If people in white lab coats tell you something, it must be true. If Russians in white lab coats tell you the same thing, it must be even more true. The moon landings were a clever hoax- the man wiring the LEM had no reason to suspect that it was a prop and not a machine. The Apollo 11 press footage is a beautiful document. Freshly threatened with their lives, the faces show it all- imagine the fop-sweat of their handlers-the entire rotting shed of new age Bolshevism could have been torched.
@hozayamz DISbelieving the white coat, just because its a white coat, isnt intelligence. Its rank paranoia. The White coats are at least as believable as the fear-mongering conspiraholics who cut and paste "hoax" talking points no questions asked from whatever dumb webpage they stumble across.
Worse, "threatened with lives" is the invention of ANOTHER fear-mongering conspiracy. Using one conspiracy as proof of another conspiracy only proves how stupid the evidence is for either one.
@hozayamz The Russian white coats would do everything in their fucking power to disprove that the moon rocks were from the moon in order to make the U.S. space program look like it failed. The evidence has been all heavily scrutinized by many governments and consistently proven that, yes, the U.S. went to the moon.
@Chazwozel1 Nonsense. The cold war was a mutually beneficial arrangement for the governments & parasitic industries of both sides. Each faked missions. If you think the Russians could successfully return material from the moon in the 1970's, you've been fooled by a crude heap of junk welded together by drunk pipe-fitters. There are plenty of moon rocks to be found on earth, obviously. He who pays the piper calls the tune, he who signs the paycheck makes the rules.
@hozayamz If the russian probes were not capable, I'd prefer to hear that from an actual engineer who knew what he was talking about, not a youtard newb taking a wild flying guess.
And moonrocks on Earth? Moonrocks ruined by wind and water erosion? Oxidized and rusted by an oxygen atmosphere? Which could never happen on an airless moon? Do you really think any such rock would fool any geologist over the age of 4? You didnt think it out.
@hozayamz "cold war was fake" You cant invent ANOTHER dumb conspiracy as proof of your first dumb conspiracy. Thats just making up your story as you go.
The Soviets actually only got .7 lbs. and it took them 3 missions to get that much (Luna 16, 20 & 23). That means for NASA to have 840 lbs. from unmanned missions, using known technology, they would have had to take over 3,600 trips! Most hoax theorists (with half a brain) would choose to believe NASA doesn't have 840 lbs., since they haven't seen it with their own eyes (as if they'd know a moon rock from a Snickers Bar). That's why geologists from around the world verified MANY samples.
b.s. the rocks were proved fake. They were lied to again by the same scammers it has always been. THink! why hasn't the space shuttle been to the moon. It travels at over 20000mph. 230thousand miles.They could go there and back in a day. Come on people. The radiation is too much, or the russians would have gone and everyone else. We'd have cities on the moon.Stop being stupid and falling for "conspiracy theory" name calling. They can do anything and call c-t and you all agree. fools.
What rocks were "proven" fake? Since you couldnt even name when or where I doubt you know jack shit and just cut and paste "lied" to pretend to sound cool. Didnt work ;)
"radiation" is another newb cut and paste. I WORK in radiation, We CAN survive it. Whatever you read on a dork webpage is certifiable horseshit.
And why dont you ask why the russians didnt go? Or is it easier to jump to a newb guess without knowing anything?
@sssssjjjj1 Good to know you have absolutely no handle on how physics works. The Space Shuttle doesn't pack enough fuel to travel to the moon. Look up rocket staging and basic concepts of thrust and friction before being a total internet turd.
Cities? Ha! Can you tell me how to transport enough compressed air to sustain a city on the moon? Do you have any idea what an engineering feat that would be? Are you 11 years old?
I like to play with hoaxterers heads before givirng them the information to make their own decision. the hoax believers are suffering from a lack of information, that all there is.
Moon rocks can be found on Earth. When objects impact with the moon it sends moon rock into space.
Some of this rock would move toward Earth and survive coming through the atmosphere and land on Earth.
This would have been happening since the moon formed into a solid object billions of years ago so a lot of rock should have made this journey up to modern times.
This could moon rocks could have been used to "bulk" the quantity of rocks brought back by robotic lunar landers. (just saying)
But we KNOW that they were found here. Because they have tell-tale burn marks of coming through the atmosphere, and erosion from being exposed to our wind and water and oxygen atmosphere. The moonrocks that NASA calls "moonrocks," and the ones examined by geologists all over the world, are totally unscarred in anyway. Erosion is the first thing any geologist over the age of 4 would notice.
Having robots pick up rocks and then blast off with all the extra weight is something our robots cant even do NOW, let alone 40 years ago.
Every probe we've landed on a planet has stayed there. We're only now even thinking of building such things. To say robots did it then? You'd need to show me the probes. Blueprints we've never seen, engineers we've never seen, etc etc. You cant use "well I think kinda sorta" as counter evidence.
@SpreadingtheMuse Good work on answering my moonrocks suggestion true I should have took into consideration the burn marks and erosion as even I know about this also.
Just want to know the truth not matter what it is thanks for info
This is the last comment I will make on YouTube, but I want to thank SpeakerForBoskone for defending the integrity of my Father who was part of the space race. WE WENT TO THE MOON. I've made several harmless and clarifying comments about it that couldn't offend anyone, yet I am shocked at the number of obscene, insulting and hurtful posts sent to me. Why the intolerance? It tells me some people don't pursue truth; they pursue belief. Let's value, maturely, the opinions of others. As Americans.
I hope you get to read this. I understand how you feel.
The retards that responded to your post with filth are not the ones that matter. It is the normal decent people that may need convincing after they have taken in so much hoax rubbish.
The time is not long off when the moon landings will be beyond living memory and it is important that the acheivements of the 60s are not forgotten.
Moon Rocks Debunk: Moonrocks are composed of basalt which can be found on Earth. The 1967 Van Braun expedition to Antarctica was a trip to collect such rocks. 800 lbs? This is a number supplied by NASA you fool. Have you, yourself seen all 800 lbs in one room? NO. Do you have this figure provided by an INDEPENDANT source (non US)? NO. Can you 100% prove the rocks studied or "gifted" to museums are actually from the Apollo missions? NO. In 2009 the Dutch rock was discovered as a fake.
We're going to believe NASA before we believe scientifically illiterate hoax gluttons begging for attention with retarded hoaxes.
You didnt know the moonrocks were given away to 12 international museums?
You didnt know they were given away to 150 foreign countries? How much of an "INDEPENDENT" source are you even educated enough to know about? Since you didnt know the moonrocks were already independently confirmed, you're likely ignorant on everything else as well.
The Dutch "rock" was provided by a dutch bureaucrat who had kept it in his closet for 10 years before giving the "rock" to the museum.
Therefore, not only does the rock NOT have a direct chain of custody from NASA, at this point how can we believe its even the same rock NASA gave him in the first place? Is a decade in a closet usually accepted as an airtight alibi? I mean really.
How is it that "moonrocks" that were really gotten from Antartica magically have zero evidence of wind erosion, water erosion, oxidation, frost damage etc etc and a hundred other give-aways of an oxygen atmosphere that wouldn't fool any geologist over the age of 4? Does the south pole not have air?
Or did you just cut and paste "ANTARCTICA" from a dork webpage and were too dumb to read past the first sentence? Ditto for the Dutch rock?
i have a question: have you been on the moon? might have asked it already, its just slightly more powerful than any question regarding the credibility of space agencies. you´re final argument will always be: i believe these people. i guess even modern times need a Jesus. the difference is, maybe this time around the repercussions will someday be within the commoner´s grasp; at which point i will readily (fully) accept and enjoy the progress
@ibajem Its an extremely superficial and naive argument to compare the 12 astronauts to Jesus. The differences are paramount.
Jesus isnt here, the Astronauts are. They are physical, they are real, and are available for questioning, and have been repeatedly. We have a complete record of their alleged alibi which can be confirmed independently.
Therefore bringing Jesus into this is a huge wishy-washy juvenile gripe, displaying ignorance of the available evidence.
Besides, if you're going to call the astronauts "liars" out of no other basis that you personally havent been to the moon, then we have equal basis for calling you a "liar" when you say anything whatsoever. The justification for both is identical.
the moonlanding is indeed a fact or a nonfact. adhering dogmatically to one or another opinion is FINE. and one or the other is WRONG. we are in agreemente here. the problem is i am in the middle! all your arguments are good and well but they dont quite tolerate my neutral position on this one. i will accept either, at the time when the proof is immediately extrapolatable from within my perceptive boundaries. its all the same though. my words dont affect your person and vice versa; so be it
its very entertaining to chat with you though, putting everyone below your holy glow of reason and logicistic hierarchy i would JUST rather (wait to) be the astronaught than the man listening to the dude who built part 236 of the Voyager. Hell i´d prefer it over being the friggin engineer on this one. and im NOT A RELIABLE EXPERT. where the hell do you come up with these retaliations? i´m just an (unbiased) opinion with arms and legs, for God´s sake. we might have landed, it is probable.
An "unbiased" opinion would not find cause to disbelieve the astronauts in the first place. "Neutral" is a wishy-washy non-committal, and regardless of your own feelings, has been used as a cover by actual hoax gluttons to hide their true feelings and avoid ridicule in a position that they have more ignorant bias about than fact.
I do not want to, and do not have to, put up with ignorant bias. The facts are on the side of the landing.
fair game friend but i will give you the benefit of the doubt when, in the least, you have ventured past our atmosphere. i will place my belief nowhere for now. no landing and no lack of landing, i have no definitive proof of either. just a leaf in the wind, and i´m sure you´d rather fall into an opinion like a stone, which is fine. have fun, dont get so mad at other people. explain to me why so many astronaughts have "seen ufos" while all of your engineers seem to have not mentioned this.
"astronaughts have "seen ufos" while all of your engineers seem to have not mentioned this. "
Not to sound "mean," but what the flying hell does that have to do with anything? Besides, it has an obvious answer, the astronauts were in space to see them and the engineers werent. What did you expect them to say?
This is exactly why "mad" is something of a necessity, it keeps you from bringing up wild tangents while ignoring legitimate fact in the process.
Well you sure bombed THAT moonlanding argument fast. ;)
With stupendous articulation like that, its hard to believe that after 40 years, all the hoaxaholics have accomplished is discovering new ways to get laughed at. ;)
Since you've given up on any adult argument, I'll save you the trouble of a flimsy juvenile retort and just block you right now. ;)
Your "life experience" ceases to be sacrosanct the moment you use it as an arguing tool against science or whatever pet project or prejudice is on your plate.
If you choose to take on the moonlanding, and cite yourself as a reliable expert, you can and will be judged on those merits. If you come up as unqualified or inexperienced, thats only the honest truth that you should have admitted to yourself.
Who you "trust" is irrelevant. The moonlanding is about fact.
sigh. i can tolerate your opinion. tolerate mine. they are not the only ones amassing experience
i dont dismiss science easily, studying engineering and having an intense interest in physics and other fields, its humanity that snaps things together conveniantly. and nature that rips them apart again (or backwards, with space-time)
i meant i hold no greater regard for myself, since you attacked my ego. a bit of a contradiction since i was only retracting myself
And I wont tolerate it if you violate any of my own established conditions about spreading bias and rumor as fact.
For that matter, opinions are not relevant. The moonlanding is about fact. Its either a fact that it happened or its a fact that it didnt. We cant both be right, therefore someone is wrong. "Tolerating" an incorrect opinion is akin to tolerating ignorance.
(note: philosophers were the first to present such models, but when the first experiments attempting to give them a physical manifestation failed to do so conclusively there was much resent. same with quantum physics; einstein helped create it and he still hated the very matter and worked till his death (scribbling equations on the sheets of his deathbed) in search of refuting such obscene implications. i respect this. if he werent like this, we would still think space adn time are different
i trust many people, i dont think they are bad people i just think it wouldnt be right to deposit my infinite faith in something i cant dissect for myself
that privelage is reserved for God or conceptions beyond the realm of experiment
i have no need to be better than these men, i just want to be sure i wont run into familiar mistakes. philosophers still doubted the corporeal existance of atoms until the twentieth century, maybe they were wrong but they were at peace with themselves
I disagree. You cannot skip a decades education only to then naively wonder why so much goes over your head.
These people have spent their entire lives amassing experience. To even pretend to try to "dissect" them is arrogance of the highest order. You are not qualified. Thats not insult, but honest fact.
meanwhile i´ll be filming the real moon, making my own conclusions aye? if its us up there jacking off in the moon atmosphere we sure U-turn more than your average earthly satellite
To an extent, I dont really think thats a good idea.
This world is full of people who've put in the time, done the work, built the machines, and have experience in a hundred areas far beyond the area of one mere man like you.
To dismiss THEIR conclusions, especially when you have to admit that you're nowhere near an intellectual match for them, is NOT being critical or logical. Its merely self-importance.
but even newton was wrong about things when he made his extremely venerable theories and experimental procedures
intellect aside, of course i am more ignorant than an astrologist in what concerns the cosmos. i am critical towards my own lack of physical perception; or reasonable deduction to match the results of such awesome feats. to be logical is to be deductive and precise where election of premises is concerned, by the nature of Logic and mathematics.
true, about the hoax theories. but they are the manifestation of an "explanation," something like the bible and other religious texts pertaining to more than simple spiritualism and moral and such.
conspiracies are lame in that sense but hey it wasn´t until ufos became recurrent in my life that i believed there is some insane technology (terrestrial or not, i dont decide this) out there and i still dont buy into the super specific alien conspiracies. (reptilians? w-t-f mate)
how much of man walking on the moon was properly documented for the use of man on earth?
yes, apparently it was the wrong way to express my opinion, and i thank for you simply asking for a redefinition of my point of view rather than intolerantly refuting what didn´t come across clearly in the first place. this is the proper attitude for debate whereas youtube generally spawns more intolerance than it does simple disagreement
As far as documentation, thousands of pics were taken, hours of video was shot, and all the radio transmissions were recorded. All of that is available today and even available on youtube.
yes, conspiracy and hoax are as dogmatic and primitive and any ancient explanation for the misunderstood, but that does not render the subject at hand undebatable
physics err, scientists err
we get closer but its not like we´re past the tip of iceberg on anything important in this version of reality we call space-time
Who said anything about a "new" element? Are you making up your story as you go again? ;)
Is this your admission that you are so incompetent in science and geology that you cant think of even ONE way to tell moonrocks apart from earth rocks?
I can think of several, so I guess I'm smarter than you. Big surprise. ;)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do YouTube searches on "MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks" and "MoonFaker: Exhibit D" to see some stuff about the rocks.
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
Dufus Hoax movies cannot be used as "evidence" for dufus hoax ideas.
Two ignorant opinions by two ignorant people does not equal fact.
There is no evidence of Moon fakery that is supported by anyone qualified, or given by anyone experienced. Its all based on scientific illiteracy and ignorant error.
Really? You mean rocks in a place without wind or water will somehow have wind erosion and water erosion?\
Except the moonrocks DONT have any erosion, meaning they must have been totally isolated from wind or water for about 4 billion years. Wonder how that happened. ;)
And I have a feeling "IsotopE" is just a big word you heard on TV without knowing what it means. Because for one you misspelled it.
For another, most theories of moon creation say the moon was split from the Earth, therefore the ELEMENTAL composition would be exactly the same. You dont even know what point you're trying to make.
MY point is that ANY rock on Earth will have a billion years of erosion.
why pointed out my spelling? thats usually something propagandaists does when running out of arguments... i just says what NASA SAID (pre 2001) and that is that the isotops from earth rocks are exacly the same as the ones apollo was said to take home to earth. however, in 2001 nasa changed their mineral analyse because esa's test results proved that THEIR rocks was total different from the apollo rocks... you cant have it both!! either was esa faked, or apollo! imo apollo no doubt
I point out spelling as its the fastest way to tell if you really know the word, or if its just something you cut and pasted. REAL professionals wouldnt misspell it, and hoaxaholic bluffers are a dime a dozen around here. I think you're one of them.
For the last time, isotopEs are irrelevant. Since the Earth and Moon were at one point a joined body, the elements WOULD be identical.
Besides, "different isotopes" was never used as a moonrock proof in the first place.
Why would you expect two different rocks from two different missions from two different agencies that landed two different missions in two different moonlanding sites to have identical isotopes? Do you even know HOW MANY different isotopes there are in the universe? The moon IS NOT "one" isotope. Its several hundred.
If you really knew what the word meant, you wouldnt be making these errors. So I'm calling your bluff.
Going to the moon was ONE goal, and we did it, great.
Then we made OTHER goals: 6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers etc etc etc
There are OTHER things to do you know. Wasting 40 years doing the exact same thing we already did over and over would have been a huge waste of money. If we want to get to Mars or wherever, we need experience with staying in space for months (space station) and with reusable ships (shuttles).
Why do the the NASA supporters argue with the lunatic fringe? You humor fools or you ignore them. You don't debate with them. Calling a mentally impaired person names is cruel and only a lowly character would do something like that. Why the hell even pay any attention to the "hoax tards"--btw I am not so sure men walked on the moon. It is a lot to believe. Scientists are natural born liars.
The rapid nature of information and media has changed the rules. "Truth" is virtually irrelevant today and you can see that anywhere. 'Fact' is merely what is repeated the most times. Therefore, leaving the moondorks alone is the WORST possible action. All they require is to spread errors and paranoia, and have the neutrals sit back to see that no one stands up to them.
Silence does equal implied guilt.
Therefore we must challenge their dumb ideas anywhere and everywhere.
Thats extraordinarily biased and naive, and will only paint you as exactly the sort of "lunatic fringe" you claim to despise.
Think of it this way, people go to school for YEARS to become physicists and engineers. An ordinary joe just cant skip all that and then naively wonder why scientists say stuff thats "a lot to believe." I have no trouble with it. And in fact most hoax kook material can be refuted with a high school education.
Well done. Short and to the point. Conspiracy videos can go on for 30 minutes before even getting their straw man set up. I suppose when your case is weak, you want to make it look more important by taking a bunch of time to say your piece.
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
Question: If Russia could obtain moon rocks from un-manned missions, then why couldn't the US??? Therefore, the moon rocks do nothing to prove that man landed on the moon. I'm still on the fence about the whole issue....but this does nothing to convince me.
the russians DIDNT get "rocks" from the missions, they got dirt only.
The technology to have a robot pick up a rock and blast off with it doesnt even exist NOW, let alone the 1960's.
Plus it creates a whole NEW conspiracy, with robots built with blueprints you dont have, built by engineers you cant find, launched on a date you cant name in a rocket no one saw.
One conspiracy cannot be used as proof for another conspiracy.
we brought back over eight hundred moon rocks, and the russians only brought back a few. the guy said that at the end of the video. only a vehicle built to carry the extra weight (humans) would be able to carry so many back home.
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
I can prove it was fake, they had to go though the Van Halen Belt thing an woulda come back with super powers like the Fantastic Four but none of the astronauts even got Xray vision so it was teh fake. Tomorrow me an some hoax friends are gonna build a fort in the backyard an lookit the moon through cardboard tubes an prove all kinda more hoax stuff.
I believe man went to the moon, but why all the arrogance and aggression in your video? Nasa are famous for all their lies and secrecy, so is it any wonder people don't believe a word they say. Forget the moon landings for a second. To talk on ANY subject and call people nuts, dimwitted, screwballs, lunatics, dorks (and every other insult you can think of) is only going to get you a lot of abuse in return.
I would never use the word "aggression" to describe this, just animated. Besides, saying "famous for lies" is hardly an unbiased statement on your part. Its unjustifiable and I dont agree in the slightest. The only people who believe in the "hoax," or would call NASA "liars," are clearly tainted conspiracy types who do not represent professional society, let alone any credible scientific establishment.
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
Is that dude for or against the moon landing? I mean, the title is not helpful if the guy is saying that we could have just sent a moon rover up there and retrieved the rocks.
I did NOT say we could have just sent a rover. I was talking about the hoax nuts who said we did, hoax nuts who didnt read enough to know that the soviet rovers only brought back DIRT, not rocks. The technology does not exist for a rover to land, pick up 800 lbs of rocks, and blast off with all that weight. If it could be done in the 60's we would have done it with all the dozen probes we've sent to Mars over the last 10-15 years.
Moon Hoax Believers are a type of Conspiracy Theorist/Loser who devote their time desperately trying to validate a Fantasy that they are much more intelligent than everyone else.
They do this by "discovering" or "uncovering" some secret or lie that all the "normal" people are too dumb to see.
No matter how absurd, flawed or utterly preposterous their "secret discovery" is...they will cling to it and defend it like their entire sense of self-worth is at stake.
We obviously have gone to the moon successfully now. What i ment with my previous post is that in those times they certainly would have good reasons to lie about it and it wouldnt surprise me if they did.
Cliches wont prove anything. I'd prefer to keep an EDUCATED mind.
And as long as every "fact" of the "hoax" is continually refuted by people with twice the education and experience of the fear-mongers who push the hoax, there's really nothing to discuss.
Well done you have blantenly displayed your ignorance online. I'd prefer to keep an OPEN and EDUCATED mind as facts are easily manipulated when there's money involved.
Well it sounds like you're one of them fear-mongers, looking for hidden microphones in your oatmeal every morning because THEY'RE OUT TO GET US! ;)
Every hoaxtard degenerates into this. They have zero hard evidence, so they gorge themselves on innuendo and could've would've.
Well, the hell with it all. I want facts, not your paranoid ramblings. At this point, as long as the only people suspecting a "hoax" are societies most illiterate and inexperienced, the idea is stupid on the face of it.
I bet you actually are smart but your arrogance and ignorance certainly doesn't justify your intelligence. I hope for your own good that you learn to be humble and understanding instead of arrogant and childish.
I am perfectly humble with those willing to respond in kind (these movies were made for educational purposes after all). But when you have hoax gluttons flying in here with "IT WAS FAKE AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME" they are only going to get the respect they deserve.
Well if you dont think so, why bother even posting? I found out long ago that movies like this only attract partisans with an agenda. Some of them come right out and say what they think, while other hide behind wishy-washy "have an open mind" corny cliches, afraid to come out of the closet.
it is completely ignorant for hoaxers to make these comments and provide zero proof period of how they allegedly did this. This works perfectly for them however because they need zero proof to believe the hoax and impossible proof to believe the landing actually happened.
Interesting TIKOMIX, I'd ike to knwo that as well. The thing is I used to think we landed men on the moon, but we'll only really be able to settle the argument for the majority when another manned mission is sent up and it lands near the original landings. Plus how do we explain the solar flares that happened during a particular mission? Its already been admitted that the landers were no better than aluminium etc and would not have protected anyone at all. Anyone care to correct me?
I'm afraid its not very interesting. Moonrocks would have absolutely zero erosion. No wind, no water, no atmosphere, no freezing, no boiling. It is impossible to find a rock thats been in our atmosphere for a century or even a year that wouldnt be immediately given away by all of the above.
"SOLAR FLARES" are a big scary word misused 99% of the time by people neither educated nor experienced in anything remotely resembling astronomy. See next post.
Russians used UNMANNED probes to get moonrocks...USA used UNMANNED probes to get moonrocks...why is a MANNED probe needed to get moonrocks as assumed in this video?
Why? We dont have the tech EVEN NOW for an unmanned probe to land EXACTLY right next to a perfectly sized rock, pick it up, and have the thrust to blast off again. Its about weight.
Go read about the Russians a little closer. You wont find anywhere that they have "rocks."
Even if you ignore the fact that many Apollo rocks were greater in mass then the total of 3 unmanned probes, ignore that it would take thousands of probes to achieve the same mass in samples, probes which have to be designed, built, launched, and paid for, what evidence do you have of them existing?
The Saturn V was used for Skylab, the Apollo CSM used for Apollo Soyuz Test Project and Skylab, a modified LM for the Apollo Telescope Mount and the decent stage for the 2nd stage of the Delta 2.
"We never went to the moon, get ya fucking head rounds it fucko's. "
TEN OUT OF TEN IGNORANT CONSPIRATARDS AGREE!
Whereas we just to hear the opinion of scientifically illiterate mcjobs who would believe Bigfoot shot Elvis if they read it online... we personally prefer the opinion of EDUCATED men.
You keep the youtards. We'll keep the Phds. We'l then let you explain to us all how you got the better end of the deal .;)
If you have the two brain cells to respond, talk like a respectable human being instead of an 8th grade drop-out or you'll be deleted and blocked faster than you can say "Conspiraholic!"
We love your paranoia, we really do, but we have evidence and you dont. So put up or shut up.
they could be any rock from space... no one knows a moon rock from a meteor rock... look at the interviews with the astronauts, they seem as though their hiding something. if they landed on the moon they should be excited, but their scared! "wake up people"
That's estentially claiming that the geologists that studied the rocks don't know their jobs.
Meteors and lunar rocks have several characteristics that set them aside from each other. One would be a lack of evidence of entering the Earth's atmosphere. Also, Russia had it's own, small samples of lunar material. When given the samples from Apollo, they matched.
As far as the astronauts go, people forget the conditions the astronauts had to put up with prior to press releases; staying in space in an enviroment not much wider than that of a station wagon. Using tubes and plastic bags for toilets. Debriefing that goes on for hours. The first missions had a long period of isolation to watch for signs of illness. They wanted to get back to family, to normal life. You think they're scared? Try "anxious".
you still don't have proof man set foot on the surface of the moon... we could have retrieved, the supposed, moon rocks from un-maned missions. to believe, that we even had a video feed, a ship that would land and take off of the moon, and the knowledge (without the help of E.T.)in 1969 is crazy! "From error to error one discovers the entire truth." --Sigmund Freud
We need to build the new rockets and spacecraft, as well as go about testing them. This takes time, and money.
During Apollo, there was plenty of funding, and not much competing for the same funding; namely, the big projects were the last few Mercury missions, and the Gemini program, which was a test bed for techniques for Apollo.
Today, there's not as much funding, as we have the expensive shuttle and ISS to take care of at the same time.
As far as secrecy goes, where do you see this? There are plenty of books that talk about the technical aspects of Apollo, the astronauts themselves, as well as the missions. There's a series of books that have transcripts of the debriefing of each mission, where the astronauts answer technical questions about the events during the mission. There are also documentries about Apollo.
What's also funny about these "why haven't we gone back" crowds, is that they seem too lazy to read up on the history behind the space program. Emphasis went from Apollo to the shuttle, with Skylab and the Soyuz link-up as transitions.
What's rather upsetting is the massive loss of skills that NASA has felt after Apollo ended. I hope the new generations of engineers can have as much creativity as back then.
"ou still don't have proof man set foot on the surface of the moon"
Other than witnesses you've never refuted, rocks you never refuted, and documents and pics and videotape and on and on, you're RIGHT!
Dude, "ten out of ten dorks agree!" does not count as hoax "evidence." If you dont have a witness to say "I SAW THE SET AND HELPED THEM FAKE IT!" then you've got jack and you know it.
"listen Bernard, we know more than you could possibly imagine, it's a shame that it's such a struggle to find oneself. i can see you have given up your journey long ago."
Spare me the cut and pasted cliches. There's more research in this movie than you've done in the last ten years. I know that cause I keep getting to ridicule hoaxaholics who admit to not knowing ANY of the facts I give here.
In your case, whereas I'm sure you've cut and pasted the finest dork page available, somehow "TEN OUT OF TEN HOAX NERDS AGREE!" lacks a little credibility.
A dork page cannot be used as "evidence" for another dork.
I am interested ONLY in any direct refutes of any fact I present in this video.
Are the moonrocks NOT in international museums?
Were they NOT given away to 150 countries?
Hesitate to answer those, and your ignorance will unfortunately prove itself. There's a reason science is best left to scientists, not to dubiously educated Halo addicted guitar players.
Whomever you're quoting, they sure are out of touch.
I've only seen ignorance on the relevent fields to Apollo on the part of the conspiracy theorists. They do not show a knowledge of aerospace engineering, the enviroment of space, radiation, or physics.
I'm sorry but I am sick and goddamn tired of complete 8th grade moon newbies pretending to be psychologists, engineers, physicists, or whatever they need to make a dumb point.
Unless you have a psych degree sticking out of your ass, you're a bluffing wannabe with nothing to offer except fear-mongering paranoia.
A geologist was on Apollo 17 BTW. He'd LOVE to hear how you know his job better than he does.
Is that your admission that you cant refute a single fact in the video? Therefore resort to the ole "you...you...YOU DUMMY!" counter-argument? ;) We're so scared.
How do you know they are moon rocks? Says who? What are their credentials and how do they establish that? To what do they compare them? Its a known fact that Von Braun went to Antarctica in 67 and brought back 'moon rocks' which coincidentally were identical to the
@sssssjjjj1 Who proved them fake? You believe the shuttle is a vehicle that could go and land on the moon? It's
Labzo441 2 months ago
If people in white lab coats tell you something, it must be true. If Russians in white lab coats tell you the same thing, it must be even more true. The moon landings were a clever hoax- the man wiring the LEM had no reason to suspect that it was a prop and not a machine. The Apollo 11 press footage is a beautiful document. Freshly threatened with their lives, the faces show it all- imagine the fop-sweat of their handlers-the entire rotting shed of new age Bolshevism could have been torched.
hozayamz 7 months ago
@hozayamz DISbelieving the white coat, just because its a white coat, isnt intelligence. Its rank paranoia. The White coats are at least as believable as the fear-mongering conspiraholics who cut and paste "hoax" talking points no questions asked from whatever dumb webpage they stumble across.
Worse, "threatened with lives" is the invention of ANOTHER fear-mongering conspiracy. Using one conspiracy as proof of another conspiracy only proves how stupid the evidence is for either one.
SpeakerForBoskone 7 months ago 4
@hozayamz The Russian white coats would do everything in their fucking power to disprove that the moon rocks were from the moon in order to make the U.S. space program look like it failed. The evidence has been all heavily scrutinized by many governments and consistently proven that, yes, the U.S. went to the moon.
Chazwozel1 3 weeks ago
@Chazwozel1 Nonsense. The cold war was a mutually beneficial arrangement for the governments & parasitic industries of both sides. Each faked missions. If you think the Russians could successfully return material from the moon in the 1970's, you've been fooled by a crude heap of junk welded together by drunk pipe-fitters. There are plenty of moon rocks to be found on earth, obviously. He who pays the piper calls the tune, he who signs the paycheck makes the rules.
hozayamz 3 weeks ago
Oh shut the fuck up. How bout we send brain-dead pseudo-intellectuals like yourself to the moon?
Chazwozel1 3 weeks ago
@hozayamz If the russian probes were not capable, I'd prefer to hear that from an actual engineer who knew what he was talking about, not a youtard newb taking a wild flying guess.
And moonrocks on Earth? Moonrocks ruined by wind and water erosion? Oxidized and rusted by an oxygen atmosphere? Which could never happen on an airless moon? Do you really think any such rock would fool any geologist over the age of 4? You didnt think it out.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 days ago
@hozayamz "cold war was fake" You cant invent ANOTHER dumb conspiracy as proof of your first dumb conspiracy. Thats just making up your story as you go.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 days ago
The Soviets actually only got .7 lbs. and it took them 3 missions to get that much (Luna 16, 20 & 23). That means for NASA to have 840 lbs. from unmanned missions, using known technology, they would have had to take over 3,600 trips! Most hoax theorists (with half a brain) would choose to believe NASA doesn't have 840 lbs., since they haven't seen it with their own eyes (as if they'd know a moon rock from a Snickers Bar). That's why geologists from around the world verified MANY samples.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
b.s. the rocks were proved fake. They were lied to again by the same scammers it has always been. THink! why hasn't the space shuttle been to the moon. It travels at over 20000mph. 230thousand miles.They could go there and back in a day. Come on people. The radiation is too much, or the russians would have gone and everyone else. We'd have cities on the moon.Stop being stupid and falling for "conspiracy theory" name calling. They can do anything and call c-t and you all agree. fools.
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
@sssssjjjj1
What rocks were "proven" fake? Since you couldnt even name when or where I doubt you know jack shit and just cut and paste "lied" to pretend to sound cool. Didnt work ;)
"radiation" is another newb cut and paste. I WORK in radiation, We CAN survive it. Whatever you read on a dork webpage is certifiable horseshit.
And why dont you ask why the russians didnt go? Or is it easier to jump to a newb guess without knowing anything?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@sssssjjjj1 Good to know you have absolutely no handle on how physics works. The Space Shuttle doesn't pack enough fuel to travel to the moon. Look up rocket staging and basic concepts of thrust and friction before being a total internet turd.
Cities? Ha! Can you tell me how to transport enough compressed air to sustain a city on the moon? Do you have any idea what an engineering feat that would be? Are you 11 years old?
Chazwozel1 3 weeks ago
I like to play with hoaxterers heads before givirng them the information to make their own decision. the hoax believers are suffering from a lack of information, that all there is.
ParaglidingManiac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow 380 kilo moon rocks ?
who sow it ? who check ?
the only 2 gramm nasa send to each lab for analys and as exception 29 gramm to ussr laboratory ...
so where the rest 379.9 kilo moon rocks ??
guess what i read in a news 2 month ago ?
they lost all thir moon rock all of them ! WOW!
can u imagin that ?
ring0heavenx11 1 year ago
Comment removed
ring0heavenx11 1 year ago
Comment removed
ring0heavenx11 1 year ago
Moon rocks can be found on Earth. When objects impact with the moon it sends moon rock into space.
Some of this rock would move toward Earth and survive coming through the atmosphere and land on Earth.
This would have been happening since the moon formed into a solid object billions of years ago so a lot of rock should have made this journey up to modern times.
This could moon rocks could have been used to "bulk" the quantity of rocks brought back by robotic lunar landers. (just saying)
benitofinito 1 year ago
@benitofinito
Moon rocks have been found here.
But we KNOW that they were found here. Because they have tell-tale burn marks of coming through the atmosphere, and erosion from being exposed to our wind and water and oxygen atmosphere. The moonrocks that NASA calls "moonrocks," and the ones examined by geologists all over the world, are totally unscarred in anyway. Erosion is the first thing any geologist over the age of 4 would notice.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@benitofinito
And robot lander couldnt do it.
Having robots pick up rocks and then blast off with all the extra weight is something our robots cant even do NOW, let alone 40 years ago.
Every probe we've landed on a planet has stayed there. We're only now even thinking of building such things. To say robots did it then? You'd need to show me the probes. Blueprints we've never seen, engineers we've never seen, etc etc. You cant use "well I think kinda sorta" as counter evidence.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Good work on answering my moonrocks suggestion true I should have took into consideration the burn marks and erosion as even I know about this also.
Just want to know the truth not matter what it is thanks for info
benitofinito 1 year ago
IT WAS A SOUNDSTAGE ON MARS
Torgoable 1 year ago
This is the last comment I will make on YouTube, but I want to thank SpeakerForBoskone for defending the integrity of my Father who was part of the space race. WE WENT TO THE MOON. I've made several harmless and clarifying comments about it that couldn't offend anyone, yet I am shocked at the number of obscene, insulting and hurtful posts sent to me. Why the intolerance? It tells me some people don't pursue truth; they pursue belief. Let's value, maturely, the opinions of others. As Americans.
BurnsDillon 1 year ago
@BurnsDillon word son,
MrShitslinger 1 year ago
@BurnsDillon
I hope you get to read this. I understand how you feel.
The retards that responded to your post with filth are not the ones that matter. It is the normal decent people that may need convincing after they have taken in so much hoax rubbish.
The time is not long off when the moon landings will be beyond living memory and it is important that the acheivements of the 60s are not forgotten.
Best wishes.
tpsossff 1 year ago
i dont like u.
kanalos123 1 year ago
Moon Rocks Debunk: Moonrocks are composed of basalt which can be found on Earth. The 1967 Van Braun expedition to Antarctica was a trip to collect such rocks. 800 lbs? This is a number supplied by NASA you fool. Have you, yourself seen all 800 lbs in one room? NO. Do you have this figure provided by an INDEPENDANT source (non US)? NO. Can you 100% prove the rocks studied or "gifted" to museums are actually from the Apollo missions? NO. In 2009 the Dutch rock was discovered as a fake.
stewielips 1 year ago
@stewielips
We're going to believe NASA before we believe scientifically illiterate hoax gluttons begging for attention with retarded hoaxes.
You didnt know the moonrocks were given away to 12 international museums?
You didnt know they were given away to 150 foreign countries? How much of an "INDEPENDENT" source are you even educated enough to know about? Since you didnt know the moonrocks were already independently confirmed, you're likely ignorant on everything else as well.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago 11
@stewielips
The Dutch "rock" was provided by a dutch bureaucrat who had kept it in his closet for 10 years before giving the "rock" to the museum.
Therefore, not only does the rock NOT have a direct chain of custody from NASA, at this point how can we believe its even the same rock NASA gave him in the first place? Is a decade in a closet usually accepted as an airtight alibi? I mean really.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
last point.
How is it that "moonrocks" that were really gotten from Antartica magically have zero evidence of wind erosion, water erosion, oxidation, frost damage etc etc and a hundred other give-aways of an oxygen atmosphere that wouldn't fool any geologist over the age of 4? Does the south pole not have air?
Or did you just cut and paste "ANTARCTICA" from a dork webpage and were too dumb to read past the first sentence? Ditto for the Dutch rock?
You arent educated on this topic at all.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@stewielips
You obiviously haven't looked into this subject.
The composition shows differences between Earth basalts and lunar basalts.
Lunar meteorites were not known as such until the 1980s, and that was revealed by comparing it to Apollo rocks.
The 1967 expedition did not bring back rocks. You're simply repeating a false claim.
You're picking nits with the rest of your claims.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
Comment removed
stewielips 1 year ago
i have a question: have you been on the moon? might have asked it already, its just slightly more powerful than any question regarding the credibility of space agencies. you´re final argument will always be: i believe these people. i guess even modern times need a Jesus. the difference is, maybe this time around the repercussions will someday be within the commoner´s grasp; at which point i will readily (fully) accept and enjoy the progress
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem Its an extremely superficial and naive argument to compare the 12 astronauts to Jesus. The differences are paramount.
Jesus isnt here, the Astronauts are. They are physical, they are real, and are available for questioning, and have been repeatedly. We have a complete record of their alleged alibi which can be confirmed independently.
Therefore bringing Jesus into this is a huge wishy-washy juvenile gripe, displaying ignorance of the available evidence.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@ibajem
Besides, if you're going to call the astronauts "liars" out of no other basis that you personally havent been to the moon, then we have equal basis for calling you a "liar" when you say anything whatsoever. The justification for both is identical.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
the moonlanding is indeed a fact or a nonfact. adhering dogmatically to one or another opinion is FINE. and one or the other is WRONG. we are in agreemente here. the problem is i am in the middle! all your arguments are good and well but they dont quite tolerate my neutral position on this one. i will accept either, at the time when the proof is immediately extrapolatable from within my perceptive boundaries. its all the same though. my words dont affect your person and vice versa; so be it
ibajem 2 years ago
"proof is immediately extrapolatable"
There's no rational reason to disregard the 12 people who say "I was there" just because their testimony is inconvenient to hoax fairytales.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
its very entertaining to chat with you though, putting everyone below your holy glow of reason and logicistic hierarchy i would JUST rather (wait to) be the astronaught than the man listening to the dude who built part 236 of the Voyager. Hell i´d prefer it over being the friggin engineer on this one. and im NOT A RELIABLE EXPERT. where the hell do you come up with these retaliations? i´m just an (unbiased) opinion with arms and legs, for God´s sake. we might have landed, it is probable.
ibajem 2 years ago
An "unbiased" opinion would not find cause to disbelieve the astronauts in the first place. "Neutral" is a wishy-washy non-committal, and regardless of your own feelings, has been used as a cover by actual hoax gluttons to hide their true feelings and avoid ridicule in a position that they have more ignorant bias about than fact.
I do not want to, and do not have to, put up with ignorant bias. The facts are on the side of the landing.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
fair game friend but i will give you the benefit of the doubt when, in the least, you have ventured past our atmosphere. i will place my belief nowhere for now. no landing and no lack of landing, i have no definitive proof of either. just a leaf in the wind, and i´m sure you´d rather fall into an opinion like a stone, which is fine. have fun, dont get so mad at other people. explain to me why so many astronaughts have "seen ufos" while all of your engineers seem to have not mentioned this.
ibajem 2 years ago
"astronaughts have "seen ufos" while all of your engineers seem to have not mentioned this. "
Not to sound "mean," but what the flying hell does that have to do with anything? Besides, it has an obvious answer, the astronauts were in space to see them and the engineers werent. What did you expect them to say?
This is exactly why "mad" is something of a necessity, it keeps you from bringing up wild tangents while ignoring legitimate fact in the process.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Ofcourse we landed on the Moon. No doubt. Only delusional hoaxers think they are smarter than scientists & engineers.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Well this video failed big time.
BloodTar 2 years ago
I've a 4 star rating that says you're an idiot. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I've got a 9" cock that your girlfriend loves.
BloodTar 2 years ago
Well you sure bombed THAT moonlanding argument fast. ;)
With stupendous articulation like that, its hard to believe that after 40 years, all the hoaxaholics have accomplished is discovering new ways to get laughed at. ;)
Since you've given up on any adult argument, I'll save you the trouble of a flimsy juvenile retort and just block you right now. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
maybe
just maybe
its my job to trust whom i choose to trust
and yours to do the same
and noones to criticize another´s life experience
or do you see me telling you to set up a cam and few ufos to refute the work of these men?
ibajem 2 years ago
Your "life experience" ceases to be sacrosanct the moment you use it as an arguing tool against science or whatever pet project or prejudice is on your plate.
If you choose to take on the moonlanding, and cite yourself as a reliable expert, you can and will be judged on those merits. If you come up as unqualified or inexperienced, thats only the honest truth that you should have admitted to yourself.
Who you "trust" is irrelevant. The moonlanding is about fact.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"I choose to trust"
Just dont assume that your "trust" carries any weight with the rest of us.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
sigh. i can tolerate your opinion. tolerate mine. they are not the only ones amassing experience
i dont dismiss science easily, studying engineering and having an intense interest in physics and other fields, its humanity that snaps things together conveniantly. and nature that rips them apart again (or backwards, with space-time)
i meant i hold no greater regard for myself, since you attacked my ego. a bit of a contradiction since i was only retracting myself
ibajem 2 years ago
"tolerate mine"
I dont have to tolerate it.
And I wont tolerate it if you violate any of my own established conditions about spreading bias and rumor as fact.
For that matter, opinions are not relevant. The moonlanding is about fact. Its either a fact that it happened or its a fact that it didnt. We cant both be right, therefore someone is wrong. "Tolerating" an incorrect opinion is akin to tolerating ignorance.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
i know i am not qualified to disprove them
but any man is qualified to mistrust them
ibajem 2 years ago
"mistrust" is hardly a rational educated analysis to base an entire multibillion dollar conspiracy around.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
(note: philosophers were the first to present such models, but when the first experiments attempting to give them a physical manifestation failed to do so conclusively there was much resent. same with quantum physics; einstein helped create it and he still hated the very matter and worked till his death (scribbling equations on the sheets of his deathbed) in search of refuting such obscene implications. i respect this. if he werent like this, we would still think space adn time are different
ibajem 2 years ago
i trust many people, i dont think they are bad people i just think it wouldnt be right to deposit my infinite faith in something i cant dissect for myself
that privelage is reserved for God or conceptions beyond the realm of experiment
i have no need to be better than these men, i just want to be sure i wont run into familiar mistakes. philosophers still doubted the corporeal existance of atoms until the twentieth century, maybe they were wrong but they were at peace with themselves
ibajem 2 years ago
"no need to be better"
I disagree. You cannot skip a decades education only to then naively wonder why so much goes over your head.
These people have spent their entire lives amassing experience. To even pretend to try to "dissect" them is arrogance of the highest order. You are not qualified. Thats not insult, but honest fact.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
great
so you think they could send me a polaroid?
meanwhile i´ll be filming the real moon, making my own conclusions aye? if its us up there jacking off in the moon atmosphere we sure U-turn more than your average earthly satellite
ibajem 2 years ago
"making my own conclusions"
To an extent, I dont really think thats a good idea.
This world is full of people who've put in the time, done the work, built the machines, and have experience in a hundred areas far beyond the area of one mere man like you.
To dismiss THEIR conclusions, especially when you have to admit that you're nowhere near an intellectual match for them, is NOT being critical or logical. Its merely self-importance.
Trust the people whose job this is.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
yes, you are right
but even newton was wrong about things when he made his extremely venerable theories and experimental procedures
intellect aside, of course i am more ignorant than an astrologist in what concerns the cosmos. i am critical towards my own lack of physical perception; or reasonable deduction to match the results of such awesome feats. to be logical is to be deductive and precise where election of premises is concerned, by the nature of Logic and mathematics.
ibajem 2 years ago
true, about the hoax theories. but they are the manifestation of an "explanation," something like the bible and other religious texts pertaining to more than simple spiritualism and moral and such.
conspiracies are lame in that sense but hey it wasn´t until ufos became recurrent in my life that i believed there is some insane technology (terrestrial or not, i dont decide this) out there and i still dont buy into the super specific alien conspiracies. (reptilians? w-t-f mate)
ibajem 2 years ago
by the way i´m not referring to having landed on the moon, this is really more difficult to simulate than to actually achieve, even in 1969
but how much of the moon has walked on earth is debatable
ibajem 2 years ago
Could you rephrase that?
"How much of the moon has walked on earth?"
I think the moon has NEVER walked on the Earth, so I think you were trying for a different point that got lost in translation.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
figuratively speaking...
how much of man walking on the moon was properly documented for the use of man on earth?
yes, apparently it was the wrong way to express my opinion, and i thank for you simply asking for a redefinition of my point of view rather than intolerantly refuting what didn´t come across clearly in the first place. this is the proper attitude for debate whereas youtube generally spawns more intolerance than it does simple disagreement
ibajem 2 years ago
As far as documentation, thousands of pics were taken, hours of video was shot, and all the radio transmissions were recorded. All of that is available today and even available on youtube.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
interesting
so you´ve been to the moon then?
yes, conspiracy and hoax are as dogmatic and primitive and any ancient explanation for the misunderstood, but that does not render the subject at hand undebatable
physics err, scientists err
we get closer but its not like we´re past the tip of iceberg on anything important in this version of reality we call space-time
ibajem 2 years ago
What renders a topic "undebatable" is the absence of any credible fact to debate.
Which describes the "hoax."
No witnesses to say "I saw the set."
After 40 years, they cant even AGREE on where the "set" was.
A discussion has to have even minimum evidence for a starting point. And the "hoax" has nothing but fear-mongering and flying guesses.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
WHO'S YOUR DADDY?!
PawelKolasa 2 years ago
sooo. WHAT is the NEW ELEMENT that is NOT found on EARTH that those "moonrocks" contain?
huh?
They don't contain it?
PawelKolasa 2 years ago
Who said anything about a "new" element? Are you making up your story as you go again? ;)
Is this your admission that you are so incompetent in science and geology that you cant think of even ONE way to tell moonrocks apart from earth rocks?
I can think of several, so I guess I'm smarter than you. Big surprise. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
we never landed on the moon its all a lie goverment cover up
foxyldy4life 2 years ago
"cover up"
You cant prove one ignorant conspiracy by inventing ANOTHER ignorant conspiracy.
Having an answer as dumb as "all a lie" is exactly why the hoax pushers have accomplished nothing in 40 years.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do YouTube searches on "MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks" and "MoonFaker: Exhibit D" to see some stuff about the rocks.
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
Cosmored3 2 years ago
Dufus Hoax movies cannot be used as "evidence" for dufus hoax ideas.
Two ignorant opinions by two ignorant people does not equal fact.
There is no evidence of Moon fakery that is supported by anyone qualified, or given by anyone experienced. Its all based on scientific illiteracy and ignorant error.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Why do you consistently refer to JarrahWhite's (excuse, WhiteJarrah's) videos?
If the evidence of a hoax was so crushing, it would be widely accepted amongst the scientific community.
The only thing being crushed is the hoax itself, as given by Jarrah's pathetic attempts to discredit the LRO images.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
The hoax is dead Cosmo, give it up. The landings on the moon were reality.
Rob260259 2 years ago 12
I saw your page. It is really just a collection of easily refuted, already de-bunked and daft hoax fantasies.
You, and others of your ilk, have nothing.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago 2
There isnt ONE SINGLE difference between earth rocks and nasa's moon rocks, nasa just changed their mineral analyse after esa's impact
xismxist 2 years ago
"ONE SINGLE"
Really? You mean rocks in a place without wind or water will somehow have wind erosion and water erosion?\
Except the moonrocks DONT have any erosion, meaning they must have been totally isolated from wind or water for about 4 billion years. Wonder how that happened. ;)
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
no they must not, what part of "exacly the same isotops" didnt you understand?
xismxist 2 years ago
Isotopes have NOTHING to do with erosion.
And I have a feeling "IsotopE" is just a big word you heard on TV without knowing what it means. Because for one you misspelled it.
For another, most theories of moon creation say the moon was split from the Earth, therefore the ELEMENTAL composition would be exactly the same. You dont even know what point you're trying to make.
MY point is that ANY rock on Earth will have a billion years of erosion.
Moonrocks dont.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
why pointed out my spelling? thats usually something propagandaists does when running out of arguments... i just says what NASA SAID (pre 2001) and that is that the isotops from earth rocks are exacly the same as the ones apollo was said to take home to earth. however, in 2001 nasa changed their mineral analyse because esa's test results proved that THEIR rocks was total different from the apollo rocks... you cant have it both!! either was esa faked, or apollo! imo apollo no doubt
xismxist 2 years ago
I point out spelling as its the fastest way to tell if you really know the word, or if its just something you cut and pasted. REAL professionals wouldnt misspell it, and hoaxaholic bluffers are a dime a dozen around here. I think you're one of them.
For the last time, isotopEs are irrelevant. Since the Earth and Moon were at one point a joined body, the elements WOULD be identical.
Besides, "different isotopes" was never used as a moonrock proof in the first place.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Why would you expect two different rocks from two different missions from two different agencies that landed two different missions in two different moonlanding sites to have identical isotopes? Do you even know HOW MANY different isotopes there are in the universe? The moon IS NOT "one" isotope. Its several hundred.
If you really knew what the word meant, you wouldnt be making these errors. So I'm calling your bluff.
EXPLAIN, right now, what an "isotope" is.
And spell it right. ;)
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
I've got to nitpick; there is an erosion process at work with moon rocks; by micrometeorites. :)
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
The separate kinds of erosion can be easily told apart for what they are.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Not by hoax believers!
:D
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
I have a question why havent we been to the moon in over 40 yrs since the end of the cold war?
dennisndodie 2 years ago
Going to the moon was ONE goal, and we did it, great.
Then we made OTHER goals: 6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers etc etc etc
There are OTHER things to do you know. Wasting 40 years doing the exact same thing we already did over and over would have been a huge waste of money. If we want to get to Mars or wherever, we need experience with staying in space for months (space station) and with reusable ships (shuttles).
Its about learning NEW stuff, not old stuff.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Why do the the NASA supporters argue with the lunatic fringe? You humor fools or you ignore them. You don't debate with them. Calling a mentally impaired person names is cruel and only a lowly character would do something like that. Why the hell even pay any attention to the "hoax tards"--btw I am not so sure men walked on the moon. It is a lot to believe. Scientists are natural born liars.
toastedhippy 2 years ago
The problem is that the lunatic fringe is becoming mainstream.
ytmoog 2 years ago
The rapid nature of information and media has changed the rules. "Truth" is virtually irrelevant today and you can see that anywhere. 'Fact' is merely what is repeated the most times. Therefore, leaving the moondorks alone is the WORST possible action. All they require is to spread errors and paranoia, and have the neutrals sit back to see that no one stands up to them.
Silence does equal implied guilt.
Therefore we must challenge their dumb ideas anywhere and everywhere.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
"natural born liars"
Thats extraordinarily biased and naive, and will only paint you as exactly the sort of "lunatic fringe" you claim to despise.
Think of it this way, people go to school for YEARS to become physicists and engineers. An ordinary joe just cant skip all that and then naively wonder why scientists say stuff thats "a lot to believe." I have no trouble with it. And in fact most hoax kook material can be refuted with a high school education.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Good video!
Rob260259 2 years ago
Well done. Short and to the point. Conspiracy videos can go on for 30 minutes before even getting their straw man set up. I suppose when your case is weak, you want to make it look more important by taking a bunch of time to say your piece.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
ed11561 2 years ago
Man definitely went to the Moon, no doubt about that. ALL, conspiracy theories can be debunked, the ordeal is just one sided. =D
CuuijqyMuruqdte 2 years ago
Question: If Russia could obtain moon rocks from un-manned missions, then why couldn't the US??? Therefore, the moon rocks do nothing to prove that man landed on the moon. I'm still on the fence about the whole issue....but this does nothing to convince me.
mondiggashow 2 years ago
EXCEPT,
the russians DIDNT get "rocks" from the missions, they got dirt only.
The technology to have a robot pick up a rock and blast off with it doesnt even exist NOW, let alone the 1960's.
Plus it creates a whole NEW conspiracy, with robots built with blueprints you dont have, built by engineers you cant find, launched on a date you cant name in a rocket no one saw.
One conspiracy cannot be used as proof for another conspiracy.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
we brought back over eight hundred moon rocks, and the russians only brought back a few. the guy said that at the end of the video. only a vehicle built to carry the extra weight (humans) would be able to carry so many back home.
Kfhamsterboy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
ed11561 2 years ago
I can prove it was fake, they had to go though the Van Halen Belt thing an woulda come back with super powers like the Fantastic Four but none of the astronauts even got Xray vision so it was teh fake. Tomorrow me an some hoax friends are gonna build a fort in the backyard an lookit the moon through cardboard tubes an prove all kinda more hoax stuff.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago 2
I believe man went to the moon, but why all the arrogance and aggression in your video? Nasa are famous for all their lies and secrecy, so is it any wonder people don't believe a word they say. Forget the moon landings for a second. To talk on ANY subject and call people nuts, dimwitted, screwballs, lunatics, dorks (and every other insult you can think of) is only going to get you a lot of abuse in return.
Peace.
Afterlife2009 2 years ago
I would never use the word "aggression" to describe this, just animated. Besides, saying "famous for lies" is hardly an unbiased statement on your part. Its unjustifiable and I dont agree in the slightest. The only people who believe in the "hoax," or would call NASA "liars," are clearly tainted conspiracy types who do not represent professional society, let alone any credible scientific establishment.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
After:
What lies and secrecy?
Oh sure...the Alien War under Area 51 and the Dark Side Moon Base?
Riiight.
LindaStevensBZ 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
ed11561 2 years ago
Is that dude for or against the moon landing? I mean, the title is not helpful if the guy is saying that we could have just sent a moon rover up there and retrieved the rocks.
WillOtheWisp84 2 years ago
I did NOT say we could have just sent a rover. I was talking about the hoax nuts who said we did, hoax nuts who didnt read enough to know that the soviet rovers only brought back DIRT, not rocks. The technology does not exist for a rover to land, pick up 800 lbs of rocks, and blast off with all that weight. If it could be done in the 60's we would have done it with all the dozen probes we've sent to Mars over the last 10-15 years.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Moon Hoax Believers are a type of Conspiracy Theorist/Loser who devote their time desperately trying to validate a Fantasy that they are much more intelligent than everyone else.
They do this by "discovering" or "uncovering" some secret or lie that all the "normal" people are too dumb to see.
No matter how absurd, flawed or utterly preposterous their "secret discovery" is...they will cling to it and defend it like their entire sense of self-worth is at stake.
Because all too often...it is.
LindaStevensBZ 2 years ago 2
those rocks could have come from any meteor
you should watch vids on how we didnt land because those prove alot more than this
thegreatrammer2000 2 years ago
"hose rocks could have come from any meteor "
Actually they cant. Every planetoid has its own unique chemical signature.
THEN, you'd have to produce the the witnesses you dont have, with the geologists you cant produce, to corroborate your flying guess.
"watch vids on how we didnt land because those prove"
All refuted by REAL physicists with ten times the education of the amateur dorks who make illiterate films they know any hoax nerd will watch.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Are you familiar with propaganda?
I am not saying they didnt land on the moon but i would not be surprised if they didnt. Just keep an open mind.
GGAndersson 2 years ago
*edit*
We obviously have gone to the moon successfully now. What i ment with my previous post is that in those times they certainly would have good reasons to lie about it and it wouldnt surprise me if they did.
GGAndersson 2 years ago
"would have good reasons to lie about it "
Maybe we did, but motive is only that. It doesnt explain means or opportunity, neither of which I'm convinced the hoax pushers can ever prove.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
'Just keep an open mind. '
Cliches wont prove anything. I'd prefer to keep an EDUCATED mind.
And as long as every "fact" of the "hoax" is continually refuted by people with twice the education and experience of the fear-mongers who push the hoax, there's really nothing to discuss.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Well done you have blantenly displayed your ignorance online. I'd prefer to keep an OPEN and EDUCATED mind as facts are easily manipulated when there's money involved.
GGAndersson 2 years ago
Well it sounds like you're one of them fear-mongers, looking for hidden microphones in your oatmeal every morning because THEY'RE OUT TO GET US! ;)
Every hoaxtard degenerates into this. They have zero hard evidence, so they gorge themselves on innuendo and could've would've.
Well, the hell with it all. I want facts, not your paranoid ramblings. At this point, as long as the only people suspecting a "hoax" are societies most illiterate and inexperienced, the idea is stupid on the face of it.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Comment removed
GGAndersson 2 years ago
I bet you actually are smart but your arrogance and ignorance certainly doesn't justify your intelligence. I hope for your own good that you learn to be humble and understanding instead of arrogant and childish.
GGAndersson 2 years ago
"learn to be humble and understanding"
I am perfectly humble with those willing to respond in kind (these movies were made for educational purposes after all). But when you have hoax gluttons flying in here with "IT WAS FAKE AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME" they are only going to get the respect they deserve.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Please show me where i wrote that it WAS fake.
GGAndersson 2 years ago
"Show me where Fake."
Well if you dont think so, why bother even posting? I found out long ago that movies like this only attract partisans with an agenda. Some of them come right out and say what they think, while other hide behind wishy-washy "have an open mind" corny cliches, afraid to come out of the closet.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
"they used robot landers to get the rocks"
it is completely ignorant for hoaxers to make these comments and provide zero proof period of how they allegedly did this. This works perfectly for them however because they need zero proof to believe the hoax and impossible proof to believe the landing actually happened.
wvadam 2 years ago
How were these rocks verified that they were in fact moon rocks? Who else besides the russians and americans could or would know?
TIKOMIX 2 years ago
Interesting TIKOMIX, I'd ike to knwo that as well. The thing is I used to think we landed men on the moon, but we'll only really be able to settle the argument for the majority when another manned mission is sent up and it lands near the original landings. Plus how do we explain the solar flares that happened during a particular mission? Its already been admitted that the landers were no better than aluminium etc and would not have protected anyone at all. Anyone care to correct me?
dmsparr 2 years ago
I'm afraid its not very interesting. Moonrocks would have absolutely zero erosion. No wind, no water, no atmosphere, no freezing, no boiling. It is impossible to find a rock thats been in our atmosphere for a century or even a year that wouldnt be immediately given away by all of the above.
"SOLAR FLARES" are a big scary word misused 99% of the time by people neither educated nor experienced in anything remotely resembling astronomy. See next post.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
"RADIATION" is a fear-monger word. There are many types, easily blocked by many things.
Whoever told you aluminum would not block was ignorant, as yes it will. It blocks alpha radiation, beta radiation, and proton radiation.
The scary radiation Gamma, which is the ONLY kind you need lead for, isnt released in solar flares, nor is in the Van Allen belt.
At no time have I ever heard a doubter give actual figures for the alleged "flare," they jsut cut and paste the word hoping to scare.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
I love the way the conspiracy nuts come on here swearing at the makers and making personall jibes.
Do they really expect us to turn around and say "Well, he DID swear at that man, so that must mean the moon landings are faked. Well done."
markvtos 2 years ago
Russians used UNMANNED probes to get moonrocks...USA used UNMANNED probes to get moonrocks...why is a MANNED probe needed to get moonrocks as assumed in this video?
TIKOMIX 2 years ago
"Russians used UNMANNED probes to get moonrocks"
NO THEY DID NOT.
They got moon DUST. No rocks, not even a pebble.
Why? We dont have the tech EVEN NOW for an unmanned probe to land EXACTLY right next to a perfectly sized rock, pick it up, and have the thrust to blast off again. Its about weight.
Go read about the Russians a little closer. You wont find anywhere that they have "rocks."
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
THEN we have the problem of the mysterious super-secret "landers" that allegedly got the rocks all by themselves.
Landers built with blueprints you dont have, by engineers you dont know, launched on a date you cant identify in a rocket no one saw?
THOSE landers?
Call a flying guess what it is.
SpeakerForBoskone 2 years ago
Even if you ignore the fact that many Apollo rocks were greater in mass then the total of 3 unmanned probes, ignore that it would take thousands of probes to achieve the same mass in samples, probes which have to be designed, built, launched, and paid for, what evidence do you have of them existing?
The Saturn V was used for Skylab, the Apollo CSM used for Apollo Soyuz Test Project and Skylab, a modified LM for the Apollo Telescope Mount and the decent stage for the 2nd stage of the Delta 2.
loperspest 2 years ago
We never went to the moon, get ya fucking head rounds it fucko's.
Your governments lie, and you thick cunts eat that shit up every time.
Now fuck off.
BLAGASPANTS 3 years ago
"We never went to the moon, get ya fucking head rounds it fucko's. "
TEN OUT OF TEN IGNORANT CONSPIRATARDS AGREE!
Whereas we just to hear the opinion of scientifically illiterate mcjobs who would believe Bigfoot shot Elvis if they read it online... we personally prefer the opinion of EDUCATED men.
You keep the youtards. We'll keep the Phds. We'l then let you explain to us all how you got the better end of the deal .;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
If you have the two brain cells to respond, talk like a respectable human being instead of an 8th grade drop-out or you'll be deleted and blocked faster than you can say "Conspiraholic!"
We love your paranoia, we really do, but we have evidence and you dont. So put up or shut up.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
we never landed on the Moon !
AutoYorn1 3 years ago
THANK GOD you're here! I almost believed a professional engineer who works for a living!
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
How about get to fuck.
BLAGASPANTS 3 years ago
Wrong answer. ;)
So moon hoax dorks spread cliches and bad language? Hard to believe you cant convince anyone of the stupendous brilliance of your point of view. ;)
Take the 8th grade attitude elsewhere. You're blocked.
SpeakerForBoskone 3 years ago
Here's something interesting about the moon rocks.
/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
"MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 5."
Cosmored2 3 years ago
A conspiraholic site cannot be used as "evidence" for a conspiraholic idea.
Watch yourself here Cosmo. My patience with your repetitive banal swill is at an end.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
What's funny is that he uses "Moonfaker".
The maker of that series relied primarily on Ralph Rene's information, a prove hack.
If Cosmo really wanted to make an impression, he could've at least suggested a Wikipedia site.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
they could be any rock from space... no one knows a moon rock from a meteor rock... look at the interviews with the astronauts, they seem as though their hiding something. if they landed on the moon they should be excited, but their scared! "wake up people"
TheArchNemeses 3 years ago
That's estentially claiming that the geologists that studied the rocks don't know their jobs.
Meteors and lunar rocks have several characteristics that set them aside from each other. One would be a lack of evidence of entering the Earth's atmosphere. Also, Russia had it's own, small samples of lunar material. When given the samples from Apollo, they matched.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
As far as the astronauts go, people forget the conditions the astronauts had to put up with prior to press releases; staying in space in an enviroment not much wider than that of a station wagon. Using tubes and plastic bags for toilets. Debriefing that goes on for hours. The first missions had a long period of isolation to watch for signs of illness. They wanted to get back to family, to normal life. You think they're scared? Try "anxious".
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
you still don't have proof man set foot on the surface of the moon... we could have retrieved, the supposed, moon rocks from un-maned missions. to believe, that we even had a video feed, a ship that would land and take off of the moon, and the knowledge (without the help of E.T.)in 1969 is crazy! "From error to error one discovers the entire truth." --Sigmund Freud
TheArchNemeses 3 years ago
Fine, but where's the evidence of this?
It's not enough to have an alternate explaination; you also should have evidence to back up the alternate explaination.
All evidence points toward Apollo taking place as history has recorded it.
No evidence exists of fleets of probes retriving the samples.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
if we landed on the moon in 1969, why are we not returning for 20 years?
there are too many questions that are shadowed by secrecy, not to be skeptical.
TheArchNemeses 3 years ago
We need to build the new rockets and spacecraft, as well as go about testing them. This takes time, and money.
During Apollo, there was plenty of funding, and not much competing for the same funding; namely, the big projects were the last few Mercury missions, and the Gemini program, which was a test bed for techniques for Apollo.
Today, there's not as much funding, as we have the expensive shuttle and ISS to take care of at the same time.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
As far as secrecy goes, where do you see this? There are plenty of books that talk about the technical aspects of Apollo, the astronauts themselves, as well as the missions. There's a series of books that have transcripts of the debriefing of each mission, where the astronauts answer technical questions about the events during the mission. There are also documentries about Apollo.
So, where are you seeing secrecy?
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
"why are we not returning for 20 years"
Because we built skylab, 6 shuttles, the ISS, the hubble, the gps satellite network, 12 mars probes, etc etc etc.
But no, you're right. Lets waste money doing the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER and never try anything else or do anything new.
What a GREAT idea. :/
"there are too many questions "
I have yet to hear ANY question that wasnt based entirely on the scientific illiteracy of the questioner. Look at your last question example.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
What's also funny about these "why haven't we gone back" crowds, is that they seem too lazy to read up on the history behind the space program. Emphasis went from Apollo to the shuttle, with Skylab and the Soyuz link-up as transitions.
What's rather upsetting is the massive loss of skills that NASA has felt after Apollo ended. I hope the new generations of engineers can have as much creativity as back then.
Oh, and funding too!
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
"ou still don't have proof man set foot on the surface of the moon"
Other than witnesses you've never refuted, rocks you never refuted, and documents and pics and videotape and on and on, you're RIGHT!
Dude, "ten out of ten dorks agree!" does not count as hoax "evidence." If you dont have a witness to say "I SAW THE SET AND HELPED THEM FAKE IT!" then you've got jack and you know it.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
"listen Bernard, we know more than you could possibly imagine, it's a shame that it's such a struggle to find oneself. i can see you have given up your journey long ago."
"do your own research Science Teacher" :)
TheArchNemeses 3 years ago
"do your own research Science Teacher"
Whose movie do you think this is? ;)
Spare me the cut and pasted cliches. There's more research in this movie than you've done in the last ten years. I know that cause I keep getting to ridicule hoaxaholics who admit to not knowing ANY of the facts I give here.
In your case, whereas I'm sure you've cut and pasted the finest dork page available, somehow "TEN OUT OF TEN HOAX NERDS AGREE!" lacks a little credibility.
Pardon me for not being impressed. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
"we know more than you could possibly imagine,"
A dork page cannot be used as "evidence" for another dork.
I am interested ONLY in any direct refutes of any fact I present in this video.
Are the moonrocks NOT in international museums?
Were they NOT given away to 150 countries?
Hesitate to answer those, and your ignorance will unfortunately prove itself. There's a reason science is best left to scientists, not to dubiously educated Halo addicted guitar players.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
Whomever you're quoting, they sure are out of touch.
I've only seen ignorance on the relevent fields to Apollo on the part of the conspiracy theorists. They do not show a knowledge of aerospace engineering, the enviroment of space, radiation, or physics.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
"they seem as though their hiding something"
I'm sorry but I am sick and goddamn tired of complete 8th grade moon newbies pretending to be psychologists, engineers, physicists, or whatever they need to make a dumb point.
Unless you have a psych degree sticking out of your ass, you're a bluffing wannabe with nothing to offer except fear-mongering paranoia.
A geologist was on Apollo 17 BTW. He'd LOVE to hear how you know his job better than he does.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
u get moon rocks on the earth?
rainstormaeroponics 3 years ago
Yes, we *have* moonrocks on Earth right now. 800 lbs of em, which are on display in about 12 international museums and given away to 150 countries.
Americans are so generous. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
I think he's thinking of the lunar meteorites.
thirdclass2006 3 years ago
americans=stupid
here an example
/watch?v=9P7Zd-x2QXw
createyahooaccount 3 years ago
Proof anti-americans are jealous morons- using one hoax nerd video as "proof" of another.
We can tolerate a great deal of scientific illiteracy on this board, but not deliberate trolls who beg for attention.
American Envy wannabe = BLOCKED. Enjoy ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago 2
you teach science? no wonder america's schools are in such a mess....
Gromitdog1 3 years ago
Is that your admission that you cant refute a single fact in the video? Therefore resort to the ole "you...you...YOU DUMMY!" counter-argument? ;) We're so scared.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
How do you know they are moon rocks? Says who? What are their credentials and how do they establish that? To what do they compare them? Its a known fact that Von Braun went to Antarctica in 67 and brought back 'moon rocks' which coincidentally were identical to the