See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci ... g-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Published: May 24, 2015
Author: The Telegraph
Post Date: 2015-05-24 13:11:54 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 2524
Comments: 87
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood. Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity. "It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it." The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago. J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988. "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said. Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s. The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair. Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests. "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: titorite (#4)
Well, the wit and wisdom are really flowing on this page -- a gas. Yeah, I'm calling fraud on the moon walk. This rock business technically doesn't prove anything but it sure wouldn't look good in a court of law! Anybody want to chew the fat on this? Nice colorful page full of accusations. Kubrick's widow would be a coup and probably realer than Orwell's ;daughter by a good bit. My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow. Why indeed so glum, lifeless, sloppy: Apollo astronauts press conference There's no way to answer that question as things stand now, but you know, if people had trained as astronauts, made the grade for the first moon flight ever, and then been ordered to go along with a hoax and keep mum about it or expect to die..... the above is exactly how I'd think such men would act. In the text below the screen there, a question I can't remember debunkers taking on thus far -- "If we did go to the moon back then, then why did we never go back?" Hey, this was supposedly the absolute pinnacle of all known human achievements since time began, and maybe the biggest reason ever that the rest of the world was supposed to bow down before amerika's incomparable greatness and excellency. Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what?
Yes, you are a natural-born heretic. The Saturn V rocket was an awesome marvel of science and engineering. Some of the smartest people in the world worked on the Apollo project, including Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun. How come "we" never went back? According to NASA, they landed men on the moon in 6 different Apollo flights between 1969 and 1972. But that was a pretty weird press conference; no doubt about it. ???
First of all, it's Werner Von Braun, not Freiherr von Braun. Not sure what your point is. We never did go to the moon. Several of those top German scientists stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going. NN: Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what? The technology did not allow us to go to the moon. Many said so at the time and were hushed, including the three "collateral damage" astronauts that cooked in that pre-liftoff capsule fire in one "failed" mission. The simple reason why we "cannot" go back to the moon, even with a relatively insignificant cost unmanned vehicle, is because there's absolutely no way to recreate the scene. It's not there, flags, cars, capule bases, etc. The southwestern landscape that was used to film it no doubt has been drastically altered by an atmosphere that exists here on earth but not on the moon. So we will never see a trip back unless it's completely computerized. Who knows, maybe they're working on that now. It's quite simple. There's no doubt that if it were real, with our infatuation with ourselves as a nation, we'd have sent 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles. Seriously, if we really did it in '69, then HTF difficult or expensive would it be to send a simple unmanned up there to photograph it. Answer: Not difficult or expensive at all. About 15 years ago Japan was supposed to launch one up, but that was quashed. Coincidence? Hardly.
Toss onto the heap of the rest of the false flags. Don't expect that one to ever come out soon, it's been way too woven into pop culture via sayings, expressions, insults, etc. Everyone knows about it. It's not like how the government works or anything that the majority of people are ignoramuses on. If it ever gets out widespread that the moon landings were faked, it would change everything. After all, if people can be duped on something so trivial, ... No one against the "conspiracy theorists" would ever be able to challenge them again. I actually think that this would be worse for the establishment than full exposure of and disclosure of the Fed.
Groovy, I'll ask again. How come it's 43 years with no more moon flights if they're so all-fired wonderful? And was the Saturn V rocket really capable of landing people on the moon and firing them back here again? Somehow I just can't credit it.
Oh, but he was a Freiherr, and it's Wernher BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun Great points other than that, I'm guessing. Yeah, our overlords are into anniversaries all right -- but the supposed moon landings are barely even mentioned anymore, the "real" accomplishments they celebrate are mostly "diversity"-driven -- Brown vs. Board, Pettus Bridge and nauseam. This would be in keeping with their basic premise that blackening the white countries is the most important thing in the universe, even more than the top scientific coups, which are to be attributed to nonwhites whenever conceivably possible and then some.
You're right about that. Though, technically, von Braun gave up the baronial title when he became a US citizen. A German naturalized as an American can keep (but not add) a "von" but all titles of nobility are surrendered. I also agree that there is lots that's not right with the story of our moon landings. Jay Wiedner probably laid it out best in his videos detailing how Stanley Kubrick faked the films that show the Apollo astronauts on the moon, although he doesn't completely discount that idea that we were there. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
Hearing your video right now. It's said they killed Kubrick for exposing them in Eyes wide shut. I believe it.
The moon rock was "diverted" right into the private "art collection" of Slappy Sheckstein in a suburb of Tel Aviv.....
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what?
#8. To: StraitGate, All (#7)
#9. To: Tatarewicz (#3)
(Edited)
Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.
#10. To: StraitGate (#7)
(Edited)
#11. To: Katniss (#8)
(Edited)
#12. To: NeoconsNailed (#11)
Oh, but he was a Freiherr, and it's Wernher BTW
#13. To: randge (#12)
#14. To: christine (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic
#15. To: Katniss (#8)
My point is that in 1969 some pretty awesome technology did exist. What evidence do you have that such technology did not allow us to go to the moon? Engineers knew how to propel the spacecraft beyond the earth's gravitational field after orbiting the earth, and they could calculate where the moon would be when the spacecraft reached it. They had spent decades and billions and billions of dollars with thousands of engineers and scientists researching, developing, and testing all of the various required systems -- propulsion, navigation, communications, life support, etc. Lots of people were surprised when the Soviet Union shot down a U-2 spy plane flying at 70,000 feet in 1960. I remember watching television during the first moon landing. The picture of the "lunar landing" on the TV was captioned "Simulated Image", and looked like it could have been filmed in New Mexico or West Texas. But that per se doesn't mean that that the lunar landing didn't take place. Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going? Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. Not sure what your point is. ... The technology did not allow us to go to the moon.
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
that, to me, is very compelling evidence that the moon landing was faked. why in the world would the astronauts be behaving in this manner if they had really accomplished a most exciting feat! Why indeed so glum, lifeless, sloppy: Apollo astronauts press conference
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#17. To: Katniss (#8)
and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost? A+
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#18. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#11)
You might be on to something there, NN. The mission control room was a sea of Whiteness. Maybe that has something to do with it? ...but the supposed moon landings are barely even mentioned anymore, the "real" accomplishments they celebrate are mostly "diversity"-driven -- Brown vs. Board, Pettus Bridge and nauseam.
#19. To: christine, 4 (#17)
www.nasa.gov/content/godd...netrable-barrier-in-space So who's kidding whom about US going to the moon and back? nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable -
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#20. To: StraitGate (#15)
Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. I don't think anybody's saying it does prove it, but I and perhaps others are calling it smoking gun-shaped anomaly in the context of many other extreme weirdnesses and incongruities. Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going?
#21. To: Lod (#19)
Yeah, by electrons, but what kind of radiation is it? Alpha, beta, gamma, electromagnetic, what? nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable -
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#22. To: christine (#17)
Probably given to our "Good Ally" in the middle east.
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#23. To: Lod (#19) (Edited)
So who's kidding whom about US going to the moon and back? Now you've brought up another hot anomaly. Beyond said belts, it's said that ubiquitous space radiation would have fried the crew long before they reached the moon. People discuss all this at Snopes but the link on that one is dead -- click here. Or were they talking about the belts? Wikipedia deals with them, but not any radiation pervading outer space at large: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable - www.nasa.gov/content/godd...netrable-barrier-in-space
#24. To: NeoconsNailed, 4 (#23)
That's what I've come to believe. Beyond said belts, it's said that ubiquitous space radiation would have fried the crew long before they reached the moon.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#25. To: Lod (#24)
Wow, some jam-packed stuff in that Weidner video around 38-39! They're talking about the positive negatives of Kubrick's approach.... the biggest real negative is, of course, the same as Orwell's books, namely that they have nothing to say about race or, even worse, do so and get it exactly backward (Emanuel Goldstein the victim, pure-celtic Beethoven-loving Alex and his peachy-skinned droogs). Yeah, it was either that or never get published.......... but but what if Burgess, Kubrick, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and other towering fantasists had devoted all that talent and effort to openly shouting a warning to their fans (1930s to present) about the rising tide of color?
#26. To: StraitGate (#18)
Lot of Moonbeams out tonight on 4um.
#27. To: StraitGate (#15)
Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. This is something that I researched a good 10 years ago, maybe more, to ad nauseum. There were a number of pivotal people that just months prior to the missions said that it could not be done and laughed it off. Also, I think it was Armstrong that has pretty much gone into hiding as it were to avoid media appearances over it. I also mentioned the three burned to death, you didn't mention them. Coincidence that it happened? You can spend your time doing all the research I did, I don't have time (or desire) to do it again, I didn't save it or compile my findings. I approached it objectively and with an entirely open mind, and much as with 9II I came to the conclusion that it was hokey. If they can pull off 9II, OKC, FF war starting things, a simple trip to the moon which is out of sight and unverifiable by just about everyone isn't out of the question by a long shot. Also, Russians were astonished and said that they never could make it. They always copied us back in the day. Anyway, sounds like a good project for you in your independent study. This is the one link I saved for whatever reason; http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blogs/my-husband-directed-the-fake?xg_source=activity#.VWPctkbMKJ8 Here's a quick YT search of hoax documentaries; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+landing+hoax+documentary+ Here's the one I think I watched that got me thinking; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj5r3jXhV2Q Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going?
#28. To: christine, All (#16)
Exactly, and then to have all but a lifelong moratorium on discussing it personally? Odd to the point of raising the bullshit flag. Among many other things. that, to me, is very compelling evidence that the moon landing was faked. why in the world would the astronauts be behaving in this manner if they had really accomplished a most exciting feat!
#29. To: christine, StraitGate (#17)
Yeah, isn't it. Ever see the footage of the men hopping around on the moon slowed down? Also, just one of many of the hundreds if not thousands of vids out there, this one's new to me and hysterical; and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost?
#30. To: Cynicom (#26)
And one pot-shotter. Lot of Moonbeams out tonight on 4um.
#31. To: Katniss (#29)
LOL. he's lifted up without the other astronaut even touching him!
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#32. To: Katniss (#29)
In the video, it's pretty clear to me that the astronaut on the left is holding on to the right hand of the astronaut on the right, and gets a pull-up (and a pitch-up spin) from him (notwithstanding the video's assertion that the other astronaut isn't even touching him). The astronaut on the left also pushes himself up from the ground with his right hand. The moon's gravity is only 17% that of earth's, so that impulse, along with the hand hold pull-up from his partner, would easily allow him to get upright without violating any of the laws of physics. I'm not saying that there isn't any evidence disproving a lunar landing; all I'm saying is this ain't it.
#33. To: Katniss (#27)
Fair enough. I'll take a look at the links you supplied. Thanks. Anyway, sounds like a good project for you in your independent study.
#34. To: christine (#31)
And yet ... LOL LOL. he's lifted up without the other astronaut even touching him!
#35. To: StraitGate (#32)
Why the struggle to get up initially and the request for help? Think big picture here, not everything in its own little microcosm. Also, I've been down this road before and why, when the astronauts seem to be leaping about on the surface, why they're not leaping 4, 5, or more feet into the air based on what you said. Explanation: Packs weigh 200 lbs. OK, something's not adding up somewhere. The moon's gravity is only 17% that of earth's, so that impulse, along with the hand hold pull-up from his partner, would easily allow him to get upright without violating any of the laws of physics.
#36. To: StraitGate (#33)
Thanks. You're welcome! I can't afford to spend tons of time on this, but if you need an assist or have a question, feel free to ping me. Fair enough. I'll take a look at the links you supplied.
#37. To: Katniss (#35)
That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine. Explanation: Packs weigh 200 lbs.
#38. To: Katniss (#35)
A 4 foot leap into the air on the moon equates to an 8 inch vertical jump on earth. On earth, a man's normal walking gait leaves him with at least one foot on the ground at all times. Not so on the moon, with its less gravity. That's why the astronauts had to train to walk on the moon prior to the lunar flights. While 4-5 foot leaps are possible on the moon, the astronauts avoided that, because it's not safe. The longer air time (compared to an 8 inch jump on earth) allows more time for the rotational forces (torque inducing pitch, roll, and yaw) to act on the astronaut's body, so that he risks being maloriented upon landing, and the risk of falling is high. If the astronaut lands on his feet, he will feel the same shock as if he jumped off of an 8 in tall step, but if he falls, it will feel more like rolling off of a 12-14 inch step because his body will have fallen 6-8 feet instead of only 4 feet. why, when the astronauts seem to be leaping about on the surface, why they're not leaping 4, 5, or more feet into the air based on what you said.
#39. To: NeoconsNailed, StraitGate (#37)
That's correct, and it's one among hundreds of data points making that even less plausible than 9II. And while apologists for the OFT talk about how that was possible on the moon, what about inside the capsule and getting down that ladder? Doesn't look as if they have/had the same issues. Another critical data point is that one money shot of "the earth" from the capsule, but then "unofficial" footage shows that it was simply a shot of the ocean while in orbit. Factor in all of the "green screen news" these days, and it's hardly a far-fetched notion that there was world-class hanky-panky going on. Here's one link with the greater search link below it, and I've seen one where they remove everything and it's clear that there merely in orbit above the earth. But the main question is why? Why would they do this given that it was completely unnecessary if it were all real. And let's not forget, that they could easily disprove a good chunk of "conspiracy-theory-ism" by simply sending an unmanned vehicle to the moon to rove around and take pics in hi-def for the world to scrutinize. I'm guessing that at best they'd look like the laughable footage of what they claim is a 757 hitting the Pentacon. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=window+shot+of+earth+from+moon+rockets+fake That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine.
#40. To: StraitGate (#38)
While 4-5 foot leaps are possible on the moon, the astronauts avoided that, because it's not safe. The longer air time (compared to an 8 inch jump on earth) allows more time for the rotational forces (torque inducing pitch, roll, and yaw) to act on the astronaut's body, so that he risks being maloriented upon landing, and the risk of falling is high. If the astronaut lands on his feet, he will feel the same shock as if he jumped off of an 8 in tall step, but if he falls, it will feel more like rolling off of a 12-14 inch step because his body will have fallen 6-8 feet instead of only 4 feet. Say what you want, as the saying goes, talk (theirs) is cheap. I've seen footage of supposedly a moon walk slowed down (slow motion), and it's quite clear that it could have just as easily been filmed on earth. In fact, if it wasn't, then it's a major coincidence, and a telling one, that the same gait, height off the ground, etc., could have possibly been accomplished in earth's atmosphere. Again, to start your search, watch this; Much of this is coming back for me. The astronauts' interview is in that one too. Tell me you think that they're sincere. Then there's the pitch about the stars which is obvious hogwash. I mean as usual with these FF cover-ups, people believe it "because they saw it on TV." As we now know, that's easy to fake. More links on walking/hopping on the moon; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hopping+on+the+moon Clearly possible to duplicate on earth, making one question why it was exactly the same on the moon. This is easy stuff for any good analyst. Also, let's not forget the most recent data point, that the rock given by these guys to Holland is fake. Why? Again, it would be a relatively cheap exercise to send an unmanned rover to the moon to validate everything. Unfortunately it's mission impossible for the reasons that I said unless it's all computerized, and I'm pretty sure that in today's technological world that would be exposed right quickly, since there is no atmosphere on the moon but there is where they filmed this in the American Southwest rendering the "moonscape" impossible to duplicate as it should be fully in tact from nearly 50 years ago. In fact, I can think of no better way to kill numerous birds with a single stone than to do this for the 50th in 4 years. Don't hold your breath. Also, remember all the talk of colonies on the moon? Don't you really think, given our national pride, that for no other reason we'd send some stuff up there to at least build a station of some sort? I do. It's ridiculous, given the money we spend as a nation on bullshit, that they wouldn't have done it, merely "because we could." Again, problem is that we cannot. If we cannot today, how much less so nearly 50 years ago. In your search, keep in mind the reasons why having "gone to the moon" would have benefited our nation from the establishment's perspective. Immense, just as 9II was, just as the "Holocaust"® has been to our nation's handlers. A 4 foot leap into the air on the moon equates to an 8 inch vertical jump on earth. On earth, a man's normal walking gait leaves him with at least one foot on the ground at all times. Not so on the moon, with its less gravity. That's why the astronauts had to train to walk on the moon prior to the lunar flights.
#41. To: Katniss (#40)
Thanks for the excellent de-construction.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#42. To: Katniss (#40)
WOW! A BBC documentary passionately taking down not only the moon fraud but the dead matter than makes up most of the US fedgov? Man, this is LIVING. Kudos Katniss -- and thanks!
#43. To: Katniss, Neoconsnailed (#40)
Here's a whole book about the reason NASA never went back to the moon. From the book description, it appears that Paul Kersey believes that the U.S. space program died because NASA's mission was changed from the exploration of space to the celebration of diversity. I haven't read it; just passing on the info here. (You can find the book on Amazon.com; the link won't work for me here.) 'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972 by Paul Kersey *** Book Description Publication Date: July 22, 2014: We went to the moon. This is a fact. Indisputable, except to those conspiracy theorists clinging to their belief some sinister plot was hatched by the US Government to conceal our inability to navigate to earth's natural satellite. On July 20, 1969, man first stood on the moon; on December 18, 1972, man stood on the moon for the last time. What happened to end the dream of space exploration, left instead to the colorful imagination of Trekkies and science fiction fans believing some diverse band of humans could navigate the heavens in a utopian future? The US Government neutered NASA by forcing a much different mission upon the space agency: diversity and the promotion of blacks. We went to the moon. On multiple occasions. When NASA was nearly all-white, with an all-white astronaut team. But in 1972, the Apollo program was grounded, with the Space Shuttle program becoming a glorified experiment in social engineering and special interest group cheerleading. Each successive launch included women, blacks, and other racial minorities, not for the sake of exploration, but for the sake of gender and racial cheerleading. The glory of NASA and mankind's great moments in space exploration were all milestones performed under the watchful of an almost completely white NASA, devoid of the hindrance of affirmative action programs and the shackles of Equal Employment Opportunity mandates. The mandate then was to get the moon; the mandate soon after was the promotion of blackness and diversity, at the expense of the initial dream of exploring the stars. 'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972 tells the shocking story of NASA's demise from an angle never- before told: the racial angle. Learn the story of Captain Ed Dwight, the black Air Force pilot the Kennedy Administration tried to force on NASA; learn about how General Curtis LeMay and Lt. Colonel Chuck Yeager demanded accountability and stood against what the latter deemed "reverse racism" in how the Kennedy Administration forced a black astronaut candidate on NASA just for the sake of having a black astronaut candidate. Learn about the "Poor People's Campaign" (led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy), which protested the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16th, 1969, by showing up with a horse and buggy. Rev. Abernathy demanded the money going to Apollo and space exploration be redistributed to fight poverty and starvation in America's inner cities... And his vision won out. The final chapters of the book deal not with the exploration and colonization of new worlds, but the redistributing of wealth to pay for EBT/SNAP Food Stamps cards and other welfare payouts. We could have been on Mars, but we had to fund Black-Run American instead...
#44. To: StraitGate (#43) (Edited)
So you say we did it? Why the weirdorama interview etc?
#45. To: NeoconsNailed (#44)
I'll take that as a question, even though it's not like you to omit a question mark (or any other punctuation). Yes, I think that the first moon landing was successful. That said, I do not doubt that the government had a contingency plan to lie to the people about it if it had not been successful. One reason I think the first mission succeeded is because they went back -- five more times. If the first mission had been a dismal failure, I think they would have scrapped the program or at least delayed it for a few years. None of the "scientific" evidence presented here -- photos, videos of moonwalking, etc. -- causes me to doubt that the lunar landings really happened. To date, the strongest controverting evidence has been that bizarre press conference. I saw that for the first time when you or someone else posted it here a few days ago, and I have to admit, it's really weird, and does raise some doubt. I am a little astonished that you and some of the others here are so all-fired SURE that it never happened, especially when the evidence that has been cited is, in my view, not very convincing. I would think that you all would at least give a little space to the possibility that it might have happened. You know, assign something greater than a non-zero probability to it. I'm not SURE man has been to the moon (so, technically, I do not "say that we did it"). But I am a little befuddled as to how some people are so SURE that he hasn't. So you say we did it, huh.
#46. To: StraitGate, Neoconsnailed (#43)
If you want to make progress in this or any level of truth that rivals the establishment version, I'd strongly suggest not using much less citing establishment sources. Sounds to me as if you've already made up your mind. You won't find much if anything at all in the mainstream to uncover the truth if that truth is different from what the establishment claims it is. That applies across the board. This is the problem in America, the running joke is "I read it on the internet so it must be true," but the reality is that the greatest volumes of lies, half-truths, and red-herring propaganda is exactly from mainstream sources.
.
.
.
Comments (47 - 87) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest