I only have a few minutes today so I can't respond to everything.
Quote:
some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie.
That extrapolation is no valid criterion on which to dismiss anything published, no matter what the subject is.
|
I never said "Dismiss". I said it doesn't constitute proof. Something written by an expert is mere evidence--not proof.
Quote:
|
Especially as you include "peer reviewed, official publications of the biggest experts on the subjects, backed up by the professional community" in "some article in which some expert says".
|
It is strong evidence but still falls short of proof as even big groups of people are capable of being corrupt.
In part one of this video this scientist talks about corruption in the science community.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...98989248030643
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32617120640846
(This woman's talk supports my argument that large groups of scientists can be corrupt. I hope it doesn't get me banned.)
Quote:
Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof.
But some paper saying they're real is written by all those trained geologists with access to the right lab equipment. That's the problem with your all encompassing paranoia towards anything published. We'd have to take you by the hand to everything done in world history, as the in between step of publication is a no go for you.
|
You're being pretty simplistic. In a world full of honest people your argument makes sense. You're not considering the deceit factor. The fact that people are capable of lying makes written documents mere evidence that something happened--not proof. If there's a document written by a scientist and endorsed by a big group of scientists, it's mere evidence. If you show me an article that says the scientific community believes the moon landings were real, that's mere evidence that it's so--not proof.
I wish "What Happened on the Moon" were still on line. I'd post the time marks showing the reflection of the great big artificial light source reflected in the Apollo astronauts' helmets and the picture of the sun reflected in the shuttle astronauts' helmets. There was no comparison in the size of the reflections. Now that's proof that at least some of the footage was faked and evidence that all of the footage was faked. After seeing that, some document that says scientists tracked the Apollo craft to the moon and back means nothing to me.
The moon landings were faked.
I tried again to post here but I couldn't.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...c=4560&st=3030
I can log in but I can't post on any thread.
Quote:
|
"Some paper"?? Do you mean a paper by a geologist??
|
We also have to be sure that he or she is an honest geologist. Of course I'll listen to an expert if I'm sure that he or she is honest.
Quote:
|
How can you question the validity of the rocks from the Moon based on your inability to analyse the photos taken on the Moon? What does one have to do with the other.
|
All it takes is one piece of proof that the landings were staged and all of the mere evidence that they were real becomes moot.
Quote:
...makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.
Makes "you" think??...or perhaps this is something you've read on a hoax believers site, and you are simply "repeating it" because it agrees with your pre-formed conclusion.
|
You didn't show the full context of my quote. That's a pretty low tactic and also a desperate one.
Here's the full quote.
Quote:
I tried to follow up on your post there but it wouldn't let me post. The forum was closed.
As I said before, some article in which some expert says they went to the moon does not constitute proof as people lie. The only proof is in the footage. I see no proof there. I do see a lot of proof that the moon missions were faked such as the reflections of the great big light in the astronauts' helmets. I can't show the picture now as it's off-line.
I've never seen any moon footage that couldn't have been taken in a studio or outside in area 51.
Of course there is the issue of the moon rocks but only a trained geologist with access to the right lab equipment could verify they were real. Some paper saying they're real is not proof. The rock issue is still up in the air but the fact that there are reflections of an artificial light source in the Apollo astronouts' helmets that's obviously much bigger than the sun when compared to the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronauts' helmets makes me think the rocks are probably meteorites from Antartica or something from a labratory.
|
I saw it on the video "What Happened on the Moon" which is now off-line. I agreed with it. It was proof that at least part of the missions were staged here on earth.
As for all of your arguments about the Pentagon--
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30
In the pictures at the top of this page it's obvious that there is no damage consistent with wings crashing into the wall. I can even see the chain link fence. All other arguments are moot. It was not a 757. What it really was, I don't know.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...giantpsyop.htm
Judging from this picture it was probably a fighter (remote-controlled of course)
I know I didn't cover everything but that's all the time I have today.