What's new

Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).

This has been moved below because Cosmo has completely ignored it.
 
Last edited:
I'd better post this again.

All the info you post about the rocks has been from mainstream sources. We have not idea whether or not any of that info is real, or bogus. The rocks are not proof and they don't make the anomalies that are indeed proof go away.

I already pointed out some evidence that Betamax is a shill. Your ignoring it doesn't make it go away. The viewers still see it.
 
Number 1: This shows a sequence where the reflection from the Sun is blocked out completely by a very narrow rod. This 100% refutes the stupid claim that it was some sort of massive light.
Number 2: Demonstrates 100% that as the light levels in the camera are altered by aperture, so does the size of the blooming on the visor.
Physics of the Moon Reflection

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun

 
I'd better post this again.
All the info you post about the rocks has been from mainstream sources. We have not idea whether or not any of that info is real, or bogus. The rocks are not proof and they don't make the anomalies that are indeed proof go away.

I already pointed out some evidence that Betamax is a shill. Your ignoring it doesn't make it go away. The viewers still see it.

You disgraceful spammer. You have no intention of reasoned debate. Now you make one clueless association and use it as an absurd generalisation then suggest that your absurdity discounts the testimony of probably a thousand or so geologists who have studied the rocks.
"This section of the "wall of spam" highlights two points that massively contradict each other.
We have the premise that scientists and governments lie, "demonstrated" with whistleblowers and articles written and spoken by numerous individuals very much alive. We then have the premise that nobody would speak out about Apollo because they would fear for their lives! BUNKUM!"


Any lurkers or fence sitters can see your pathetic attempts to avoid any evidence presented to you!

Let's examine what the samples show and determine whether that guarantees their authenticity.

There is no terrestrial weathering on any of the samples. Basically the samples show no interaction with standing water, atmospheric water, atmospheric gases or any vegetation or animal. This is completely impossible to fake with an Earth rock.

The samples are loaded with a whole host of solar isotopes so cannot possibly be from Earth, this leaves the other equally ignorant claim that they are meteorites. Now meteorites lose most of their mass on entry to Earth's atmosphere, so Apollo samples that show a slim layer of Helium-3 on their exteriors from shallow solar wind penetration could not possibly survive. The samples also show signs of micro-meteorite impacts on their outsides called zap-pits. Again stripped off from atmospheric entry.

There is no heat damage to any sample from this entry process, zero terrestrial weathering from time spent on the surface and signs within the samples - volcanic spherules that show formation in low gravity.

In short, hundreds of geologists say they confirm they are from the Moon for many decades of study across multiple countries.

I anticipate no meaningful response to this because Cosmo know jack about any of this!
 
Number 3: This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon.
No it doesn't. It shows that he's on a wire.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd

Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump
 
Physics of the Moon Reflection

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun

Debunked spam. The animated gif above completely closes the case. The reflection disappears when a narrow rod moves in front of it.

Again, the blog you completely ignore tears your claims to shreds.

 
Number 4: This is a clear indicator of simultaneous soil dropping at the same speed as the jumper. This is 100% proof he is on the Moon.
I already dealt with this and you just ignored it. The viewers still see it and it's pretty clear that this thread of his is willful deceit on his part.


Number 5:
This animation is the supposed "duplicate" background claim from the SFS. It shows that the distant mountains are actually just viewed from a more rotated vantage point. He actually denied that they are different and from obviously different places.

The viewers can decide for themselves.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
 
No it doesn't. It shows that he's on a wire.

The parabolic arc moves in the same way and speed as his jump. Unless the dust is on a wire you are lying - just for a change!

Jumpaa5963495ed8c2de.gif


Every single thing you post is getting completely destroyed, how can you be that deluded not to see it??
 
Here we have one of my favorites. The cloth from the ceiling, moving TOWARDS the approaching object and not doing so until it is virtually level. Applied to Apollo 15 flag.
He's trying to obfuscate this.

Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement




 
I already dealt with this and you just ignored it. The viewers still see it and it's pretty clear that this thread of his is willful deceit on his part.

An absurd claim from you.....it's almost comedic. Bouncing dust?
 
Last edited:
------------------------------
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon".
Looking at it from that perspective, we can say is they did not come from earth (we can run those comparisons) and were not meteorites (we can run those comparisons). So, if you are claiming that maybe they came from Mars or Mercury, more power to you.
 
I post stuff that you shills can't try to obfuscate without looking silly and you just play dumb.

(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm getting burned out so I'm going to take a break. The viewers can look at these anomalies and decide for themselves
 
Here it is slowed right down - your claim is nonsense - you can actually watch as the arc moves towards the ground in PERFECT unison:
Jump-cernan-slow.gif


Here again John Young jumping up on the Moon:

Number 3: This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon.

[IMG]


Here again for you to run away from:

Number 6:
Here we have one of my favorites. The cloth from the ceiling, moving TOWARDS the approaching object and not doing so until it is virtually level. Applied to Apollo 15 flag.

[IMG]


Explain gif number one, as anyone with eyes can see the dust wave coming down at the same time as he lands!
Explain number 2 because anyone with eyes can see the parabolic arc in sync with his jump!
Explain number 3 because anyone with eyes can see the fabric move TOWARDS the approaching object - Bernoulli principle in effect.
 
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement

I think it comedy gold that you cower away from admitting air displaced by a falling lid will move dust mere inches away, whilst spamming the crap out of the internet suggesting an astronaut 6 feet away will move a damn flag! You don't even understand basic physics.
 
actual question here.

in a low gravity (moon) and no atmosphere environment is static electricity increased, decreased or the same as on earth and is the effect of a static charge increased, decreased or the same as on earth?
 
actual question here.

in a low gravity (moon) and no atmosphere environment is static electricity increased, decreased or the same as on earth and is the effect of a static charge increased, decreased or the same as on earth?

I have no idea but I remember one of the videos I watched in this thread said that static electricity didn't cause the flag to move.

I'm like, I've never been on the moon - I don't know. Lol
 
actual question here.

in a low gravity (moon) and no atmosphere environment is static electricity increased, decreased or the same as on earth and is the effect of a static charge increased, decreased or the same as on earth?
At low energies, the fields are completely separate, to my understanding.

Calling @colton .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top