Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


U.S. never landed on the moon - Apollo Moon Hoax

Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby momopi » Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:42 pm

Winston wrote:An unmanned Chinese mission to the moon won't accomplish much. The US and Soviets had unmanned probes land on the moon long ago.



1. The unmanned Chinese mission to the Moon is a stepping stone to the goal of manned landings. Just as US and USSR were in competition in their space program, so is China and India today.

2. The straight-forward solution to your Apollo Moon landing question is to raise sufficient funds and send an unmanned probe to the Moon. Then you can have a definitive look at one of the prior Apollo mission sites. Or, at least a close enough fly-by at the Moon to take better photos for $100-$150 million (DSE-Alpha).

3. Is the Moon landing question important enough for you to invest in such a project, or are you satisfied with a bunch of fuzzy photos?
Last edited by momopi on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California







Postby Winston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:02 pm

momopi wrote:
Winston wrote:An unmanned Chinese mission to the moon won't accomplish much. The US and Soviets had unmanned probes land on the moon long ago.



1. The unmanned Chinese mission to the Moon is a stepping stone to the goal of manned landings.

2. The straight-forward solution to your Apollo Moon landing question is to raise sufficient funds and send an unmanned probe to the Moon. Then you can have a definitive look at one of the prior Apollo mission sites. I believe the Russians would be open to such a proposal (have someone else fund their space program).

3. Is the Moon landing question important enough for you to invest in such a project, or are you satisfied with a bunch of fuzzy photos?


Again, you are assuming that the Apollo manned lunar landings were real. You can't know that. You are only taking it on faith. How do you know that? Did you read what I posted earlier? Did you see the photos? Look at them, and you will slap your head in embarrassment. Especially when you see that one where you can CLEARLY see the white cloth canvas laid down on the dirt behind the astronaut. Take a look and you will be embarrassed that you were fooled. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001114.jpg

Of course I'm not going to invest in it. What would be gained from that? Regardless if any real manned lunar landings happened, the fact is that the Apollo ones from 1969 have been disproven. The photos I just posted make that obvious. Did you see the one where the alleged sun taken from the alleged moon by astronauts turned out to be a big light bulb? lol Funny huh?
Last edited by Winston on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby momopi » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:04 pm

Winston wrote:Again, you are assuming that the Apollo manned lunar landings were real. You can't know that. You are only taking it on faith. How do you know that? Did you read what I posted earlier? Did you see the photos? Look at them, and you will slap your head in embarrassment. Especially when you see that one where you can CLEARLY see the white cloth canvas laid down on the dirt behind the astronaut. Take a look and you will be embarrassed that you were fooled. :)


So, you're satisfied with fuzzy photos?
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Winston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:08 pm

momopi wrote:
Winston wrote:Again, you are assuming that the Apollo manned lunar landings were real. You can't know that. You are only taking it on faith. How do you know that? Did you read what I posted earlier? Did you see the photos? Look at them, and you will slap your head in embarrassment. Especially when you see that one where you can CLEARLY see the white cloth canvas laid down on the dirt behind the astronaut. Take a look and you will be embarrassed that you were fooled. :)


So, you're satisfied with fuzzy photos?


What do you mean? They are not fuzzy photos. They are high resolution ones. Did you even look at this one? Do you see the white cloth canvas behind him?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001114.jpg

Did you see the one where the alleged sun taken from the alleged moon by astronauts turned out to be a big light bulb when digitally enhanced? lol Funny huh? That never even looked like the sun. Did you fall for it? lol

Even a child can see this. If you can't see what even a child can see, then you either have a huge bias and cognitive dissonance, or you have a vested interest in defending the elites/establishment. Which one is it?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:27 pm

By "fuzzy photos", do you mean photos from orbit, like the LRO photos? Those were totally debunked in excruciating detail by Jarrah White.

Here is my entry on it in my report:

Why LRO images do not prove the Apollo lunar landings

The LRO (Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter) photographs showing pixels and dots which NASA claim are of the Apollo lander, rover and tracks, and hailed by Apollo believers as proof of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not what you think. Anyone can fake a few dots and lines in an image. Come on now. That's not proof of anything. To cite that as proof is a desperate grasp at straws.

Take a look at a few of the LRO images yourself. Here are some links to them:

http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/397621 ... elease.jpg
http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/444024 ... RRR_HI.jpg
http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/399165 ... 2_1_HI.jpg

Come on now. Do you honestly see any “proofâ€￾ in the images above? Anyone can draw grey lines, even with a pencil. And anyone with the cheapest photo editing program can create dots and pixels on an image. You can even do it in the free Paint program that comes with Microsoft Windows.

Furthermore, since NASA has already faked so many Apollo moon photos (as conclusively shown earlier), why wouldn’t it hesitate to fake a few dots and pixels in the LRO images, which anyone with a computer could do? If someone has engaged in mass fraud and hoaxes before, the likelihood of them doing it again is very high of course.

For a detailed meticulous point by point analysis of them, see Jarrah White's YouTube video series called “Moonfaker LROâ€￾. Here is some of his analysis on the LRO images on his FAQ page:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

“Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?

A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].

There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA’s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA’s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright “haloâ€￾ within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This “haloâ€￾ was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the “haloâ€￾ was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ‘artefacts’ were added into the LRO image.

Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn’t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn’t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.

Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo’s authenticity.â€￾
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby momopi » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:49 pm

So, in other words, you're satisfied with fuzzy photos, "pixels and dots", and "very poor quality" images?
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Jester » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:22 am

momopi wrote:If you're really bored, you can write a petition to the Chinese National Space Administration and see if they'd take some high-res photos of previous Apollo mission sites (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, & 17):


Since you're the one who believes this shit, maybe you should petition them.

If they come through for you, then maybe you would have some evidence.

Otherwise you just have faith.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby momopi » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:38 pm

Naw, I don't really care. The Apollo stuff is like, so yesterday. But if someone were to pay me enough for my time and efforts, I might consider it. I'm more interested to see how China's lunar lander perform in 2013, and if Space Adventures can find a 2nd customer for DSE-Alpha launch in 2015. If the second customer finalize contract and fork over the $100-$150 million, they'll launch 2 customers for a trip around lunar orbit.

For those with smaller budgets, Sarah Brightman (Phantom of the Opera) paid $50 million for upcoming trip to the space station. She actually out-bid NASA. Great job for advances in space tourism!

http://www.spaceadventures.com/
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Jester » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:02 am

momopi wrote:Naw, I don't really care. The Apollo stuff is like, so yesterday. But if someone were to pay me enough for my time and efforts, I might consider it. I'm more interested to see how China's lunar lander perform in 2013, and if Space Adventures can find a 2nd customer for DSE-Alpha launch in 2015. If the second customer finalize contract and fork over the $100-$150 million, they'll launch 2 customers for a trip around lunar orbit.

For those with smaller budgets, Sarah Brightman (Phantom of the Opera) paid $50 million for upcoming trip to the space station. She actually out-bid NASA. Great job for advances in space tourism!

http://www.spaceadventures.com/


Earth orbit has nothing to do with whether people landed on the moon and "blasted off" to return.

Neither do unmanned landings.

You are evading.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Winston » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:42 pm

momopi wrote:So, in other words, you're satisfied with fuzzy photos, "pixels and dots", and "very poor quality" images?


Of course not. Who said I was? I don't understand your point. The LRO and Clementine photos are already fuzzy. They didn't prove anything, as I explained earlier.

Regardless of what the Chinese do, most Americans have their heart set on believing in the Moon Landings. What the Chinese say won't change their minds.

Allegedly, I heard that Japanese scientists do not believe in the Apollo Moon Landings because they know that Apollo's equipment and LEM did not have the capability to go there at all and that the notion of it is a total joke.

All in all, when you weigh the evidence for a moon hoax vs. the evidence that they were real, the scales tip strongly in favor of the hoax. That's the bottom line.

A ton of photos are proven to be faked, and most importantly, the fact that NASA can't send men higher than 400 miles today means they couldn't have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times in 1969-72. That should be obvious.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby momopi » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:49 pm

Jester wrote:
momopi wrote:Naw, I don't really care. The Apollo stuff is like, so yesterday. But if someone were to pay me enough for my time and efforts, I might consider it. I'm more interested to see how China's lunar lander perform in 2013, and if Space Adventures can find a 2nd customer for DSE-Alpha launch in 2015. If the second customer finalize contract and fork over the $100-$150 million, they'll launch 2 customers for a trip around lunar orbit.
For those with smaller budgets, Sarah Brightman (Phantom of the Opera) paid $50 million for upcoming trip to the space station. She actually out-bid NASA. Great job for advances in space tourism!
http://www.spaceadventures.com/

Earth orbit has nothing to do with whether people landed on the moon and "blasted off" to return.
Neither do unmanned landings.
You are evading.


1. Lunar orbit, not Earth orbit. Space adventures is planning to send 2 customers 238,900 miles to Moon orbit in 2015, followed by their competition Excalibur Almaz. If you don't believe that they'd succeed, find an internet betting pool and bet against it (you might make some $$).

2. I'd be happy to spend the time and effort on Apollo Moon landing topic if I'm financially compensated. Otherwise you and Winston are free to waste your time on it. If you think this is evading, feel free to spend the next 80 hours to research topics that you don't care about without compensation.

3. As far as I'm concerned, humans are heading back to the Moon and, if there's any questions on the authenticity of previous Apollo Moon landings, we'll be doing a drive-by on one of the Apollo landing sites sooner or later.


Winston wrote:...and most importantly, the fact that NASA can't send men higher than 400 miles today means they couldn't have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times in 1969-72. That should be obvious.


If you believe that, and Space Adventures succeeds in sending 2 customers for a trip around the Moon in 2015, then you can say the private space tourism industry did a better job than NASA. If they fail, Excalibur Almaz (http://www.excaliburalmaz.com/) will be happy to step up.

Moon landings are prestige missions that do not generate direct profits. The US was willing to invest in a prestige competition vs. USSR, and China today is willing to invest in their prestige competition vs. India. Until someone figures out how to harvest the Moon’s resources to off-set the costs, it will remain a sausage competition. The alternative, is private industry (space tourism), where wealthy people pay $20-150 million for a trip to space. Before Space Adventures can think about landing customers on the Moon, they have to prove that they can send customers 239,000 miles to lunar orbit first. That's the kind of progress that I'm interested in.

Space tourism will never be affordable to the masses. I can only hope that a trip to space might be avail for couple million dollars in 20 years, and that I'd be around with enough cash to afford it. If not, then I'd probably have to settle for a lesser-expensive sub-orbital spaceflight ($200k). If you or anyone else would like to contribute to my future space trip piggy bank, I'd be happy to engage in any conspiracy related topic discussions in exchange for financial compensation.


In closing, if anyone here has trouble understanding where I'm coming from, please allow me to illustrate. I want a ride in one of these, some day:

Image


...instead of doing this, all day:

Image

But, if any of you would prefer to be the stick figure in the above illustration, then by all means, go for it.
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Winston » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:50 pm

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.

Image

There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.

Image

Image

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:00 pm

momopi wrote:1. Lunar orbit, not Earth orbit. Space adventures is planning to send 2 customers 238,900 miles to Moon orbit in 2015, followed by their competition Excalibur Almaz. If you don't believe that they'd succeed, find an internet betting pool and bet against it (you might make some $$).

2. I'd be happy to spend the time and effort on Apollo Moon landing topic if I'm financially compensated. Otherwise you and Winston are free to waste your time on it. If you think this is evading, feel free to spend the next 80 hours to research topics that you don't care about without compensation.

3. As far as I'm concerned, humans are heading back to the Moon and, if there's any questions on the authenticity of previous Apollo Moon landings, we'll be doing a drive-by on one of the Apollo landing sites sooner or later.


What if they don't go to the moon and make an excuse again, as they have for many years now? Every moon mission seems to get canceled. If this one does too, will you recant and become suspicious?

How many times does NASA have to lie to you before you get skeptical?

Regarding being financially compensated, let's suppose I pay you to debate the moon hoax. Would you be able to come up with anything that the Apollo defenders haven't?

Case in point: The Apollo defenders claim that the astronauts are lit up in shadows is because the moon's surface is reflecting light up to illuminate them. However, this cannot be true because:

1) The moon's albedo is documented to be only 7 - 12 percent, which is comparable to asphalt, the cement used on the freeway. That's not much and certainly not enough to light up an object or person in a shadow.
2) If the moon's surface were bright enough to do that, it would be glaringly bright in the photos and videos, like snow under sunlight (which is why skiers wear sunshades). But it's not.
3) The lunar surface does not light up the astronauts in the shade in the Apollo video footage.

So if I paid you, could you come up with something other than that false explanation, for why the astronauts are lit up while standing in shadows? If not, then what would I be paying you for?

Do you love the truth? Or do you debate for money only?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:22 pm

Momopi,
Don't you remember, back in the 1990's, NASA said it would return to the moon by 2010. They always have some excuse for extending it, because they know they can't go. How many times do they have to waffle and lie to you before you become skeptical of them?

Why do you believe everything you hear, as long as it comes from authority? Why does authority=truth to you? You never explained that.

If your friend lied to you a few times, you would lose trust in that friend right? So why is it then, that when the government lies to you over and over again, and has shown that it will sacrifice many American lives for profit (e.g. 58,000 American lives during the Vietnam War), you still take everything it says as Gospel Truth? Isn't that bizarre and illogical?

Think about it.

Btw, you always say I ask too many questions and that you want to be paid to answer them all. If I paid you, would you be able to answer questions, that all the other anti-conspiracy sites haven't?

Here is a case in point regarding 9/11 and the Achilles heel of the defenders of the official story, which NONE of the anti-9/11 Truth sites address. NOT ONE! Suppose I paid you. Would you be able to answer it? If not, would you refund my money? lol

Here it is:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

The Achilles heel of the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers

In their indefensible position, all the conspiracy debunkers have done is continually argue that the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel, and leave it at that, while totally ignoring the fact that weakening (or melting) the steel would NOT have caused the 500,000 ton structure beneath the fire and impact point to collapse at near free fall velocity as though it suddenly became weightless. One cannot simply turn 500,000 tons into near 0. A small portion of a skyscraper cannot simply plummet through most of the structure as though it weren’t there. This is a key fact that they cannot deal with, so they simply block it out of their minds and try to change the subject. Thus it is their Achilles heel, as mentioned earlier.

In regard to Building 7, the same applies. The conspiracy debunkers continually argue that the fires in WTC7 were hotter than conspiracists claim, based on firefighter reports and photos that show large fires in the building. But again, they are missing the key point. It doesn’t matter whether the fires in Building 7 were small or large. Either way, it could not account for the collapse features and speed. Even a raging inferno could not have brought the Building down at near free fall velocity in an asymmetrical collapse. Other skyscrapers which were consumed by raging infernos for much longer, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid and the Cultural Center in Beijing, did not result in a collapse.

Another argument they use is to say that Building 7 was built in a way that caused it to collapse easily. But this is not supported by any data nor does it make sense. It defies common sense logic too. Building 7 housed many important government offices and was located in the heart of the financial center of America, where the elites operated in. Why would it have been designed so poorly, especially in the United States, which boasts the best architectural designs? More likely, this building was designed with the best materials and foundation, and could only have been brought down in some controlled manner. So you see, such arguments are grasping at straws from an indefensible position. When confronted with this dilemma, the conspiracy debunkers and proponents of the official story resort to cognitive dissonance by blocking it out altogether, because they simply can’t deal with it, which speaks volumes about the invalidity of their case.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby momopi » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:50 pm

Winston wrote:What if they don't go to the moon and make an excuse again, as they have for many years now? Every moon mission seems to get canceled. If this one does too, will you recant and become suspicious?
How many times does NASA have to lie to you before you get skeptical?
Regarding being financially compensated, let's suppose I pay you to debate the moon hoax. Would you be able to come up with anything that the Apollo defenders haven't?
<snip>
Do you love the truth? Or do you debate for money only?


1. Currently there are 3 commercial companies planning Moon tourism: Space Adventures, Excalibur Alamaz, and Golden Spike. China is also planning a manned Moon landing mission after Chang'e missions successfully test the necessary technologies to do so. If you believe that these missions are likely to fail or get cancelled, find an internet betting pool. If you're right, you'd make some money. Or, you can start a betting pool and just collect a % from the winnings.

2. RE: "Would you be able to come up with anything that the Apollo defenders haven't?", I can answer this question after I'm paid to perform the research. If you're looking for materials that have yet to be presented, I'd simply keep digging for as long as I'm paid to do so.

3. I'm a paid analyst. I don't debate. I simply get paid to perform the research. Show me the money and I'll compile whatever you want (for or against). Consider how much time you've been wasting on CT stuff and writing tirades about how much your life sucks in TW. Wouldn't it be better if you just paid me or someone else to write the crap, so you can have more time to pack and leave TW for greener pastures?
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies, Mysteries, Paranormal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests