Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

choos

SayonaraJupiter
I am totally bored with your commentary, choos. I won't be responding to you any further in this thread.

so its true.. you have no answer and rely on ignorance..

edit on 24-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

When I am replying to Gibborium or OBMonkey, why do you interject??????????????????????

SayonaraJupiter

When I am replying to Gibborium or OBMonkey, why do you interject??????????????????????

because you are purposely ignoring points..

using your, i guess "transfer" techniques to avoid points raised.. just pointing out that you are spreading your own propaganda.. you know, double standards sort of thing.

why are you so flustered.. everyone in this thread has been interjecting.. how do you think they even replied in this thread?

What the heck is the dirty dozen, other then a kick ass movie starring lee marvin

choos

SayonaraJupiter

When I am replying to Gibborium or OBMonkey, why do you interject??????????????????????

because you are purposely ignoring points..

using your, i guess "transfer" techniques to avoid points raised.. just pointing out that you are spreading your own propaganda.. you know, double standards sort of thing.

why are you so flustered.. everyone in this thread has been interjecting.. how do you think they even replied in this thread?

edit on 24-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Your interjections are not necessary. Gibborium and OBMonkey can answer for themselves. When you interject you are simply creating noise in the thread.

SayonaraJupiter

choos

SayonaraJupiter

When I am replying to Gibborium or OBMonkey, why do you interject??????????????????????

because you are purposely ignoring points..

using your, i guess "transfer" techniques to avoid points raised.. just pointing out that you are spreading your own propaganda.. you know, double standards sort of thing.

why are you so flustered.. everyone in this thread has been interjecting.. how do you think they even replied in this thread?

edit on 24-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Your interjections are not necessary. Gibborium and OBMonkey can answer for themselves. When you interject you are simply creating noise in the thread.

Or is he correct and you can't answer his questions?

SayonaraJupiter

Your interjections are not necessary. Gibborium and OBMonkey can answer for themselves. When you interject you are simply creating noise in the thread.

then are you not also making noise??

you are focusing on such a petty point regarding the picture and completely ignoring the entire post.. i wanted to know your solution to the points raised.. but you keep trying to side step it with your "noise"

SayonaraJupiter

choos

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Gibborium

 

As shown in the graphic below, both Moon pictures are identical!

They are not identical. Anyone can see that there are obvious color differences between A and B.

notice how you are concentrating on such a petty point in order to ignore all the points raised since you have no rebuttals..

what would that be?? transfer??

edit on 24-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

I am totally bored with your commentary, choos. I won't be responding to you any further in this thread.

Aw finally getting tires of people calling you out on your bogus claims? Tell you what if you can produce any evidence showing the moon landing was faked then And key point here no accusations because there useless because anybody can do it.Like were you aware the miss universe pageant occurred during apollo 11 this proves they went to the moon because the Philippines won the title for the first time her name was Gloria Diaz. This proves they went to the moon because they would have used the miss universe pageant to pay off a country if it was fake. And the Philippines wouldnt have had the technology to know it it was faked meaning Russia or UK would have won. See how it works you can link any random fact doesnt mean its true. So lets try something new for you why not post some facts and stop wasting everyone's time youve been proven wrong over and over yet you still rehash your old posts. I understand you put time in to it obviously more then you did research but ya know to continue to post them over and over really isnt impressive trust me.

reply to post by choos

you are focusing on such a petty point

Choos, just admit that Richard Nixon was the president for Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.

If you will stipulate these facts, choos, then you may gain some credibility in this thread.

reply to post by dragonridr

the Philippines won the title for the first time her name was Gloria Diaz.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

there are monkeys on the moon I've seen them with my own eyes

spartacus699
there are monkeys on the moon I've seen them with my own eyes

You forgot to take a que from a certain person here and blame it on Nixon he put them there you know.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

the Philippines won the title for the first time her name was Gloria Diaz.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I see that since your still bringing up irrelevant points trying to sidetrack the debate. Like who was president during Apollo i dont believe that was ever in dispute yet you are trying to act like it was this is called deflection. And in a debate is useless much like my Miss Universe reference useless information having nothing to do with the debate. I was hoping you would stop this tactic and actually try to present evidence of a moon landing being faked. But i see its beyond you. I and others on here over and over have presented proof of 12 men walking on the moon. But all you do is besmirch them calling them the dirty dozen. Everyone sees what your doing dont think your so smart we know your trolling.

METAIt's pretty clear -after 125 pages- that the Apollo Defenders in this thread have very little experience in dealing with the Richard Nixon, Howard Hughes, CIA, Werner von Braun historical narratives.

Apollo does not simply exist in a historical narrative vacuum. One may not isolate Apollo into a box labelled Apollo, keeping it apart from the boxes labelled JFK, LBJ, Nixon, NASA and the Cold War.

We already know what happens when they tried to put Apollo into boxes..... the boxes go missing....

reply to post by dragonridr

Everyone sees what your doing dont think your so smart we know your trolling.

it's too bad that you are focussed on SayonaraJupiter and you can't refute the obvious truth that the Apollo program was total propaganda.

For every year since 1976 there have been no soft landings on the moon. None. Wow. That's 40 years of lunar ignorance. After Nixon conquered the "moon" nobody else could ever get out of Low Earth Orbits

You guys crack me up.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Everyone sees what your doing dont think your so smart we know your trolling.

it's too bad that you are focussed on SayonaraJupiter and you can't refute the obvious truth that the Apollo program was total propaganda.

For every year since 1976 there have been no soft landings on the moon. None. Wow. That's 40 years of lunar ignorance. After Nixon conquered the "moon" nobody else could ever get out of Low Earth Orbits

You guys crack me up.

Nobody has bult the pyramids again in over 3000 years does that mean there not there? Nobody built a dam to the scale of the 3 gorges dam in china does that mean its chinese propaganda? No one launches V2 rockets any more does that mean the british were lying? Your logic is so flawed its sad you cant see that. Just because something hasnt been repeated doesnt mean it didnt happen.Did you know it took almost 30 years for someone to climb mount Everest after the first time? And mind you thats just climbing a mountain its not like going to the moon!

SayonaraJupiter

Choos, just admit that Richard Nixon was the president for Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.

If you will stipulate these facts, choos, then you may gain some credibility in this thread.

theres the sayonara we have all come to know.. that post about ignoring me was very uncharacteristic of you.

this is much more of the level of "transfer" technique of propaganda of the sayonara jupiter level..

ive never really understood your point about nixon being president for apollo 11-17.. obviously he was president but being president does not defy physics..

why dont you show us instead why it is physically impossible for man to reach the moon in 1968-1972 instead.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You made this post already, it still proves nothing.

This, however, does:

www.ebay.co.uk... ?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2ecb425a63#ht_242wt_1170

It's a collection of slides taken from the TV during the original broadcasts.

One of them shows the image I presented earlier, and that still hasn't been addressed by the Apollo deniers - Hurricane Bernice, visible only in that formation on the day it was broadcast.

What you can't get your head around is that it didn't happen because it was on TV, it was on TV because it happened, and those TV images combined with satellite weather imagery prove beyond doubt it Apollo happened.

I'd stick to discussing Nixon in a thread about Nixon - you might actually get some mileage out of it. He has nothing to do with Apollo apart from being the guy who signed off the budget cuts to NASA.

dragonridr

Nobody has bult the pyramids again in over 3000 years does that mean there not there? Transfer! Nobody built a dam to the scale of the 3 gorges dam in china does that mean its chinese propaganda? Transfer! No one launches V2 rockets any more does that mean the british were lying? Transfer! Your logic is so flawed its sad you cant see that. Ad Hominem! Just because something hasnt been repeated doesnt mean it didnt happen.Did you know it took almost 30 years for someone to climb mount Everest after the first time? Transfer! And mind you thats just climbing a mountain its not like going to the moon!

4 transfers in one post! Wow, I'm just amazed at your defense of Apollo.

reply to post by choos

ive never really understood your point about nixon being president for apollo 11-17.. obviously he was president but being president does not defy physics..

why dont you show us instead why it is physically impossible for man to reach the moon in 1968-1972 instead.

At what point did I deny physics? Not in this thread! I have been making the argument that HH was using robots with TV eyes in 1959, obviously, prototypes, but they could be ready a few years later, perhaps as early as 1967, and the $365,000,000 cost-plus fixed fee Surveyor fleet contract proves that HH was ripping off the government, and it proves HH had "funds" to accomplish missions, and my argument continues that perhaps some of those Surveyor missions were clandestine, equipped with drill rigs, robots with TV eyes, and various film cameras, for films that would be "re-manufactured " on earth, in a studio/editing environment.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

It's a collection of slides taken from the TV during the original broadcasts.

Seriously, how does a collection of slides of a TV display prove Apollo?? I could take a picture of my TV, too. It's not a good proof of Anything.