The LRV on the lunar surface - proving the authenticity

...continued


If they feel the need to provide something purportedly more "substantial" than just claims, "debunkers" might point to the "moon rocks". They will say, "How could we have moon rocks if we didn't go to the moon?" Unfortunately, many who seek to promote the inquiry into the government's moon hoax are not bright enough not to be drawn in. Many say the moon rocks came from lunar probes that returned from the moon, at which point, the "debunkers" will say, "If we can send a probe and get it back, why can't we do it with humans?" In fact, the essence of that "argument" strays far from that track. Because, consider, did you ever see a "moon rock"? Did you ever hold a "moon rock" in your hands? If someone said they had a live Sasquatch but they refused to allow you to see it, how many wouldn't call that person a fake? Yet government has never allowed anyone to handle a "moon rock", but the people readily accept that as "proof" of a moon landing? True, the "debunkers" will assert, government did allow "moon rocks" to be seen, under glass and separated from the public, but if someone provided brown hairs under glass and said they were Sasquatch fur, they would be denounced in a second! And, let's be frank, even if they did allow an examination of a "moon rock", how many people know enough about geology to know they are from earth or not? And, besides, laboratories across the world have facilities for subjecting rocks to any number of different environments, meaning, they could manufacture a "moon rock" at will! Only the willingness to unquestioningly buy whatever you are told would lead someone to believe claims about "moon rocks"!

The "debunkers" bring up the films of astronauts supposedly on the moon. All fuzzy, grainy and over-exposed. Films of much higher quality are provided as proof of encounters with UFO's and Bigfoot, and routinely dismissed by "debunkers" as of "unacceptable quality to be credible". The fact that NASA seems to have managed to lose thousands of films from the moon landings doesn't add to their credibility!

And, now, "debunkers" are crowing that the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter has "seen" the sites where the astronauts "landed". And they provide photographs to "prove" it. As if someone couldn't fabricate a moon surface and place tiny objects on it! To understand this situation, go to the web page. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html . The "photographs" from the orbiter are provided. To "prove" their "authenticity", they even single out a picture from Apollo 14 supposedly showing the astronauts' "tracks" in the lunar dust. Given the size of the lunar lander, however, their footprints would have to be six feet wide to be as visible as they are in the picture! More than that, every group of astronauts supposedly did a fair amount of walking around all their landers, but none of the other pictures show any tracks around the dot NASA claims is the orbiter! More than that, Apollos 15, 16 and 17 had motorized Lunar Rovers, supposedly, that allowed wide ranging missions, but none of those tracks are shown on the "photographs"! And the Lunar Rovers were far from small, themselves! They should be visible, too! A small package of scietific instruments is claimed visible on the picture for Apollo 14, the Lunar Rovers should be quite conspicuous spots on the photos!

There are those who point out long lasting, unnatural trails left behind by high flying jets as a government project to indoctrinate the enviornment with weather modifying chemicals. They term them "chemtrails". The "debunkers" predictably term them normal contrails. Chemtrail opponents point out that chemtrails were never reported before 1997; that normal contrails dissipate; that collections of ice crystals should not spread out the way chemtrails do; that the beginning of chemtrailing coincides with spectacular weather phenomena, like the beginning of the massive hurricane spate that included Katrina and the largest one year decline in Arctic sea ice; that government has embraced talking about "global warming" like never before, but because they are trying to avoid referring to the true cause of climate shift! But the "debunkers" constantly insist that not enough proof has been provided that chemtrails are anything more than normal contrails.

But the evidence for chemtrails is far and away more cogent and credible than the "evidence" in favor of the "moon landing"!

As is so often the case, however, it is the liars who are among the most potent enemies of their machinations.

In the article "Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", Brandon Griggs quotes Roger Launier, a "senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington". Launier's "explanation" for the suspicion of the "moon landings" is, "We love conspiracies. Going to the moon is hard to understand. And it's a lot easier for some people to accept the answer that, 'Well, maybe we didn't go to the moon.' A lot of it is naivete."

Of course he would try to downgrade the intelligence of those who question the "moon landings" by saying it's "hard to understand". Predictably, he would frame it as intellectual incapacity on their part, rather than a reaction to Washington's proven policy of universal deceit! But he defeats his own lies by tossing so many different ones out. Do those who disbelieve the "moon landing" do so because they like conspiracies, because they are feeble minded or because they are naive? Those three possibilities are not related! But because he didn't know what he was talking about and because he was talking just to savage them, Launier twisted about and discredited his own lies.

Incidentally, later on in the article, he also refutes his own statements, saying the numbers of those doubting NASA's "official story" are few in number. "These diehards are really vocal", he states, but they're really tiny." Again, a dig rather than a discussion. But, if people "love conspiracies" the way he states, why are there so few who supposedly believe the "moon landing" is a conspiracy?

Indeed, the entire organization NASA puts its name to doggerel which is a blatant attempt to get around the fact that there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence of a moon landing!

They are quoted in the article as saying in a statement, "Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative."

Again, conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that fits the bill and, instead, claiming a mental lack on the part of the doubters.

But even there, they lie.

Because it is not impossible to prove a negative!

The claim that "you can't prove a negative" is a dodge the liars in power have been hiding behind since segments of the public have become more vocal in denouncing the criminal gang that is Washington, D.C.! People provide their evidence that the events of September 11 do not conform to "Islamic 'terrorists'" piloting planes into the Twin Towers and bringing them down and confront the government to prove that George Bush didn't engineer the events. To that, the "debunkers" reply "you can't prove a negative!"

But, in fact, it's always prossible to prove an untruth! Look at the man standing next to you in line. Does he have one billion dollars in pennies in his pocket? Is it impossible to prove he does not? Is a banana blue? Is it impossible to prove a banana is not blue? Is 2 plus 2 equal to 5? Is it equal to 6, or 7, or 8? When you prove 2 plus 2 is 4, you also prove 2 plus 2 is not equal to 5, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 6, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 7, and so on!

When you prove a positive of a statement, at the same time you prove the negative of every alternative to that statement!

But, for that matter, who's asking him to prove a negative?

If the U.S. reached the moon, he would be proving a positive!

They never said you can't prove a positive! And, if the U.S. did reach the moon, then it should be possible to prove that statement!

In the end, though, it is a lie to say, "you cannot prove a negative"!

And everyone who has said it is a liar!

There is a rule in the law, "false in one, false in all". That means that, if you catch someone in a lie, you are not only allowed to disbelieve everything else they say, you are required to!

Phil Plait says, "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world." In fact, the "evidence" of the moon landing, from simply saying it's true and ordering you to believe it or you will be ridiculed; to providing things they order you to believe are "moon rocks", yet refuse to allow you to examine; to providing grainy and over-exposed film; to providing photographs that are not proved not to be fake; to lying that "you can't prove a negative" is not evidence at all!

There is not a single scrap of verifiable, legitimate evidence that the U.S. reached the moon!

If someone chooses to lie to you, that is their sin against you, but if you choose to believe it, it is your sin against yourself! If the public shows the willingness overall to subject government lies to the scrutiny of examination, the liars will constantly be thinking twice about acting with regard for the public's conscience. Demonstrate a wholesale disinterest in questioning deceit and government will do whatever they want, not even trying to maintain an appearance of propriety! There was a day when concern for public opinion would have kept a president from launching an unprovoked attack against an aggressor nation! No longer. And it is drooling public obsequiousness to demonstrably unproved claims like the moon landing that has provided the sieve, indicated to government just how willing the majority of Americans are to accept high placed lies! Quisling cravenness has already wreaked immeasurable damage on the planet; to prolong that abomination is to embrace ruining life on this planet utterly!

Julian Penrod

 

Not only is this off topic spam I addressed this in the post before it which clearly you did not even read! There is no "bottom line". Geologists recognize that the rocks are from a low gravity, dry source. They have no terrestrial weathering or signs of being meteorites, both of which are very easy to spot. They have solar isotopes, minerals comparable to Earth, exterior he3 , zap pits and must have been collected from a body other than Earth. Everything about them is consistent with their origin. The Moon.

https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-apollo-moon-rocks-idiotic-website.html

The major issue is not that Geologists everywhere confirm their authenticity, but that ignorant people cannot understand why.

 

Please spare me your stock bullshit spam reply. We are talking about literally thousands of individual reports from geologists all over the world. You don't get to do the crazy arm wave away on so many corroborating scientific analyses!

Another stock spam response. There is nothing naive about trusting fellow scientists numbering in their thousands from so many countries. In fact it is rather idiotic to place your head in the sand and call them all liars. Even today these samples are analysed regularly.

You are neither objective or a truth seeker. You are the epitome of one who exercises nothing but confirmation bias. You run away from all evidence. Case in point the OP which you are scared to address.

Yes they are. Your ignorance on this matter holds no sway.

Repeating your spam statement already made, so clueless it beggars belief.

Notwithstanding the OP, which on its own proves they landed on the Moon, there are 842lbs of peer reviewed samples that even with your idiotic go-to spam website - debunked here - Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) they prove the missions' authenticity, there are dozens and dozens of gravitational examples that cannot be faked (they can be denied with those without integrity!), there is a 100% consistency between the evidence presented across all missions, data from dozens of ALSEP experiments left on the Moon by Apollo, there is LROC and third party confirmations - Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia : There are so many documents that confirm the landings that you have never even read. There are websites where the actual photography has been cross-checked for its authenticity and it passes in every case - Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com).

 

Thousands..... LMAO

Point them all out?

Okay I will make it really easy for you, LIAR!

Just give me 10 percent of them....

 

I'm no expert but the video I posted in post #6 puts forward what seems like a plausible explanation for how they could have faked the rover traverse.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073671966

There's nothing there for which there's no alternative explanation: third parties can be paid to lie; documents can be written by liars.

No it doesn't.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/nasa-falsely-depicted-the-surface-of-the-moon.585966/

 

You're not even a reasonable layman. Your opening post offered zero towards even an explanation for lighting. Let alone the area covered, the mountains and the jet black skies!

You just dump spam without even understanding your own junk.

Utter bullshit. This is virtually every geologist of note on the planet. It takes an absurd person to make such an idiotic suggestion. This is what you do. With no expertise you automatically believe batshit with no question, then automatically dismiss every single thing that refutes it, No matter how expert or how in depth, or how widespread. Beyond pathetic and something you have been doing on every daft subject you have blundered into over 20 years.[/QUOTE]

 

"Scott likes your post" - probably the lowest recommendation you can get.

All of them? They are all over the internet, difficult to show you all of them. Even a monkey could probably work out the keys to press to find them.

When somebody who runs away from every single rebuttal post, somebody who lies routinely and is not smart enough to understand a single thing about what they post, actually calls me a liar, I can safely assume that they are incompetent enough not to find this data for themselves.

Lunar sourcebook : a user's guide to the Moon (usra.edu)
Here's 62 pages of references, showing the Geologist and their report title. This is from 1990 32 years ago and I count roughly 30 per page. That would be 30 * 60 to round it up and that equals 1800. And that is only the references logged in this old handbook!

Now what "Navy" boy, man up and apologize or do what comes natural and pretend you haven't seen it! I wonder if the serial forum spammer still likes your post.

 

Pure nonsense!

99 percent of those names in that list have nothing to do with actual verified lunar rocks retrieved from the moon.

The small amount of the names in your clutching for straws list are from nobody’s like you that make outrageous and bold claims based on pure speculation since nobody has ever gone to the moon to get “real” samples to compare.

The only possible lunar samples to be found here on Earth are picked up by geologists either in the terrestrial based places in the desert or Antarctic.

Nice try, but I can only you a solid F- for your comedic efforts though.

 

Troll-noise. Pretty much every piece of garbage you post falls into that category.

Liar. There are 1800 references with the name and report. It would take an honest person hours to check them all. You haven't checked a single one.

...are all recognised geologists and the "small" number is nearly two thousand,

Troll-noise, You got owned. They are all recognised geologists with reports in peer reviewed journals.

Troll-noise. Even when given direct evidence showing it impossible to use meteorites you still make the same troll claim.

Troll. You probably can't even work out how to read a pdf. What an utter failure

 

Now what "Navy" boy, man up and apologize or do what comes natural and pretend you haven't seen it! Better still, don't read it, make up lies and fool nobody with your obvious and complete ignorance on the subject!

 

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

For the clueless, count how many samples. They have individual log numbers. Around 2,000 in that list.

Click a random selection of 5. Most have between 5 and 10 geologist references at the bottom, quite a few have between 10 and 20. Do the math.

Or go to just one source - Google Scholar with "Apollo" "sample":
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&authuser=1&q="apollo"+"sample"
178,000 found.

Or maybe just preliminary reports numbering over 500 for Apollo 16:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl...8mWH3tX0UUkXU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

You lose as with every single useless thing you have run away from. Oh wait, this is where you come up with more arm waving crap.

 

(from post #23)

As far as you're concerned you debunked all of the hoax evidence to which I linked in post #21.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073672157

I'm sure a lot of viewers are checking it out. Do you think they agree with you?

 

You didn't link to anything, you just respammed the same crap as always. Any person with brains and integrity will know that your garbage has been debunked. All you do is repeat, run away repeat. You fail every time to get into an honest debate and defend at all costs, minuscule meaningless junk. You do not have an ounce of objectivity and you are opposite of a truth seeker.

I'm sure only the navy clown is.

Who? Your imaginary "viewers"? They are "all" wondering why this serial forum spammer has come back to repeat the same batshit as before, with the same dishonest tendency to ignore things. Look at this, half way through page 2 and you haven't attempted to answer the OP. Don't insult people by suggesting any idiotic video presented has done so. Itemize any video and detail what it showed. You won't because none of them showed a damn thing.

https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-very-troubled-individual.html

Tell the "viewers" why you didn't respond to this link:
https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-apollo-moon-rocks-idiotic-website.html

Or this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

And especially this one, where an astonishing amount of cross checking has been carried out. Way, way beyond your understanding and certainly nothing you could ever honestly answer:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

 

Only the "brainwashed" and low-IQ ones, I'm sure!

 

Yes every one who has half a ****ing brain agrees.

You have never posted any reasonable evidence. Yoou have been massively crushed by real evidence just as fake wanna be Navy Corpsman has been crushed.

The evidence is definitive and irrefutable that the landings were real and the hoax crowd are a bunch of fools.

 

/\ /\ /\

Bragging about his having a 1/2 of brain....

 

Which would be one half more than you

 

In post #4 Betamax said this...

Do you agree with his analysis?

I did—in posts #24 and #26.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073672515
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-authenticity.603023/page-2#post-1073672541

My response to that was in the post that disappeared. I said that they might have been paid to lie.

 

The theory put forward in this video sounds plausible to me.

Apollo Moon Hoax Proof Lunar Rover Footage



If you think it doesn't address what you claim, explain why.

Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the anomalies I pointed out in post #44 so the rover traverse issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it.

 

WRONG>

NO educated person on this planet believes it was a hoax.

There is jjo evidence and linkiong to your earlier failures does not alter that


Like all of your other threads on this subject this one is a massive failure. You habve NOT offered any evidence and you have been owned by facts.

 

Meh, it deals with easy to refute stuff, that applies to every single thing you have ever posted.

Incredible get a life spam. God knows how many times I've responded to this joke post. Nothing you ever spam is impossible for anything.

There is a huge fundamental difference between everything posted in support of Apollo and the garbage posted by you and others. To begin with, the evidence that supports Apollo is extensively detailed, consistent and forms a 100% cohesive narrative both internally and externally. The evidence includes lunar samples that amount to 842lbs. They have been examined by virtually every geologist of note, they have thousands and thousands of peer reviewed reports that prove beyond THEIR doubt that these are rocks from the lunar surface. They have every expected characteristic of gathered specimens and no characteristic of Earth specimens or meteorites!

The evidence that ignorant people think supports this impossible multiple hoax has no cohesion, is flimsy with no complex detail, is absurdly easy to refute or has simple explanations and has zero body of work supported by any group of people.

Now the difference here, there and everywhere.

• When you post crap, detailed responses are given to it all, whether you are intelligent enough to understand, or honest enough to take in. They are always given!
• When Apollo evidence is given, virtually every time it is either totally ignored or some ludicrous flimsy, IMPLAUSIBLE, obfuscating garbage is given.

Right now, I could detail a dozen posts responding to your garbage where you have simply totally ignored the reply and later reposted it, or offered diversion, or supplied a ridiculous youtube video that doesn't even come close to explaining anything. You routinely follow the route of batshit at all costs.

That is just sad.

You aren't one of them. It is irrelevant. Give me any one of those people, providing they are honest, have integrity and are capable of reasoned debate and examining things properly and they will no longer believe this horseshit. Again your problem, you are non of those either.

 

Where is the theory? There's no damn sound!

So the theory is a moving back projector, somehow balanced on a support system, that faultlessly shows a multiple mile traverse, also showing a faultless lunar surface and background? Is that correct?

And your "proof" that this was how they did it is a video where the damn clown has lifted the ACTUAL LUNAR FOOTAGE! Google Moon is nowhere as detailed enough. This footage has small rocks in their thousands, all unique with shadows. I'm guessing you will fail to respond to this, divert, arm wave it away or insist it isn't what I just said. The video says they used projected video that shows they are travelling on the lunar surface! Impossible. Plus the idea they used ridiculously unfeasible models is itself disproven as we see the astronaut getting on the LRV.

And why!!? Why the hell bother anyway. Nobody would care if there was no movie footage of these multiple events. They weren't televised, it is impossible to do accurately, fraught with the danger of exposure and special effects will look obvious. What bunch of idiots takes needless risks when they are supposed to be faking this for 5th, 6th and 7th time! in itself a stupid thing to do.

It's borderline insanity, just how many of your posts are repeat cut and paste. It is beyond absurd: We've already seen number the first one below a few times, now number 2 inevitably appears.

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: A Very Troubled Individual. (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

11. Never mind that - look over here: When this hopeless individual has exhausted his inept repertoire of responses comes his most used spam. He resorts to spamming his wall of crap and ignoring the main issue!

"Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real."

"Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the anomalies I pointed out in post #xxx so the "insert evidence" issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it."

 

Hey soupnazi...

I asked you a question in this post.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-authenticity.603023/page-2#post-1073673964

 

There was no analyses.

 

I missed this ridiculous post!

If you don't agree, have the balls to explain why! It is ridiculous for you to claim on the one hand, to make an idiotic claim about air suspending gravity(!) on the LRV, then to suggest an equally absurd video about it being faked when it doesn't even move!

Proving once again that you don't even READ the links provided! That link refutes the link you actually subsequently posted in #24. What kind of person does this? Answer a serial forum spammer of two decades, incapable of honest debate, logic or critical thinking.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

A massive list of items and countries that corroborate Apollo and you come out with that absurd suggestion. You constantly come out with crap about any number of things in your useless and ignorant claims, one that uniquely relies on confirmation bias, suggesting absurd things are "plausible" and have the audacity to suggest that list of 3rd party evidence have all been paid!

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE for anyone being paid!?