Not falling for that either, the landings sites can be easily verified from multiple sources. And have never been disproven in any way. Ever.
.... by people, right ? I thought you did your own research.
Care to share some of thse 'sources' ? There is no proof the moon is even a physical object, in fact it is opaque in many of its phases with blue sky visible behind when observed during the day. Don't trust me though, verify this for yourself.
Also do some math with regards to propabilities that the Sun and Moon are the exact relative size in the sky - demonstrated most clearly by a solar eclipse - specifically determine which is more probable: that they are the same size or that by introducing the variables of vastly different scales, different distances, and a perfect alignment that such a feat as the solar eclipse is possible.
Or here's another experiment in probability... but first; consider this premise: The Satanic Judeao Freemasonic order has decided to cookup a fable so big it will supplant all world religions. Apart of it, they decide to redraw the known world map (formerly a flat plane) into that of a ball. The fable goes that the ball must spin to create a new force called gravity. And that this ball will 'orbit' the Sun (they love inversion). Now to finish the story they just need to choose a speed that said ball is 'orbiting'. So now for the exercise in odds... what are the odds (((they))) would pick 66,600 mph ?
One of my hobby’s is Ham Radio. And one thing I can do is called EME. Earth Moon Earth communication. I point my antenna at the moon and the signal is reflected back to earth and I make contact with other Ham Radio hobbyists on the moon facing side of the earth. It works pretty good for an “opaque” object. Also, during high sunspot activity the ionosphere is energized and my transmissions are reflected back from the ionosphere and I can reach out around the world and communicate. Pretty good for a a little yellow dot in the sky.
That's really interesting. It has me genuinely interested to learn more about Ham (particularly as the commies continue the march to making every metropolis a hardcore gulag).
Opaque does not imply that such things have no other features. Water is opaque too but it also reflects light and sound. And obviously our little yellow dot in the sky has it's own unique set of features too. These features do not necessatate being perfectly spherical solid objects do they?
What happens when you simply point the antenna at other locations in the sky - does it not reflect back to the Earth as well (I assume it does, just weaker) ? It seems then you are implying the moon is a stronger reflector of radio energy than just regular sky. And that during high sunspot activity the strength of any part of the so called ionosphre is uniformly stronger, yes ?
Have you seen the footage of high altitude rockets hitting 'space' ? And apologies, this isn't my own research but it is compelling nonetheless; and should get us to question what may really be 'space' or the ionosphere for that matter.
https://files.catbox.moe/a09e9u.mp4
Speaking to odds again, based on this circumstancial video evidence, the reflectivity properties including that of the extra reflective properties of the moon & as well as the electrical conductivity (both properties you highlight) - am inclined to assume it really is a kind of liquid up there. "Waters above" so to speak.
the Sun and Moon are the exact relative size in the sky
They're not though, that's why you get a ring with annular solar eclipses. Why? Because the Moon is further away from the Earth at that time, therefore presents a smaller image and therefore doesn't fully cover the Sun.
Also, in regards to the speed of the Earth moving - the only country who uses the imperial system for speed is the US. Everywhere else doesn't, therefore that number is 107182 km/h.
you sound like a pissy jew who doesn't like having all his lies exposed
My bad, the diameter is different.... then by how much approximatley? 0.5% maybe? Quite possibly 0% since the sun is emmanating a completely different energy and its rays give an illusion that it is bigger than it is.
Either way - that doesn't change the premise of my example. That it is exponentially less probable that they are vastly different scales + distances + trajectories in the Freemasonic heliocentric (hypothetical) model. Each variable introducing an order of magnitude extra complexity.
Versus Occam's Razor and a completely observable model that the sun and moon are the same relative size and approx same altitude and follow similar trajectories (and are not spinning) thus making a solar eclipse not such an extraordinary feat of probability & science fiction but rather a local feature of our ecosystem.
We both seem to agree on the solar eclipse feature but you subscribe to a model that is a gorillian times bigger with inflated hypothetical numbers and magic properties invented by Freemasons that cannot be proven while I am working based on a smaller, observable, and thus far more accurate model.
And nice way to skirt the issue about them choosing 666,000 MPH; you didn't answer the question - what are the odds a satanic cult would choose 66,600 MPH as the speed for which their new religion is based ? (metric system being only adopted in apparently 1795, we are obviously dealing with a multi-century cult who has been cooking up fables since long before that; heliocentrism reportedly published in 1543... and some of its 'early teachers' were burned at the stake... hmm, wonder why?)
(post is archived)