

1. Would NASA give a fairly sizeable and unbelievably valuable moon rock to a complete nobody ex prime minister of the bleedin' Netherlands?

 

Why not they gave them to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

 

Why not they gave them to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the 1970s.

 

Oh ffs. They gave teeny weeny fragments and this was after Apollo 17 when They had banked 842lbs of samples.

 

You cannot answer honestly can you? Of course they wouldn't it makes no bloody sense at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

image.png.4e8857ce42d36d349d7a6d4b47d85b69.png

 

ummm.....  I think Buzz "well it's because we didn't go to the moon" Aldrin gave it to them. Ho Ho.

 

 

 

HEY NOBBY!!! IF YOU PAY ATTENTION YOU WILL SEE THIS DISCUSSED AND ANSWERED ABOUT 2 POSTS BACK!

  

On 9/24/2020 at 6:26 PM, Comedy Time said:

It was ONLY discovered to be a piece of petrified wood when an actual geologist examined it. 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 the Dutch QUEEN!.

Hawaii_Apollo_11-9in_display.jpg

 

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.

 

So...

 

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.

 

Don't worry though - it got ignored completely so you will be in "good" company.

Edited by Comedy Time
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not a shred of evidence that moon rocks exist.

 

These freemasons do nothing but lie. They take our best and brightest and waste their lives.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/119945695_10158805442665365_978503362157975404_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=CmvUy9UQ2g0AX-gMDCT&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=0355495d0cc9c5cc9b758381769936cc&oe=5F92FBC2

 

Quick multiple choice for anyone who wants to play along. What makes the most sense?

A. End world hunger

B. Pay nasa ove 50 million a day for CGI images and all the rest of their absurdly obvious lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amy G said:

There is not a shred of evidence that moon rocks exist.

 

The kind of statement that makes a mockery of debate. A person says something that is so clueless that it becomes comedy time and tantamount to deliberate trolling.

 

Overview:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tools/Welcome.html

 

A list of many geologists who have examined them - around 2000:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/References.pdf

 

Each one has produced numerous reports and analyses all available to be read, on numerous platforms. All photographed. It is a waste of time supplying any reports or images or personal accounts to somebody like you.  

 

rocks.jpg

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

These freemasons do nothing but lie. They take our best and brightest and waste their lives.

 

Utter pish. There is not a shred of evidence that the Earth is flat, space is faaaaaake, Apollo was faaaaaake or that you know how to tie your own shoelaces.rabugento1.gif

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

Quick multiple choice for anyone who wants to play along. What makes the most sense?

A. End world hunger

B. Pay nasa ove 50 million a day for CGI images and all the rest of their absurdly obvious lies

 

C. Give NASA money for space travel and generate thousands of subsidiary jobs and industries giving long term economical growth.

D. Pay for all the flat earthers to go into space and conveniently forget to show them how to turn round!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/27/2020 at 4:38 AM, Comedy Time said:

Utter pish. There is not a shred of evidence that the Earth is flat, space is faaaaaake, Apollo was faaaaaake or that you know how to tie your own shoelaces.rabugento1.gif

 

The Apollo mission was fake. Here's the evidence:

 

 

This is the best video I've seen about the Apollo mission.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

The Apollo mission was fake. Here's the evidence:

https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY

 

This is the best video I've seen about the Apollo mission.

 

Chuck enough crap at the wall and some of it sticks huh? There is nothing in any section of that video that is new or not debunked to death. Highlight any 2 or 3 things and I'll directly address them. The missions brought back 842lbs of lunar samples that are not meteorites or Earth rocks. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Chuck enough crap at the wall and some of it sticks huh? There is nothing in any section of that video that is new or not debunked to death.

 

Anyone can debunk an idea by ridiculing it or by arguing with fallacies in order to give the appearance that they are right.

 

"American Moon is a 2017 documentary by Massimo Mazzucco providing "evidence" that the Apollo moon landings were just a big silly old hoax."

 

False. The documentary doesn't imply that the hoax was silly.

 

"The idea is that because their moon program was running a bit behind schedule all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about space exploration and went into showbiz."

 

False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

Anyone can debunk an idea by ridiculing it or by arguing with fallacies in order to give the appearance that they are right.

 

 

None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious. Is this going to be your plan then? No matter what is presented you will defend and dismiss?

 

Identify some major things and I will address them - the film is shite and is a rehash of literally hundreds of multiply debunked clips. He's doing it for the money btw. Perhaps you could step into a zone of neutrality and look at the rebuttals properly.

 

Now....2 or 3 things from that video. Preferably not idle speculation from ignorance.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, theo102 said:

False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.

 

 

The Cabin did not need to be "re-designed"! It needed modifications highlighted by the fire. Quite clearly they used the thing in space from the footage available....so it worked fine.

 

As for James Webb, where do you get this crap from? From wiki and it uses credible sources....

 

After the Apollo 1 accident in 1967, Webb told the media, "We've always known that something like this was going to happen sooner or later... Who would have thought that the first tragedy would be on the ground?" Webb went to Johnson and asked for NASA to be allowed to handle the accident investigation and to direct its recovery, according to a procedure that was established following the in-flight accident on Gemini 8. He promised to be truthful in assessing blame, even to himself and NASA management, as appropriate. The agency set out to discover the details of the tragedy, to correct problems, and to continue progress toward the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

Webb reported the investigation board's findings to various congressional committees, and he took a personal blaming at nearly every meeting. Whether by happenstance or by design, Webb managed to deflect some of the backlash over the accident away from both NASA as an agency and from the Johnson administration. As a result, NASA's image and popular support were largely undamaged.[13]

 

Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and since Johnson chose not to run for reelection, Webb decided to step down as administrator to allow the next president, Republican Richard Nixon, to choose his own administrator.[14]

Webb was informed by CIA sources in 1968 that the Soviet Union was developing its own heavy N1 rocket for a manned lunar mission, and he directed NASA to prepare Apollo 8 for a possible lunar orbital mission that year. At the time, Webb's assertions about the Soviet Union's abilities were doubted by some people, and the N-1 was dubbed "Webb's Giant".[15] However, later revelations about the Soviet Moonshot, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have given support to Webb's conclusion. Webb left NASA in October 1968, just before the first manned flight in the Apollo program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious.

 

The first significant fallacy is the fallacy of presumption that the hoax could not have been carried out because too many people would have to have been in on it for it to be kept secret. The second sentence implies that  "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" were in on the hoax when the documentary does not suggest that this is the case.

 

15 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Is this going to be your plan then? No matter what is presented you will defend and dismiss?

 

The document starts with obvious NASA apologetics. It would good to show why this is the case.

 

It remains that the first two sentences are false. You haven't addressed that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

The first significant fallacy is the fallacy of presumption that the hoax could not have been carried out because too many people would have to have been in on it for it to be kept secret.

 

So what?! This in no way discounts the direct rebuttals to the supposed evidence. Besides, just because the video maker makes no case for this....it is not presumptive to point out the bloody obvious.

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

The second sentence implies that  "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" were in on the hoax when the documentary does not suggest that this is the case.

 

Your first and second points are the same thing.

 

http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

 

Would you like me to cut and paste that link, or are you going to read it all?

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

The document starts with obvious NASA apologetics. It would good to show why this is the case.

What a bullshit comment....and what "document" are you talking about? If somebody has examined BOTH sides of this unbalanced argument, then they rightfully conclude that the hoax is a load of crap, why should that be a problem? I have seen it all and I've seen the debunks to it all and made hundreds and hundreds of debunks myself just from simple science and observations. There is not one single hoax claim that stands up to scrutiny. I could present you with two simple short videos that prove they must be on the Moon, I just cannot imagine you would suddenly accept this.

 

You just ignored my whole post about the redesign and James Webb - now address it please.

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

 False. The documentary doesn't imply that the hoax was silly. 

Irrelevant. The hoax was "silly" and this was obviously the opinion of the person writing it.

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.

 

The schedule was altered to bring forward major objectives and augment minor ones into the same mission. Webb addressed in previous post. The issue about whether they "care" about the project is flippant and suggests if they knew, that would be the case and if they didn't, they would have then completed the job. All very irrelevant.

 

What you are actually doing is attempting to debunk irrelevant aspects of a response to your video. How about you supply what was requested....2 or 3 items that you think are convincing!?

 

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...