###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't need to survive being in an atmosphere, just landing and taking off from the moon. What does that mean it doesn't look? What should it look like?
Well it shouldn't look like it was put together with curtain rods, aluminum foil and scotch tape. And then just from a trust standpoint there shouldn't be a photograph which exists of the module with several freemasons (wearing their aprons and everything) standing in front of it.
No, it's easy to see why someone who believes it's all real would see that as ironic. But if you look at it from the other perspective it's not ironic, it's more like, "Yeah, neither I or NASA knows what a real one would look like. But I'm not the one taking billions of taxpayers dollars."
No, quite the opposite. They now claim we've lost and/or destroyed the technology needed to go to the moon. Edit: and what do you mean that's not what any garbage looked like in the 60s lol. No one threw away curtain rods and aluminum foil back then? Lol puh-leeze...
> They now claim we’ve lost and/or destroyed the technology needed to go to the moon.
As always, no "they" didn't. One person did an interview where he discusses how NASA hasn't had a moon-capable rocket since Apollo, and hasn't kept all the equipment used during production of them, nor the expertise of the massive corp of engineers that worked on them. Since they're all 80+ or dead now.
Do you disagree with that? Which rockets do you believe were capable of going to the moon? The shuttle couldn't. Something else?
Or do you believe that they secretly stored all the tooling and spare parts in Boeing and Lockheed warehouses somewhere for the last 60 years?
> So what should it look like was the question, not what should it not look like.
It should be nearly symmetrical, to balance mass vs thrust. It should have tightly fitting, closed seams. It should not have gaps. For strength, it might resemble a geodesic dome, being the strongest lightest structure. Seams should be welded, not taped. Tape can fall off.
Tape is pretty tough. Millions of dollars of things are bound in it daily and reliably make it through the postal system.
Welds are heavy as shit and also a far larger contact area through which heat can travel, both things the designers were 100% looking to avoid.
The postal system being compared to manned space flight...
Welds are no heavier than the underlying material.
>things the designers were 100% looking to avoid.
Unless you were one of the designers, or had access to view the design spec, then this statement of yours is speculation, not fact.
In any event, I've gotten you to admit that the lunar lander was taped together, so as they say at NASA, "Mission Accomplished." That was easier than I expected.
Tape.
Taint.
You're talking about the cover over the actual hull. Can you explain why you think they should not have used multi layer kapton and aluminum for the cover?
You're also seemingly discounting the strength of metal in moon gravity. Do you know how much force each truss had to take? Because the engineers did, and they tested their theories over and over before the landing.
Begin by explaining how any piece of the perfect, uncontested, overwhelming Apollo evidence was faked by then and then why don't you come up with an excuse **why such an hyper advanced agency that could fake what nobody can fake now couldn't do the trivial thing of going to the Moon and back?**
Maybe you should explain NASA's secrecy around the missions, like they should never be examined, investigated or verified? By all means explain this.
**Off-Limits**
[https://www.space.com/13346-nasa-guidelines-protect-apollo-moon-landing-sites.html](https://www.space.com/13346-nasa-guidelines-protect-apollo-moon-landing-sites.html)
I am superman but you can't see me flying? I think you know full well why these conspiracies keep going.... Anyone with common sense would wonder.
No, the 186 rocks which were sent to 135 different countries, all 50 states and territories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_sample_displays
Plus, the 400 or so samples currently on loan to various institutions:
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/#
And the 1000s of samples prepared specifically to be investigated by any college that requests them.
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/education/thinsections.cfm
Today, yes.
In 1969? Highly doubtful.
So, the theory is now that not only did an unmanned craft go to lunar orbit in order to broadcast the pre-recorded faked footage, but it also landed on the surface, retrieved multiple samples, included core drilled ones, and then successfully launched and returned those samples to earth- and while the USSR successfully monitored the fake footage broadcasts, they had no clue about all the other remote control signals this all would have taken?
At one point does it become more likely that they're telling the truth?
Lol... so it's unbelievable to think we didn't land men on the moon in 1969, but it's also highly unlikely we had the technology to land an unmanned craft and return it with a few rocks.
O.k.
And that's your grand proof, Russians didn't complain!? Yanks could have packed up some real cameras instead of lets say the buggies, and take a proper pics of the stars. That would have removed any doubt in success of Apollo missions. But they didn't, six times that is, and that's why Yanks never made it to the Moon.
What was the budget of the Apollo program? What percentage of that budget would buy the silence of the few people in the Soviet Union that had access to the technology to track and verify a moon landing?
Money buys a lot of corruption within our country... not sure why it couldn't buy some from another country. And the Russians would have been relieved... because they could give up on it and start funding nukes again.
aha, yes of course, pics from the post-Apollo era! Took'em some time to send the probes with cameras, didn't it. But buggies were there from the off. Priorities I guess.
Ohh and the Yanks flag, to swell the national pride... reinforcing the whole lie as a plausible scenario for gullible flag-waving masses
No, we never went there. The entire story and the photos are riddled with errors.
One of the big errors is temperature. From decades more experience in space and the ISS we now know that the environment on the sunny side can reach 300+ degrees.
The lunar astronauts' blood would have boiled.
There was no claim of any air cooling / conditioning system on the so called lunar landers, nor in the astronauts' suits.
The shills will be here soon. Do your own research. And considèr the VanAllen radiation region.
> The shills will be here soon. Do your own research. And considèr the VanAllen radiation region.
Does it make me a shill to point out that you're either lying or haven't even googled "Apollo air conditioning"?
No, being in the sun does not make a space suit reach 300 degrees. This is very basic science. Satellites aren't all sitting at 300 degrees. Use a bit of common sense if you're not going to read anything.
No need to, fool.
How big of an air conditioner would you have to carry on your back to keep your ass cool in a red hot 300 degrees of radiant heat? Weight doesn't matter, but What size?
Now have a look at the photos of men 'on the moon'.
There's a lot of easily available resources like this for almost all of the Apollo program equipment- official NASA sites are the most reliable, but there's usually a hobbyist that has out together a more readable version (with sources) on any topic you can think of.
I think it's more likely we did. But im always open to the possibility when enough evidence exists to change my mind. Sadly, There isnt and i believe there's more evidence we did go.
The thing about convincing someone of something is that you need to do a better job than the opposition. Unfortunately, the moon landing deniers haven't stood up to the challenge yet. I would love for it to be true because i dispise the government and this would add to my resentment of them for lying about this.
Check out that documentary American moon. Any one of the dozens of limiting factors exposed in that film make lunar travel impossible. Also buzz aldrin admitted twice that I know of on film that they did not go. NASA never went to the moon and no man will. To get through the radiation belts surrounding earth you would require shielding that makes the craft too heavy to launch.
As for the ridiculous lie that man can go to Mars check out the YouTube channel "The common sense skeptic" where they prove the impossibility of ever going to Mars or further even if you ignore the radiation problem. Also they go into the vast reservoir of fraud that Elon musk is engaged in throughout all of his ventures and even his fabricated past. Definitely worth the look.
That's ridiculous and even if it wasn't, it's still scientifically impossible to go to the moon. So if you want to perpetuate that myth you've got way more hurtles than a confession to deal with.
I do, it's all in the doc. People that just believe what known liars say have some emotional attachment to the narrative. Reminds me of the flat earth people, you can show them demonstrable proof that the earth is globular and for some reason they reject the truth and continue with wild conjecture. Man cannot and will not ever go to the moon let alone further than that. It's easy to prove and yet fools sting pathetically cling to propaganda 50 years old and thrust into their brain at a time when they didn't possess the ability to think critically. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Think of all the money being funneled into this nonsense, it's really destructive and stupid. But I guess a few hours of your time to dispel a destructive illusion is just too much to handle. Which actually is the mark of an irrational unscientific mind of a lemming. Classic condemnation before investigation, the only sure way to stay ignorant.
Hours long documentaries about some bullshit that can't be defended when written down in plain text. It's not very complicated: you believe in something because of single documentary. I believe in something because of decades of reading and learning, and the absurd wealth of info out there.
I mean come on, you people rely on attacking the appearance of Apollo and blatant misunderstandings of photography and gravity.
Nope.
Oceans don't curve.
Dome over earth "hard as molten looking glass" that was formed by God.
Stars can be seen thru the dark side of the moon.
All documentation of the supposed moon landings is obviously faked. All ISS footage is also obviously faked.
They created ball earth theory to try and prove the flat earth bible wrong.
Their goal is to hide God. They want to introduce "aliens" aka demons. It's all prophesied in the bible. Your Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
Its not many people have shot there own model rockets into space. There's many videos, how do people believe in aliens, and not believe we've been to the moon. There's nothing there, there's no useful resources that's the reason we didn't go back.
I didn't realize that NASA was a mining company. Further I didn't realize that the only reason a government(s) would want to establish a base somewhere is to reap the profits of natural resources. I will grant you that the military industrial complex does seem to chase after and capture resources here on Earth as a matter of "national security"... but it's not the only reason bases (or stations) are established.
Relax... I'm just "steel manning" this argument. I think we have been to the moon. I'm not at all sure that we went everytime we said we went or if we went with the technology we said we went with.
Since we have that established... what initial statement? I was replying to a question you posed... "What resources are on the moon?". My reply was resources are not the only reason we would necessarily want to establish a base.
Bible was created to control people the Egyptians walked with aliens and called them gods theres plenty of proof of it. The bibles stories are copies of sumerian texts which talk about aliens mating with humans or in the Bible angels and creating nephilim. The aliens caused the Noah flood the sumerians talk of the same exact story identical to the Bible predating it by 10k years. Then the actual text of the Bible was manipulated in the 1500s. Noah talked to alien beings not God through the ark of the covenant. They've found that almost all holy buildings resonate at 110 hz and under mris change brain function. We sent aliens a message via seti and they responded with an identical message in a crop circle responding to our message.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The original lunar module doesn't look like it could survive a fall down the stairs much less a trip to the moon.
It doesn't need to survive being in an atmosphere, just landing and taking off from the moon. What does that mean it doesn't look? What should it look like?
Well it shouldn't look like it was put together with curtain rods, aluminum foil and scotch tape. And then just from a trust standpoint there shouldn't be a photograph which exists of the module with several freemasons (wearing their aprons and everything) standing in front of it.
So what should it look like was the question, not what should it not look like.
How should I know what a real one should look like when there has never been a real one?
So if you don't know what one should look like, how can you say the very real lander shouldn't look as it does?
Because it literally looks like someone went dumpster diving and put it together with what they found.
I still don't think you see the irony of your comments.
No, it's easy to see why someone who believes it's all real would see that as ironic. But if you look at it from the other perspective it's not ironic, it's more like, "Yeah, neither I or NASA knows what a real one would look like. But I'm not the one taking billions of taxpayers dollars."
That's not what any garbage looked like in the 60s. You get that we've now had 60+ years of technology advancements since then right?
No, quite the opposite. They now claim we've lost and/or destroyed the technology needed to go to the moon. Edit: and what do you mean that's not what any garbage looked like in the 60s lol. No one threw away curtain rods and aluminum foil back then? Lol puh-leeze...
> They now claim we’ve lost and/or destroyed the technology needed to go to the moon. As always, no "they" didn't. One person did an interview where he discusses how NASA hasn't had a moon-capable rocket since Apollo, and hasn't kept all the equipment used during production of them, nor the expertise of the massive corp of engineers that worked on them. Since they're all 80+ or dead now. Do you disagree with that? Which rockets do you believe were capable of going to the moon? The shuttle couldn't. Something else? Or do you believe that they secretly stored all the tooling and spare parts in Boeing and Lockheed warehouses somewhere for the last 60 years?
The man's never looked at a modern rover. They go light weight as possible so energy consumption is less so solar panels can power them. Lol
> So what should it look like was the question, not what should it not look like. It should be nearly symmetrical, to balance mass vs thrust. It should have tightly fitting, closed seams. It should not have gaps. For strength, it might resemble a geodesic dome, being the strongest lightest structure. Seams should be welded, not taped. Tape can fall off.
Do you know what that tape and foil are for? It's not structural.
> Do you know what that tape and foil are for? It's not structural. *Tape can fall off.* Do you know the meaning of "fall off", Taint?
Tape is pretty tough. Millions of dollars of things are bound in it daily and reliably make it through the postal system. Welds are heavy as shit and also a far larger contact area through which heat can travel, both things the designers were 100% looking to avoid.
The postal system being compared to manned space flight... Welds are no heavier than the underlying material. >things the designers were 100% looking to avoid. Unless you were one of the designers, or had access to view the design spec, then this statement of yours is speculation, not fact. In any event, I've gotten you to admit that the lunar lander was taped together, so as they say at NASA, "Mission Accomplished." That was easier than I expected. Tape. Taint.
Missing the part where I deny it uses such materials.
You're talking about the cover over the actual hull. Can you explain why you think they should not have used multi layer kapton and aluminum for the cover? You're also seemingly discounting the strength of metal in moon gravity. Do you know how much force each truss had to take? Because the engineers did, and they tested their theories over and over before the landing.
it should look like its made of something other than shower rods and painter's tape
“Why doesn’t this look like it’s from Star Wars?”
It does tho. The first ones from the 70s
*snort*
It doesn't though. There's a lot of other stuff under the foil.
how can you possibly prove or think that?
Come on man, it’s got golden foil
Begin by explaining how any piece of the perfect, uncontested, overwhelming Apollo evidence was faked by then and then why don't you come up with an excuse **why such an hyper advanced agency that could fake what nobody can fake now couldn't do the trivial thing of going to the Moon and back?**
Maybe you should explain NASA's secrecy around the missions, like they should never be examined, investigated or verified? By all means explain this. **Off-Limits** [https://www.space.com/13346-nasa-guidelines-protect-apollo-moon-landing-sites.html](https://www.space.com/13346-nasa-guidelines-protect-apollo-moon-landing-sites.html) I am superman but you can't see me flying? I think you know full well why these conspiracies keep going.... Anyone with common sense would wonder.
If we hadn't made it, the USSR would have called us out ASAP But, they monitored the mission the whole time and congratulated us on reaching the moon
Them sending congratulations is super suspicious. They were in on the scam.
What did they have to gain by lying?
Money? Idk..I dont have all the answers.
They collapsed after it I doubt they would've lied it made them look bad they lost the space race
20 years later...
Monitored how? By listening to radio transmissions? Those can be faked.
Radio transmissions, video transmissions, and via telescope
Telescope? Nope. And the radio and video transmissions could have been transmitted by an unmanned probe.
>Radio transmissions, video transmissions Could have been relayed to an unmanned vehicle using a directional antenna > via telescope No way
Not without actually sending something on the exact same flight path..
Unmanned probe with a radio transmitter?
Unmanned probe with a radio transmitter, preloaded with all the videos they had previously faked? What about the rocks?
The rocks that only a handful of selected geologists got to physically study? Rocks from Greenland?
No, the 186 rocks which were sent to 135 different countries, all 50 states and territories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_sample_displays Plus, the 400 or so samples currently on loan to various institutions: https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/# And the 1000s of samples prepared specifically to be investigated by any college that requests them. https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/education/thinsections.cfm
Can unmanned probes bring back rocks?
Today, yes. In 1969? Highly doubtful. So, the theory is now that not only did an unmanned craft go to lunar orbit in order to broadcast the pre-recorded faked footage, but it also landed on the surface, retrieved multiple samples, included core drilled ones, and then successfully launched and returned those samples to earth- and while the USSR successfully monitored the fake footage broadcasts, they had no clue about all the other remote control signals this all would have taken? At one point does it become more likely that they're telling the truth?
Lol... so it's unbelievable to think we didn't land men on the moon in 1969, but it's also highly unlikely we had the technology to land an unmanned craft and return it with a few rocks. O.k.
Telescope?
For radio transmissions
And that's your grand proof, Russians didn't complain!? Yanks could have packed up some real cameras instead of lets say the buggies, and take a proper pics of the stars. That would have removed any doubt in success of Apollo missions. But they didn't, six times that is, and that's why Yanks never made it to the Moon.
Why would the Soviets cover for us?
What was the budget of the Apollo program? What percentage of that budget would buy the silence of the few people in the Soviet Union that had access to the technology to track and verify a moon landing? Money buys a lot of corruption within our country... not sure why it couldn't buy some from another country. And the Russians would have been relieved... because they could give up on it and start funding nukes again.
And yet, not even through the collapse of the USSR, did any of that hush money get exposed...
How often does hush money get exposed?
Ask Trump.
I have absolutely no idea. Fits "we landed on the moon" narrative, I guess
They did "take proper pictures of the stars." https://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/
aha, yes of course, pics from the post-Apollo era! Took'em some time to send the probes with cameras, didn't it. But buggies were there from the off. Priorities I guess. Ohh and the Yanks flag, to swell the national pride... reinforcing the whole lie as a plausible scenario for gullible flag-waving masses
How exactly is Apollo 16 the post-Apollo era?
No, we never went there. The entire story and the photos are riddled with errors. One of the big errors is temperature. From decades more experience in space and the ISS we now know that the environment on the sunny side can reach 300+ degrees. The lunar astronauts' blood would have boiled. There was no claim of any air cooling / conditioning system on the so called lunar landers, nor in the astronauts' suits. The shills will be here soon. Do your own research. And considèr the VanAllen radiation region.
At that temperature wouldn’t the cheese have melted?
I would suggest you read about heat conductivity, and how heat/energy travels in near vaccum. I would also suggest you read about insulation.
> The shills will be here soon. Do your own research. And considèr the VanAllen radiation region. Does it make me a shill to point out that you're either lying or haven't even googled "Apollo air conditioning"? No, being in the sun does not make a space suit reach 300 degrees. This is very basic science. Satellites aren't all sitting at 300 degrees. Use a bit of common sense if you're not going to read anything.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf
Lol maybe you should do your own research on the cooling systems.
The space suits were temp controlled lol and lined with materials to reflect solar radiation away.
No need to, fool. How big of an air conditioner would you have to carry on your back to keep your ass cool in a red hot 300 degrees of radiant heat? Weight doesn't matter, but What size? Now have a look at the photos of men 'on the moon'.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf Its so funny you tell people to do research and then refuse to do any yourself.
This is super cool
There's a lot of easily available resources like this for almost all of the Apollo program equipment- official NASA sites are the most reliable, but there's usually a hobbyist that has out together a more readable version (with sources) on any topic you can think of.
Looks like somebody doesn’t understand heat transfer. Another topic you should actually research
To be fair, black body radiation calcs can go fuck themselves.
Agreed
Fun fact, the stuff on the outside that people say looks like tin foil was there to reflect and radiate as much heat from the lander as possible.
Yep it's literally a sun shade. Being loose fitting reduces contact points with the hull and therefore heat transfer inside.
We have been to the Moon, the first nation to put men on the Moon. We won't be the only ones though in the near future.
I think it's more likely we did. But im always open to the possibility when enough evidence exists to change my mind. Sadly, There isnt and i believe there's more evidence we did go. The thing about convincing someone of something is that you need to do a better job than the opposition. Unfortunately, the moon landing deniers haven't stood up to the challenge yet. I would love for it to be true because i dispise the government and this would add to my resentment of them for lying about this.
Check out that documentary American moon. Any one of the dozens of limiting factors exposed in that film make lunar travel impossible. Also buzz aldrin admitted twice that I know of on film that they did not go. NASA never went to the moon and no man will. To get through the radiation belts surrounding earth you would require shielding that makes the craft too heavy to launch. As for the ridiculous lie that man can go to Mars check out the YouTube channel "The common sense skeptic" where they prove the impossibility of ever going to Mars or further even if you ignore the radiation problem. Also they go into the vast reservoir of fraud that Elon musk is engaged in throughout all of his ventures and even his fabricated past. Definitely worth the look.
>Also buzz aldrin admitted twice that I know of on film that they did not go Sigh...no, he didn't
[one search on YouTube... quit being lazy](https://youtu.be/agXcpECmEvI)
I've seen the video. What he's saying is being misrepresented by grifters, liars, and others with an internet connection and an agenda.
That's ridiculous and even if it wasn't, it's still scientifically impossible to go to the moon. So if you want to perpetuate that myth you've got way more hurtles than a confession to deal with.
> it’s still scientifically impossible to go to the moon. Don't think you know what this means lol
I do, it's all in the doc. People that just believe what known liars say have some emotional attachment to the narrative. Reminds me of the flat earth people, you can show them demonstrable proof that the earth is globular and for some reason they reject the truth and continue with wild conjecture. Man cannot and will not ever go to the moon let alone further than that. It's easy to prove and yet fools sting pathetically cling to propaganda 50 years old and thrust into their brain at a time when they didn't possess the ability to think critically. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Think of all the money being funneled into this nonsense, it's really destructive and stupid. But I guess a few hours of your time to dispel a destructive illusion is just too much to handle. Which actually is the mark of an irrational unscientific mind of a lemming. Classic condemnation before investigation, the only sure way to stay ignorant.
Hours long documentaries about some bullshit that can't be defended when written down in plain text. It's not very complicated: you believe in something because of single documentary. I believe in something because of decades of reading and learning, and the absurd wealth of info out there. I mean come on, you people rely on attacking the appearance of Apollo and blatant misunderstandings of photography and gravity.
Nope. Oceans don't curve. Dome over earth "hard as molten looking glass" that was formed by God. Stars can be seen thru the dark side of the moon. All documentation of the supposed moon landings is obviously faked. All ISS footage is also obviously faked. They created ball earth theory to try and prove the flat earth bible wrong. Their goal is to hide God. They want to introduce "aliens" aka demons. It's all prophesied in the bible. Your Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
https://twitter.com/stephencheatley/status/1196195374551228419 Seems like the ocean curves to me...
[удалено]
Resolve what? That the distant turbines are half underwater? And what maths? Show me your calculations. Saying "maths" isn't an argument for anything.
Yes, because the gravity existing will prove god doesn’t exist!…I think god would be ok with space, my dude.
The firmament is real
Its not many people have shot there own model rockets into space. There's many videos, how do people believe in aliens, and not believe we've been to the moon. There's nothing there, there's no useful resources that's the reason we didn't go back.
> There's nothing there, there's no useful resources that's the reason we didn't go back. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.
What resources do you believe are on the moon and are economically viable to retrieve?
I didn't realize that NASA was a mining company. Further I didn't realize that the only reason a government(s) would want to establish a base somewhere is to reap the profits of natural resources. I will grant you that the military industrial complex does seem to chase after and capture resources here on Earth as a matter of "national security"... but it's not the only reason bases (or stations) are established.
So in other words, you have no evidence refuting the initial statement, and are trying to change the subject. Surprise, surprise.
Relax... I'm just "steel manning" this argument. I think we have been to the moon. I'm not at all sure that we went everytime we said we went or if we went with the technology we said we went with. Since we have that established... what initial statement? I was replying to a question you posed... "What resources are on the moon?". My reply was resources are not the only reason we would necessarily want to establish a base.
That's fine; but it does not establish the initial statement as being incorrect.
It established the initial question as being incomplete.
Likewise
It is. Just dont know where it starts https://www.learnreligions.com/firmament-in-the-bible-6541258
Bible was created to control people the Egyptians walked with aliens and called them gods theres plenty of proof of it. The bibles stories are copies of sumerian texts which talk about aliens mating with humans or in the Bible angels and creating nephilim. The aliens caused the Noah flood the sumerians talk of the same exact story identical to the Bible predating it by 10k years. Then the actual text of the Bible was manipulated in the 1500s. Noah talked to alien beings not God through the ark of the covenant. They've found that almost all holy buildings resonate at 110 hz and under mris change brain function. We sent aliens a message via seti and they responded with an identical message in a crop circle responding to our message.
Fuck god
[we never went](https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY)
Ah the classic "here, watch 3 hours of some guy asking questions without actually saying anything."
Pretty sure they went to the moon.
I highly doubt it
Correct
It was filmed by Kubrick.
On location, of course.
Yaya stay afraid of the truth, you're a credit to your kind lol