The more I think about the moon landing the funnier it is that I use to believe in it.

You're a "fake conspiracy theory" conspiracy theorist, the worst and most disingenuous type of conspiracy theorists.

Yeah is all fake. The Lander, the buggy, whether they could have survived the radiation and the temperature extremes on the moon. The perfect photos without a viewfinder, all the lost tapes, the list goes on and on. Use belief in it as an IQ test, I do, same with Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon and 911 official narrative. Building 7 what is that?


We live amongst retarded chimps and baboons

Stanley Kubrick's confession:




[link to www.bitchute.com (secure)]

It had its moments.

And then there is this and the Kubrick signature and techniques all over the videos of the event. All fake folks

Who says we have to pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belt?

We will call this era The Age of Regret

fake. His wife said it wasn't him, the director calls him Tom and coaches him.

They can't go again because they lost the records on how they went and they don't have the technology today to complete the trip today. ROFLMAO

I've seen this before, but it doesn't get old.

Remember that the first man on the moon was Neil Armstrong's camera man, who videotaped him from the ground. Also, someone videotaped and sent that to earth the shots of the lift-off. Makes ya wonder. No explanation of that was ever given.

No explanations unless you actually look.

The video of Armstrong coming down the ladder was filmed by a preplaced camera on the MESA arm that was lowered via lanyard by Armstrong before is started down.

The videos of the liftoff (Apollo 15, 16, and 17) were filmed by the camera on the rover that was controlled remotely by Ed Fendell in Houston, the same guy that controlled the camera during the EVAs.

Ha, that girl's face says it all.

Her expression says wtf is this idiot talking about? He is not even answering my question, just blathering on mindlessly...

Oh mercy...

Did the thruster blow away the dust as the LEM landed or not?

From underneath the engine, yes.

How is that relevant to the fallacious claim I answered that there were no explanations for those videos?

Don't you mean, "on Nova Scotia"?

670x322?

That could literally be hand rendered in a few hours.

The dog ate it...

This is the relevance.
He made a fallacious claim about the cameras, now you are making
a fallacious claim about the way thrust would only disturb the regolith beneath the engine and not fan out beyond the
landing legs where the famous bootprint allegedly was photographed.

Allegedly there was some horizontal travel as well to find
a smooth landing site, which I presume would have made more
imprints as the down thrust washed the Portland cement here
and there wherever it traveled.

Where did I say it ONLY disturbed the regolith beneath the engine?

They were higher up when traveling horizontally so there'd be less disturbance. The greatest disturbance is beneath the landing site. Minor disturbance elsewhere wouldn't automatically mean footprints are impossible.

I put your remark about that in bold so you can see it.

And by the way, I'm just throwing out a few questions here,
and not trying to put anyone on the hook.

I don't know how the density of lunar soil compares to terrestrial soil by and large but assume that it is completely dry and generally more powdery, so it seems to me it would disperse under thrust, and according to the photos of the buggies it looks that way as it rooster tails high
overhead from the wheels.

But then there is that famous photo of Buzz Aldrin's boot
imprint right next to the landing pad and the soil looks
pristine and undisturbed.

You're either ignorant, or a liar.

Maybe both?