I wasn't in the Infantry, and you say it to me like it's supposed to be insulting. Which it isn't.

You can pray for me all you want, just leave the thinking to the grown-ups.

[iWe used to get our information in the libraries. Where did your information come from. The News and down the pub. hahaha. Mr Knownowt calls me an idiot yet swallows all the mainstream bull. Who's the gullible one then[/i. hahaha.



[iWhat did Churchill say. "Keep them in the pubs and out the libraries[/i.".

It tickles me when someone says in defence ... 'you don't even know me!', when they have posted bible's worth of drivel.
We don't have to personally know you if that is what you are like, if your writings truthfully represent you.
It is drivel, ergo you represent drivel.
There is is a fuzzy, warm person on the other end of the internet which we are misunderstanding is there?
Scallops!

Corrected for accuracy.



You can't claim that reality consists of physics defying planets, holographic sky and satellites, Masonic controlled everything, the earth is only 6000 years old, science is made by the devil to hide some kind of truth, that the worlds biggest thinkers are in cahoots to control us all, without any credible proof and call everyone else gullible and stupid.

That's just insane.

I was going to libraries way before I was old enough to go to the pub. I never recall there being a conspiracy theory section in any of them.

He got his information by being brainwashed .....
Then instead of rationally thinking 'how do I fit into this system I was born into?'
He thinks 'how does this system fit around me?'

[iRegardless of all the ad hominem. I really don't care about what your analogy is of myself. I speak my mind and if you can't accept it thats fine. But the ad hominem that gets dished out and the traffic this thread receives is testament to the opposing viewpoint of NASA. For instance why are you even contemplating arguing when your own Astronomy thread is there to house your own erroneous views without any objection. But you all seem more angst and puerile to avenge ad hominem towards me for having a varied view. The proof is in the pudding according to your actions you'd rather direct puerile ad hominem at an idiotic Christian for having a varied outlook on life than visit the Fiction of the Astronomy thread which you call the truth. Now i visit the threads that i assume to be the source for truth which is the exposing of Bull which this thread clearly covers. So in reality i should be laughing at the ones calling me cranial ad hominem derogatory names trying to outdo or avenge my idiotic belief Hahaha Your Astronomy thread gets hardly any traffic compared to this. Whats that telling you. Actions speak louder than words..That leads me to believe you're obviously drawn to What you call Bull than truth. Whereas the truthers are drawn to truth and expose the Bull..Hahaha[/i

[i Abuse you lose[/i

[iYou would of been reading page three of the newspapers rather than researching the non fiction section.[/i

This thread gets traffic the same way freak shows get traffic.

They're coming to point and laugh at you, Stan. Grade A entertainment until the season starts. That's not an attack, btw, that's the truth for you Mr Truther.

People engage you because they can't believe that someone in 2016 can believe the drivel you do, and they are short with you because you are rather nasty when things don't go your way. Don't worry, your title of RLFans village idiot will remain intact long after we've got bored with you.

Hahaha i'm laughing the other way are your gullibility levels. The jokes are really on the you Sheeple who are being shafted by the Masonic Order.

I think that you really should read my posts more carefully.
I don't call people names, never have and never will.
Also I don't go on the Astronomy thread.
You must be confusing me with others.

Would it be unfair to say you are confused?

Well this thread seems to have derailed back to being personal again...
I only came on a few days ago to post about moon conspiracy's and now i find myself reading personal attacks.

[iYou're quite correct tigerman. It's a trait thats common in Cyborgs when they're angst through cognitive dissonance. They can't stand their narrative being challenged so they blurt out ad hominems.[/i

You do realise that you typed exactly what Tigerman was complaining about?

Another thread that has run its course?
Twas fun while it lasted.

Let's go back to two posters posting crap and telling us how smart they are and how the rest of us are so dense.
I prefer the gravitas of being dense then!

Sadly, it has I fear indeed run its course. Stan has retreated into his shell, and is now totally impervious to questions, while his bizarre quotient increases by factors daily. The fun there was is rapidly disappearing.

However the big boss (not Stan) has gone off to revise his science to come back refreshed with squillions of references and links to amaze us.
Can't wait.

Quote ="Mugwump"=#BF0000[iThe laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon?[/i '" [iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size

Quote ="Mugwump"=#BF0000[iThe laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon?[/i '" [iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size

[iIn one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks going across the foreground of the entire photo. Also there is one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light, and another (AS12-49-727icon_cool.gif which shows two lens flares from overhead lighting[/i


[iThese NASA discrepancies are glaringly obvious. Anybody who's ignorant to these fallacies have cognitive bias issues and obviously not truth seekers.[/i

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size'" There is plenty of stuff explaining all that .... but you are not interested. Do you honestly think that the developers of these photos and those that released them would NOT have noticed what you point out? Isn't that in a way showing how real they actually are and how things are not as straightforward as people like you try to point out? Stick two poles in the ground ... one vertical, one at forty five degrees to it as you look at them. Let the sun cast a shadow ....what do you see in all but two orientations? Two parallel lines? Grow up!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size'" There is plenty of stuff explaining all that .... but you are not interested. Do you honestly think that the developers of these photos and those that released them would NOT have noticed what you point out? Isn't that in a way showing how real they actually are and how things are not as straightforward as people like you try to point out? Stick two poles in the ground ... one vertical, one at forty five degrees to it as you look at them. Let the sun cast a shadow ....what do you see in all but two orientations? Two parallel lines? Grow up!

A very good argument for me was this.
If you type Moon Hoax - latest proof July 2015 in a well known video sharing site it is a video by wakeman449
It is a very informative video and proves 100% we never went to the moon and nobody can really argue the fact of the video.
Main steam media at its best



P.S sorry i don't know how to post links like others have done above as i know links to said video site is against AUP

[iYou're ignorance and cognitive bias is blinding. Regardless to the above anomalies I'll provide many more blindingly obvious fraudulent pieces of yet unanswered questions or queries from NASA[/i
[i
NASA made all networks record their feed for TV broadcast, so that’s why we only ever see the grainy recording of a recording on TV, and now[/i=#BF0000[u[i NASA says they lost the original high-definition video and data telemetry tapes so they can never be verified.[/i[/u [iNice coincidence.
[/i
[iBlueprints and designs of certain machines are[/i [u=#800000[imissing [/i[/u[ifrom both NASA and the companies which supposedly constructed them such as the Apollo Lunar Module and rover[/i

[iVan Allen Belt, Russians could never get beyond because of intense radiation that requires 4 feet of lead shielding too heavy to rocket into orbit; and in 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation[/i =#BF0000[u[iyet somehow American astronauts and their film was able to survive this without shielding[/i[/u

=#BF0000[i[uThere are no stars in any of the moon pictures/video, just complete darkness; [/u[/i[ithey couldn’t make a perfect model in a studio, even a planetarium layout can only be seen in absolute darkness, spotlighting from the “sun” would block out the “star” lighting; so they cover this by saying the sun is SO bright on the moon that the astronauts couldn’t remember seeing stars either[/i
[i
The moon walk is in half-speed slow-motion; if you speed it up x2 the astronauts are clearly in Earth gravity walking normally with long strides[/i
[i
The flag in many photos and videos is shown flapping in the wind on the supposedly atmosphere-less moon[/i

[iWerner Von Braun took a NASA team to Antarctica in 1967 and was purported to be collecting “moon rocks.” Later Bill Kaysing (author of “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”) hired his private investigator friend Paul Jacobs to check with the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington and ask, “did you examine the Moon rocks, and did they come from the Moon?” The geologist simply laughed and insinuated that people high in the US government knew all about the cover-up.[/i

[i11 Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence, points towards a cover-up[/i

[iThe astronauts rarely give public interviews or take questions at speaking events and were very unconvincing on their first interview back from the moon[/i
[i
Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon[/i
[i
Buzz Aldrin Jr. (Apollo 11), Gordon Cooper Jr., (Mercury 9, Gemini 5), Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), John Glenn Jr., (Mercury 6), Virgil Grissom (Apollo 1&15, Mercury 5, Gemini 3), James Irwin (Apollo 15), Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14), Walter Schirra Jr. (Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury, Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10&18, Gemini 7&9), and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger), all these astronauts are Masons[/i
[i
The first director of NASA was Werner Von Braun one of hundreds of NAZI rocket scientists brought into America through the OSS Project Paperclip[/i

[iNazis and Masons are not the most historically trustworthy folks[/i
[i
Why didn’t NASA make some sort of light/flare display from the moon that people could see without their TVs to prove they were there?[/i
[i
Why no colour video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a colour camera with them?[/i

[iIn reply to s to[/i=#800000 tigermans comment [url=https://youtu.be/awrYcYZYxX4Is This It.[/url

Classic .... more like a spoof video.

I can just imagine the narrator finding out that they had overshoes ...'vell vere are dey?' .....'I zuppoze dat dey left zem on ze moon, exzept dat dey didn't go in de first plaze'.
Quality.

Do you speak like this in real life?

Are you some sort of pseudo Bond villain?

Cut the bullcrap, Van Allen himself has dismissed these sort of illiterate-science objections as nonsense. I'd take his view over yours




One of the most infantile objections, the Sun is an extremely bright star. All other stars from the Moon are in comparison astonishingly faint. You can set an exposure to photograph in extremely bright sunlight, which obviously they did, and that will obviously not be enough to show anything as faint as a star. The brightest star (Sirius) is around magnitude -1.44 on the scale (which is a logarithmic scale) whereas the sun is around mag -26.8. Given that the Sun is roughly 400,000X brighter than even a full moon, even those ignorant of magnitude should be easily able to work out why stars are not visible. If they want to.




It looks speeded up if you speed it up? Wow! Who'd have thought!
Except they couldn't walk normally with long strides if on Earth, as the huge weight of their kit on Earth would make it utterly impossible.


REALLY? You actually believe that? FFS. Despite there being categorical evidence that once the flag stopped moving it never moved again, (hich you ignore) OBVIOUSLY the forces applied to the flag and pole as the pole was twisted into the ground would continue to make the flag oscillate precisely BECAUSE of the absence of atmosphere, until the energy was spent.





You can't use that one, Stan. You don't accept Antarctica exists! But, the moon rocks (like Mars meteorites) are indeed a smoking gun, due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, these rocks are certainly extra-terrestrial. Even you have to concede that one. it's not as if enough of them haven't been examined and tested by enough independent researchers.


Disgusting rot. And anyway why wouldn't they bump off the ones who were to be the hoax landers?


I would imagine that since being on the Moon the astronauts have between them spoken a zillion words and attended a million events. Your claim is inexplicable tosh.


Indeed he did, and he had good reason to, after the vile provocation, which fact was accepted by the authorities as Aldrin was not prosecuted.


I would imagine that they never dreamed any human would ever be so stupid as to doubt it! But, even in the illogical state you are in, you KNOW that had they done so, it would have been a 100% utterly futile thing to do, since you and your ilk would no more have accepted that as any sort of proof or evidence than anything else! there is NOTHING they could have or can do or say that would convince people like you, even if they took you with them, you would persuade yourself it was a false memory inserted by drugs or anal probes or something, and rightly they waste little time on delusionals, recognising the futility.


Er, because the colour camera was a still camera not a video camera?

The TV camera was (and is, you can go see it for yourself) a Westinghouse, which

Here is a photo of it once deployed on the lunar surface. Where it stands to this day.


And here is a recent image from the LRO. This shows the Apollo 11 landing site, with all kit deployed, exactly where it was and will forever remain, nicely labelled for you. Including the said camera.


China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2 also photographed the site, with the same results.

How inconvenient for you moon hoax delusionals