Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Then why not provide some proof of your own. I've shown that the moon from a distance shows negligible apparent rotation over a short period of time.

You have shown precisely nothing.

No you showed a digitized image in a computer program. The moon rotates half a degree per hour, in the images were discussing, 5 hours is 2.5 degree difference. But the craft is further away, and unlike us us stationary correct? So we should see rotation but we don't.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Don't we?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

Sources are everywhere, if your not ignorant, a simple search will verify what i mentioned. If all you have to say is ''evidence? Evidence? Evidence? '' without investigating, then i can't help you, so asking me again that same question is just a waste of space in this thread.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

What are you doing? Look at the entire animation.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

I provided you with a list of NASA documents. Which one of them contains something that proves your point?

Are you still standing by your BS about every Earth image being the same?

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

Sources are everywhere,

So why haven't you used any?

if your not ignorant,

Says the person who won't back up his claims.

a simple search will verify what i mentioned.

a simple search will also prove that the Apollo missions are real

If all you have to say is ''evidence? Evidence? Evidence? '' without investigating, then i can't help you, so asking me again that same question is just a waste of space in this thread.

Claiming something to with no proof is worthless. That's why evidence is needed. Welcome to ATS.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

It's not your claim. I searched, and there are plenty of contradictions. If you don't see them, then it's an endless debate.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

I have. I've selected whole moons at either end of the sequence.

You can repeat the exercise yourself.

So far all you seem to be doing is jerking your knee with a denial hammer and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Start doing some work of your own.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

I provided you with a list of NASA documents. Which one of them contains something that proves your point?

Are you still standing by your BS about every Earth image being the same?

No you didn't? When?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

I have. I've selected whole moons at either end of the sequence.

You can repeat the exercise yourself.

So far all you seem to be doing is jerking your knee with a denial hammer and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Start doing some work of your own.

See what i mean, why are you doing that? Has nothing to do with the topic.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.

I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.

Which means you have no sources to share because there are no sources.

All you've done is make claims. I claim that the Apollo missions were real. You can use a search engine to prove my point.

It's not your claim.

It is my claim. Read carefully. I claim the Apollo missions are real.

I searched, and there are plenty of contradictions.

You keep saying you searched and there's this that and the other, but you also said other things that were proven false.

If you don't see them, then it's an endless debate.

How about you prove me wrong with, um, evidence.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Wasn't me that started it. You also joined in by claiming that the clouds weren't moving.

The NASA document link I provided didn't work, so here's the search engine:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

type in apollo and radiation and do some reading.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Are you incapable? I assume out of respect that you are all grown up individuals fully capable of exploring and researching for your self, if that's not the case, honestly, i can't help you, sorry.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You have yet to demonstrate your own ability to do that. See my previous post.

Are you still standing by your nonsense claim that all images of Earth taken by Apollo are identical?

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to: TerryDon79

Are you incapable?

Are you incapable of providing evidence?

I assume out of respect that you are all grown up individuals fully capable of exploring and researching for your self, if that's not the case, honestly, i can't help you, sorry.

I also assume you'll believe me when I say Santa is real. All you have to do is research it yourself.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Wasn't me that started it. You also joined in by claiming that the clouds weren't moving.

The NASA document link I provided didn't work, so here's the search engine:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

type in apollo and radiation and do some reading.

I cannot view that site also. It's not all images, but we have a perfect example already to work with.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Can't help you, apples and oranges.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Now you're just lying. The link supplied is the NASA site. I clicked on it and it works fine.

Still waiting for evidence to back up your claims.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to: TerryDon79

Can't help you, apples and oranges.

No. Apples and oranges are 2 different things. You can even use that correctly.

So, care to share any evidence of your claims?