[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike


Miscellaneous
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: 2556
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74.

#3. To: christine (#0)

Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.

Tatarewicz  posted on  2015-05-24   22:36:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tatarewicz (#3)

Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.

well it is questionable how the rocket thruster of egale one can land on the moon without leaving a blast crater underneath it... i mean on earth a rocket propelled deceleration blasts everything in its path out of the way but i guess the moon has special rules .... just like most government things.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-24   22:57:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-25   2:58:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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. ???

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-25   3:32:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: StraitGate, All (#7)

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.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-25   13:57:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Katniss (#8)

A+

and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost?

christine  posted on  2015-05-25   18:50:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: christine, StraitGate (#17)

and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost?

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;

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-25   22:55:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-25   23:46:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: StraitGate (#32)

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.

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.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-25   23:51:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Katniss (#35)

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.

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.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-26   0:23:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: StraitGate (#38)

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.

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.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-26   10:00:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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...

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-29   21:47:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-29   23:37:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Katniss (#46)

It's you who have already made up your mind. You posted a video that you found on the internet that claims that an astronaut on the lunar surface could not have helped his partner up in the manner depicted without violating the laws of physics. I disputed that claim using knowledge that I learned not from the internet, but from an engineering mechanics class that I took many years ago. You never responded directly to that.

Then when I said I'm not sure man has been to the moon, but I don't understand how some people including you can be so sure that he hasn't, you say it sounds like I have already made up my mind?

I am as skeptical of the "establishment" as (almost) anyone I know. And I'm pretty sure that I haven't cited any establishment sources to support my belief that the Apollo program placed man on the moon. If so, please show me where I did, and explain why that "establishment source" should not be trusted. And please note that when I simply reported that NASA says that they went back to the moon 5 more times I wasn't citing that as evidence that they actually had.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   0:09:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: StraitGate (#48) (Edited)

It's you who have already made up your mind.

To the contrary, I once believed it and argued against people such as myself.

As soon as I took to research it entirely 100% independently and at great length and over much time, much as with 9II, I became convinced that they were both false.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-30   14:07:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Katniss (#50)

...I became convinced...

Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   14:44:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: StraitGate, Neoconsnailed (#52)

Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind.

The only one you have to convince is yourself.

I see we'll have to agree to disagree.

Same with those that think that OKC, 9II, and many other things believe.

: )

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-31   19:40:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Katniss (#69)

I see we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sounds good, brother.

We both have bigger fish to fry. :)

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-31   20:41:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: StraitGate, All (#71)

Interesting that you phrase it that way.

I guess, as is common when debating people on this stuff, I'm trying to reconcile some of your statements with other of your statements.

Do we have bigger fish to fry? Maybe not directly, but indirectly? Think about it.

I'm talking lies and cover-ups here, of which, based on everything I've seen, includes the Moon "landings."

This nation, once one figures out what is going on, is so drowning in lies and cover-ups that to say that it would make one's head spin is a grand understatement.

If that's just another enormous lie/cover-up, then it certainly is relevant and no, there are no "bigger fish to fry" other than to understand the extents of the lies and cover-ups over the years.

I was just reading the article that someone just posted this a.m.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=177318

And when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik—precipitating a national panic about our falling behind in science and technology—Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which provided federal grants to schools to bolster training in mathematics and science. But, writes Buckley, it was during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society project that “grants-in-aid programs became epidemic.” By 1970, there were 530 such programs, and they consumed more than 12 percent of the federal budget.

The space programs were no small thing back then. As well, given that the Soviets have a history of copying and doing everything that we do, but admitted that they could not come close to going to the moon, IMO that's highly relevant as well.

It's funny, on one hand, 99% of the support for the "Holocaust"© comes from behind the Iron Curtain, and we've gobbled that stuff down for decades. But we don't believe anything else that they said during that span.

I am as skeptical of the "establishment" as (almost) anyone I know. And I'm pretty sure that I haven't cited any establishment sources to support my belief that the Apollo program placed man on the moon. If so, please show me where I did, and explain why that "establishment source" should not be trusted. And please note that when I simply reported that NASA says that they went back to the moon 5 more times I wasn't citing that as evidence that they actually had.

This statement of yours confuses me. On one hand you say that you are skeptical of the establishment, but don't use any "establishment sources" to support your argument.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, since there weren't any independent sources anywhere near that program, that's all the support it has. Simply because you launder it through some other mainstream "news" or "info" source does not alter the original source of the info one iota.

As to the "five more times" thing, come on now. Once, six times, who cares. Again, I divert your attention to those in the program that wouldn't "play ball," perhaps they should be interviewed today. Oh yeah, that's right, they're mostly dead and Armstrong refuses to discuss it. I mean honestly, what does it take?

So technically that's not a true statement of yours.

Secondly, if you are truly that skeptical, then after doing the extent of the research that I've done, I have no idea how you can continue to claim as you do.

You said that I already have my mind made up after I said that to you, but it does not seem as if you've done a fraction of the research that I've done, admittedly by you. So what you're saying is that despite that, you know better.

OK, but again, this renders your own statements about your stated positions to be in conflict with one another, both directly as well as indirectly.

Just pointing that out, that's all.

I agree to disagree because to me it's not that important. We have an entire nation that takes solace and refuge in lies and deception as long as that's the majority opinion.

When it (any piece, part, or parcel of that) ceases to become majority opinion, or at least has reached a minority opinion tipping point, then it becomes unprofitable, both ideologically as well as economically/financially, for sources to continue to spout in favor of those lies and cover-ups.

At what point will those claiming to get it that do not, finally see the big picture. That's my question.

By the time things become blatant is way too late.

Our pop-culture is awash in lies, deception, corruption, and cover-ups, and it all starts at the top as it were.

Katniss  posted on  2015-06-01   10:35:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Katniss (#72)

You're the one that said "I see we'll have to agree to disagree" and you're agreeing with S. that "it's not that important," obviously meaning compared to other things.....?

Not taking sides, there are no sides. Just trying to get the picture.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-01   10:48:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: NeoconsNailed (#73) (Edited)

Since when does "we'll have to agree to disagree" translate to irrelevant/unimportant to you?

You and I are left to "agree to disagree" with the vast majority of the nation on a good many things that are critically important.

All it means is that I'm not going to convince him/them. It's not my job to spend tons of time educating someone that's willfully (refuses to do a good amount of research independently) ignorant on something that to me is as plain as day.

We're fucked pal. It's hardly because of us. It's entirely because of people driven by the winds of the media. You aren't going to convince them, if they find out, it'll be entirely either because they take it upon themselves to spend some of their time researching things independently, which will be a tremendously small group of people, or if the mainstream starts swinging on certain topics, but by then it's usually too late for any practical purposes. Kind of like having learned relatively recently that the Katyn Forest massacre wasn't committed by Germans at all, rather Soviets. Or McNamara coming clean that the Gulf of Tonkin was contrived and made up.

Notice that I said "certain topics," because there are always tons in the pipeline that are lies and cover-ups, plenty to keep even a huge team of independent researchers more than busy.

Ignorance is what assists in allowing all of it.

So what, you going to combat each of them on an independent level? Or are you going to "agree to disagree" because you realize that the power to change the things that they believe is out of your hands?

We still have to live in this world. It's the one's with the staunchest establishment/pop-culture beliefs that are the least tolerant. It's because they have numbers, not truth, on their side.

Just look at The Holocaust©, JFK, OKC, 9II, WWII, WWI, etc., etc. People that believe establishment history on those topics don't "agree to disagree" very well at all. They become hostile and castigating.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of people fall under the umbrella of ignorance is bliss and prefer it that way. As long as they can go count their money/wealth in peace, they're happy. Just don't fuck with their money though, that's the "last straw." They'll sell every last vestige of their morality and honor while making excuses and keeping the basis for those things on a moving scale simply to accommodate their quest for mammon.

Unfortunately they fail to see how this mentality is quietly leading them to hell. Hell, we're largely already in hell. Those truly desirous of living independently are in it already. As unfortunate as it is, the rest seem to be quite happy living in the matrix/charade. They don't want to see the real world, they can't handle the truth.

Funny, I noticed that you failed to comment on the contradictory nature of SG's statement that I cited.

Katniss  posted on  2015-06-01   12:33:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 74.

#75. To: Katniss (#74)

The BBC establishment-sourced documentary contesting establishment version(s) of astronauts on the moon, which you had posted at #40, is no longer available now. Do you have an alternate link or searchable title for it?

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03 05:42:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]