Based on everything I've seen, I think the landings were staged. All 4 of those points could have been achieved by remote (unmanned) missions, which are much easier.
Based on everything I've seen, I think the landings were staged.
Where have you seen the landings? On television; in cinemas; within books and magazines; on the internet? Those represent raised platforms used for public display aka stages.
The photography could be faked. Computer system could have generated terrain using historical data functions from google map software and creativity of a video game programmer programming an RPG expansive world.
How do i know those samples aren't just meteorites?
On the laser ranging - we put a retroreflector on the moon. If we shine a laser from earth to the moon and look for a reflection from the rr, that will be different from a return from a shiny rock, it will have many times higher luminance. Also the return will come from the exact spot where we placed the reflector. Since anyone on earth (any nation) can perform that test, it separates any chance of a fake US claim from ground truth data anyone can validate.
Yes. It's been years since I read the details but they can be tracked down. A retroreflector has mirrors arranged in a cube corner shape so they bounce any focused beam right back to the location of the source. This reflection is many many times stronger than a simple single surface reflector and highly localized. So this means that anyone with a telescope and a laser could in theory aim at the moon landing site and instantly (well speed of light delay) see a reflection from there and only there. A merely shiny rock wouldn't work the same way.
Furthermore, the nature of the way the rr works is that no matter where in the moon's orbit the moon is and no matter what the angle is, as long as you can see the moon, the rr will bounce the laser back to you; a flat mirror or a shiny rock wouldn't, it would have to be at exactly the right angle (180 degrees to you) to work that way. So anyone at the equator or the north pole or China could do this test as long as the moon was in their sky at the time.
Sure they were. Right before they found the entrance to Hollow Earth, raced Indiana Jones to find the Holy Grail, and then used bug spray to kill 6 billion joos.
There's only one perceivable way for those within...forwards. Counting (four) tempts one to burden self with other units; while suggested scientism tempts one to ignore perceivable aka scientia; scio (to know).
be certain
Others suggest CERTAIN (determined; restricted; fixed) as the inversion of being temporary "free" will of choice within ongoing motion. Being implies as form within flow; hence a fluid state...not an fixed one.
Holding onto suggested information (to ascertain meaning) affixes it within ones mind/memory, while tempting one to ignore fluidity of perceivable inspiration.
surface
SUPERFICIAL; adjective - "of or relating to a surface, as in not deep, without thorough understanding, cursory, comprehending only what is apparent or obvious of perceptions, thoughts etc."
ambiguous
AMBIG'UOUS, adjective - "open to various interpretations"...perceivable is open to ones perception (as inspiration), while one wields the free will of choice for various suggestible interpretations (as information).
From the talmudic perspective...gemara is open to various interpretations of mishnah.
Based on everything I've seen, I think the landings were staged. All 4 of those points could have been achieved by remote (unmanned) missions, which are much easier.
The Nazis went to the moon first anyway.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2vMKw5OFlbyL/
Nazis in space. Now that’s the kind of conspiracy I like to see.
Where have you seen the landings? On television; in cinemas; within books and magazines; on the internet? Those represent raised platforms used for public display aka stages.
All of the 4 points have been refuted by researchers who'v studied the issue more than this paid moron from bigthink.
Newcomers can start with Bart Sibrel, Bill Kaysing and Massimo Mazzucco.
So, you're saying you could point to "fact checkers" that could "debunk" this article?
Interesting.
The photography could be faked. Computer system could have generated terrain using historical data functions from google map software and creativity of a video game programmer programming an RPG expansive world.
How do i know those samples aren't just meteorites?
I'm not sure what they mean by the laser ranging.
On the laser ranging - we put a retroreflector on the moon. If we shine a laser from earth to the moon and look for a reflection from the rr, that will be different from a return from a shiny rock, it will have many times higher luminance. Also the return will come from the exact spot where we placed the reflector. Since anyone on earth (any nation) can perform that test, it separates any chance of a fake US claim from ground truth data anyone can validate.
So have people independently tested this theory and proven that there is a man-made retro reflector on the moon?
Yes. It's been years since I read the details but they can be tracked down. A retroreflector has mirrors arranged in a cube corner shape so they bounce any focused beam right back to the location of the source. This reflection is many many times stronger than a simple single surface reflector and highly localized. So this means that anyone with a telescope and a laser could in theory aim at the moon landing site and instantly (well speed of light delay) see a reflection from there and only there. A merely shiny rock wouldn't work the same way.
Furthermore, the nature of the way the rr works is that no matter where in the moon's orbit the moon is and no matter what the angle is, as long as you can see the moon, the rr will bounce the laser back to you; a flat mirror or a shiny rock wouldn't, it would have to be at exactly the right angle (180 degrees to you) to work that way. So anyone at the equator or the north pole or China could do this test as long as the moon was in their sky at the time.
Here's an article that talks about all the tests: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/15/science/moon-lasers-dust.html
According to this article, they've only successfully performed the laser test two or three times in the last 10 years.
Also, there's no evidence of private citizens being able to test this out.
It seems like NASA knows they are losing credibility and are trying to come up with more "evidence" of the fake moon landing.
And where better to plant fake evidence than in the Jew York Times, which is staffed with CIA and MOSSAD to spread disinformation.
Space is fake and gay.
Yes, to bad the Nazis were there first.
Sure they were. Right before they found the entrance to Hollow Earth, raced Indiana Jones to find the Holy Grail, and then used bug spray to kill 6 billion joos.
No, just a secret base in Antarctica.
Lit with human lampshades, secured by wooden doors, with the chimneys detached from the buildings.
Nah, it was supplied by submarines, space is kinda tight on those.
shut it down goyim!!
Hahahahaha!
Deboonked!
yep
There's only one perceivable way for those within...forwards. Counting (four) tempts one to burden self with other units; while suggested scientism tempts one to ignore perceivable aka scientia; scio (to know).
Others suggest CERTAIN (determined; restricted; fixed) as the inversion of being temporary "free" will of choice within ongoing motion. Being implies as form within flow; hence a fluid state...not an fixed one.
Holding onto suggested information (to ascertain meaning) affixes it within ones mind/memory, while tempting one to ignore fluidity of perceivable inspiration.
SUPERFICIAL; adjective - "of or relating to a surface, as in not deep, without thorough understanding, cursory, comprehending only what is apparent or obvious of perceptions, thoughts etc."
AMBIG'UOUS, adjective - "open to various interpretations"...perceivable is open to ones perception (as inspiration), while one wields the free will of choice for various suggestible interpretations (as information).
From the talmudic perspective...gemara is open to various interpretations of mishnah.
Proof!