Today is the 41st anniversary of the first moon landing. So I completed this strip just in time. Feel free to point out any errors and I'll correct them over the next couple of days. References will be in the next entry.
This strip is but one chapter in my book Science Tales, out now from Myriad Editions.
This strip is but one chapter in my book Science Tales, out now from Myriad Editions.
Posts
104 comments:
As usual, a stunning comic.
How a moon hoaxer can look at those photos and not be awestruck into silence amazes me.
I think most moon-hoax theorists have let themselves become too influenced by the film 'Capricorn One'.
I remember, as a child of 13, watching the grainy images with a sense of wonderment.
Of course it happened. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain cranky.
I went to the moon. It was rubbish. This comic isn't rubbish though. It's the opposite of rubbish.
I can't help but wonder if what fuels the moon hoax theory isn't a sense of disappointment and how the future turned out.
Like, the question: "If we went to the moon why aren't we there now?"
It was such a time of promise. "Look, we are on the moon! We can do -anything-! The world can only get better from here." And then, nothing. We didn't cure cancer, or stop famines. We stopped going back or going anywhere really and life on earth seems like it's spiraling out of control.
So, of course, we never could have gone to the moon in the first place because if we had, then the future would have turned out differently. At least that's what moon hoaxers seem to feel.
That's just my arm chair analysis of the day.
I can relate to the disappointment, but I still think we went to the moon. :P
Maria. That is a facinating area to explore. I suspect you're right.
Darryl, nicely done, and as with the homeopathy piece, very important I think. You might get a few visitors from my blog.
My take on hoaxers is that they're natural contrarians who like the smug satisfaction of being in on a secret but too lazy to do the actual work involved in examining evidence or studying science. While they may have always been among us, modern media give them platforms and access as never before. As much as I like your comic, I think Buzz Aldrin had a better response: punch them in the nose.
What a nice way to mark the day. Thanks.
Forgot to add: some of the most devastating evidence countering the hoaxer theories has come in recent months from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has taken photos of the Apollo landing sites showing everything exactly as purported to me. You can even see the paths the astronauts walked. Of course, since the LRO was launched by NASA, it's part of the conspiracy as well.
Thanks Brian. I was going to mention the Buzz Aldrin punch thing, but I think that particular conspiracy crank has had enough publicity.
Brilliant! I shall show this to a "believer" if I ever meet one.
Another goldie, Darry. Have you seen this clip on You Tube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4
Recently found a web site where ham radio operators had recorded the signals from the astronauts *on* the moon, unrelated to what was being transmitted on the TV. Wonder how that got the transmitters on the moon without actually visiting.
Anyway. Everyone one knows it was all made in a studio. On Mars.
Ciao.
Another great comic! I think your last point is one that can apply to almost all conspiracy theories. The huge amount of people, money and time it would take to pull off whatever it is theorists claim was pulled off is always not worth the end goal. If someone wants to make a lot of money, they don't orchestrate the Vietnam War, it's too much work.
Beautiful work.
Thanks for posting it!
I think the last panel says it all.
Excellent strip, gives both sides of the argument in a fair and balanced approach.
I agree with a previous poster, some people may have felt let-down that we're not living there etc.
However, if you want good reading try Andrew Smith's Moon Dust - he talks to the remaining Moonwalkers about their experiences, if someone still doesn't believe after that, well....
Ah good, someone brought up the amateur radio operators. There were people all over the planet that could independently confirm stuff we did in space.
There was also a set of mirrors placed on the moon. Shooting a laser beam at it can verify the fact that we humans were there by measuring the strength and frequency of the return beam.
I think it's Charlie Duke (Apollo 16 astronaut) who says at the end of In the Shadow of the Moon: "If we faked the Moon landing, why did we fake it six times?" Or something like that.
As always wonderful stuff. I have also tryed to promote Psychiatric Tales to everyone I meet. It looks as if you are on a real roll. Well done for getting in the observer too.
Cheers
Garry
I'm not sure that 'downward side of each arc' is correct for the gravity match. I would think it should be the 'top half' of each arc, as that is when the plane is accelerating downwards (even though it is traveling up).
With respect to the talk about why there is no crater where the lunar landers touched down, I would point out that you can see the surface in the original movies the astronauts made while the Eagle was landing and you can see moon dust being blown out from beneath the lander by the engine thrust during the the moment of touchdown before the engine was turned off. Considering the engine was generating less force than is necessary to hover a helicopter at that point, the blow-about would be expected to be about like what a helicopter turns up when it lands in a dirt parking lot... and no real crater is formed by that!
That's great!! Nice takedown of the Moon Hoax Crazy Folks. One error I'd like to point out, though: astronaut's is singular; when you're referring to one or more, it should be astronauts'. You have astronaut's up there several times, so I thought I'd mention it.
Leon
I need to make a correction -- the flag did *not* stop dead the instant the astronauts stopped fiddling with it. This is what the no-moonies are claiming, not so much the ripple, and it's true -- the flag does flutter for quite a while after they let go of it. This was also explored on "Mythbusters" by the B-team of Tori, Kari and Grant, with Grant leading this particular experiment. They waved the flag around and then let go of it; it immediately stopped waving. Then they waved it around in a vacuum and let go -- it kept waving for some time. The thing is that air does a good job of damping out motion, so flags stop fluttering quite quickly if there's no breeze. On the moon, there's no air, so they keep going until the energy has been dissipated in the resistance of the fabric itself.
As a minor point, the flag also waved during blastoff. (Apollo 11's flag was reportedly blown completely over.) This *was* due to wind, of course, but a wind formed of the exhaust of a hypergolic rocket motor.
I think the Mythbusters worked on those in 2008ish? I'm not positive, might want to check the air date on that. Then again, I could have seen a re-run. :P
Otherwise fantastic. You could create a book long comic strip of debunking hoax believers.
Like you said, easier to go there than to fake going there.
Yet another wonderful comic that deserves its very own book! You have a biting wit that I enjoy tremendously, and wish to hear more of.
Although, as you say in the intro, today is the 41st anniversary, so you may have dropped a decade on the "sientists have been examining" panel. ;) Don't worry, happens all the time to us old folks!
I'm with James Oberg: Moon landing deniers are "cultural vandals," intent on defacing the stunning achievement of Apollo, much like those who succumb to the urge to scratch their names into the stone of an ancient monument.
As for what drives that urge, I think it comes from the same place in our mammalian brains that leads dogs to urinate on their turf--it's staking a claim on something that doesn't belong to you.
It was faked six times because america loves sequels but lose interest them at the same time. That's why Apollo 17's ratings sucked.
Apollo 13 was so good that Tom Hanks remade it.
The Mythbusters moon hoax show was indeed aired in 2008, not 2005.
Oh forgot to add, the flag rippling hoax lunacy is also a result of the momentum imparted by an astronaut planting a flag, and there being no air resistance to stop it as quickly. This was also addressed on the Mythbuster's episode you cite.
So I think if it were a hoax the Russians might have noticed and perhaps let the world know of our trickery. I am fairly certain they would have exposed the hoax if they could have.
RMW
@Mary
Some reporter got hold of Pete Conrad (3d man to walk on the Moon) after a shuttle flight and asked him what he thought. Pete said ... "We used to go to the moon. Now we just go in circles."
That it's been almost 40 years since Cernen and Schmitt left is very sad indeed.
We're as far from Apollo 11 as the aviation industry was in 1928, when people were barnstorming in biplanes. And we're about to have to pay the Russians to take us to space.
I know a few moon-hoaxers at work, and believe you me, it is anti-American in origin. At least with them, it isn't a feeling of post-moon letdown, but strictly a hatred for what still is the all-time technological achievement by a country with few friends today. Great comic!
If "Capricorn One" is the inspiration for the feeble-minded to doubt the Moon Landing, then they should be made to watch the "The Dish" several times until the they understand.
Radio dishes around the planet, in different countries, were recruited to keep the astronauts in continuous contact. As shown in the movie, the technical staff of the Australian dish had to keep the signal aligned WITH THE MOON. No clever movie set hoaxing could fake that the signals were coming from Luna.
If any conspiracy wingnut can keep a straight face when s/he tells me "the radio dish operators, citizens of another country well away from the USofA, were also pressganged into the army of thousands keeping the secret", I will freakin' "hulk out" on them.
Just to pick a nit, the moon's gravity is not microgravity, it's simply low gravity (from the perspective of Earth). μg refers to near weightlessness, such as experienced in stable orbit or freefall.
Spelling nitpick - in the panel about the extendable flag support, it should be 'rigid', not 'ridgid'.
Good strip, though!
Someone commenting on another blog had another pithy remark in line with Pete Conrad's quote, this one in response to space tourism: "First we had rockets to the moon. Then we had shuttles to Low Earth Orbit. Now we have suborbital spaceplanes." I hope this trend will reverse itself sooner rather than later!
Hei!!! Wonderfull
May I translate it to persian for my own website which is www.spacescience.ir? Thanks alot in advance
Regards
Great work. Thank you.
yet another note on the flag ripple... due to the cold air, the fabirc froze very quickly, which contributed to the weird motions. great comic, but it's useless to use logic on the crazy
Unless you really take the time to carefully evaluate the evidence presented by this cartoon (which I imagine most people did not), you accept this evidence based on the sane assumption that a lot of well-known strangers (like the mythbusters) wouldn't lie to you for no reason. This is the same reason you believed the moon landing occurred in the first place.
Thanks for all!
I tried to prove to a friend of mine that a man walked on the moon, and i use the same arguments as yours.
Especially the fact that secrets are so hard to keep, but as said, people want to see conspiracies everywhere.
I think it makes them live better, and life gets more interesting for them.
When you bring a scientific proof, they say: why do you believe those scientists?
It's hard sometimes....
Great comic, I really enjoyed it. I hate to spoil a good comment, but you misspelled rigid when you first mention the rod that the flag was on.
Your lack of education and understanding about physics as well as common sense light refraction/ reflection with gravitational requirements suggest that you did not even get a "D" in jr high science. More than likely, you never entered high school and if you did, I doubt you finished. I suggest you get your GED and try some college if you have an IQ that can use information. If your IQ only poses questions due to the lack of common sense, then you will not be happy with additional college information because you can not apply sense to any of it.
OMG - You lied about the Myth Busters statements? You are such an idiot!
It is morons like you that cause even lower level idiots to attempt to think with bad information!
I am so glad I don't know you or your friends.
Ahh conspiracies. What would we do without them?
Dude, just Google Mythbusters Moon landing! The episode was dedicated to NASA, and each myth addressed during the show was related to the Moon landings, such as the pictures and video footage. A few members of the MythBusters crew were allowed into a NASA training facility to test some of the myths. All of the hoax-related myths examined on the show were labeled as having been "Busted".
And don't even mention the Van Allen radiation belt theory, Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.
I think you should be thankful that the deniers are willing to do so publicly. At least you know who the crazy ones are and you can take anything else they say or do with a grain of salt. I think the crazies that do a better job of hiding their crazy ideas are the ones that we should be more concerned about.
Besides, the moon isn't real anyway, so the argument is pointless anyway.
But - but - but Google Moon shows no landing module or other artifacts! It's proof, I tell ya! Photographic proof!!
I suspect "On the downward side of each arc, the gravity of the cabin because an exact match..." should be "On the downward arcs...". The match would occur on the concave-down parabolic arc, beginning just after the inflection point and continuing until just before the next inflection point. That's how they do zero-G experiences in airplanes...
I get pissed off by people who haven't any clue what they're talking about. I am referring, of course, to the people who believe the moon landing was a hoax.
The simple answer to the question of why we haven't returned to the moon is to do with funding and interest. It would be easy for some punk to turn that around and claim that it never happened. Shows a complete lack of faith.
One of my favourite possessions in my hand is a copy of the NASA Mission Reports (Volume 1) of the Apollo 16 mission, which you can pick up at any place that sells Apogee Books, which includes a CD of archived video and pictures of the entire mission. By all means, pick one up. They have one for most of the Apollo missions, I believe.
I would prefer to believe that the moon landing was real. It’s more flattering to mankind, and the evidence seems to fit. Plus, of the two beliefs, it’s the one less likely to make people attack you for holding it.
However, I have friends that are into conspiracy theories, UFOs, the paranormal, etc., and I’ve seen so many people attack them--not out of any love of scientific education, but because they love the fact that they have an acceptable target to bully--that I’m pushed in the other direction, towards liking conspiracy theories.
If the moon-landing-believers really want to help their cause, they should be nice to the hoax-believers, at least until the hoax-believers provoke them. Tip: believing the moon landing was faked does not count as a provocation.
I was saddened by how many people cheered Buzz Aldrin punching that guy in the face. Ironically, the guy deserved it, but not for believing that the moon landing was faked, which was why most people cheered his getting punched. He deserved it for calling Aldrin a thief and a liar and trying to provoke him into creating a scene. There’s a difference between someone who thinks they’re the next Mulder and some reporter from TMZ.
There is an even easier proof...
No matter how many talented and (sometimes) intelligent people are involved, how much money is spent, and how good CGI and special effects technology has become, no film has EVER correctly and realistically portrayed the physics of a 1/6th gravity, airless world or the mechanics of space flight.
Ergo, no one back in 1969 could have done it either, much less paid off everyone working on the Apollo program (and I personally know three engineers who worked on Apollo).
Felicity Walker said:
I would prefer to believe that the moon landing was real. It’s more flattering to mankind, and the evidence seems to fit. Plus, of the two beliefs, it’s the one less likely to make people attack you for holding it.
However, I have friends that are into conspiracy theories, UFOs, the paranormal, etc., and I’ve seen so many people attack them--not out of any love of scientific education, but because they love the fact that they have an acceptable target to bully--that I’m pushed in the other direction, towards liking conspiracy theories.
If the moon-landing-believers really want to help their cause, they should be nice to the hoax-believers, at least until the hoax-believers provoke them. Tip: believing the moon landing was faked does not count as a provocation.
Concern noted and duly ignored. Sorry, we don't need to be respectful of them. If you're pushed toward believing in conspiracies because the people who defend reality aren't always nice to people with idiotic pet theories, then you're not very bright.
I saw an interview with a geologist once talking about the moon rocks he had examined. He talked about all the minerals that he found in them that are extremely rare on Earth, and how difficult and expensive it would be to assemble them all and produce a rock with them. His conclusion was similar to this comic's: "It would have been cheaper just to fly to the moon and bring one back."
An example of the kind of person I’m talking about, and another reason to sympathize with fringe theories, all in one comment. Efficient!
While I agree and love the comic, I DID notice that there wasn't a single post by someone who believes it was a hoax. Is that censorship or is there no hoax believers in your audience?
I've known several myself who still think it was a hoax and while the proof is there, I'm surprised no one has commented otherwise.
Just sayin'.
Dear Anon. I've only had two emails from moon hoax believers (see above). This is in stark contrast to the many hate mails I received after I posted my strip on homeopathy. I expected many more. Where they are, I don't know, because they're certainly out there. Go figure.
I do believe we went to the moon.. But you have too think, do any of us really know if they are lying or not about all their proof that we did? What if there really is no such thing as an invisible falme. Yes there is evidence on this website. But maybe they made up the evidence too. do any of us REALLY know about 'hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide fuel in space? Maybe, and if you do, and you work for nasa, then you would be forced to lie.. And it would only make sense that we would make it up too get the soviets off our asses.. I think we really did go there, but I know that there is a chance that it is all a lie too.. I just leave it alone, and don't think about it except for now :)
Last year the lunar orbiter took the first pictures of the landing sites from orbit. They're kinda cool if anyone wants to check them out. I like the Apollo 14 on the best because you can see the path they walked to the instruments. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Great comic. well done.
Even the comments were worthwhile.
Re: Flameless rocket motors.
If it were a hoax, they would've been smart to simply add a visible flame.
There are plenty of flameless & near flameless combustion combinations available though.
Witness a Formula 1 Methanol fire.
It's easier to see the shadow of the flames than the flame itself.
Re: Invisible stars in the background.
Again, easier to fake on a stageset than to excuse after the fact.
A fairly recent commercial shows Tiger Woods walking on the moon. In a closeup of his booted footstep, dust blows out from under his foot due to displaced air. Proof that TW was NOT on the moon. If you watch moon footage carefully, you will not see this effect.
More obviously when the lunar rovers are moving. Feet and wheels may throw dust up and about, but it all falls back down emmediately. No billowing, no suspended fines, no backdraft behind the vehicles. Definitely an airless environment.
Without air, a dropped object [dust] accelerates to 1/6G per second squared instantly, which [without doing the math] is probably quite a bit faster than dust could accelerate downward at 1G per second squared with air resistance.
I did a blogpost last year about the "Lunar Landing Hoax".
Go to: http://zzakkslab.blogspot.com/2009/07/uncle-walt-believed.html
The simplest proof that the moon landing was real:
If it wasn't, do you really think the Russians would not have cried bloody murder at such a trick?
They could monitor any activity in space just as easily as the US...
The only piece of evidence one needs to legitimize the moon landing is that the astronauts left a small mirror, officially named the "Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Anyone with sophisticated technology, and a good understanding of physics, can shine a powerful laser beam onto this mirror, and have it reflect back. I find it funny how so few people know this. Obviously the conspiracy theorists aren't doing their research.
For more information:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/
Moon hoaxers, like creationists, should neither be argued with nor tolerated. They should be punched forcefully in the nose. If that doesn't get through to them more forceful action is recommended. Stupidity of this magnitude has to be rooted out and eliminated, like the cancer it is.
You say that moon rock is supposed to be 200 million years older than the earth itself, but the general consensus among scientists it that the moon was part of the earth that had broken off from an impact millions of years ago. Where have you gotten your information from? It's apparently not from main stream science.
i love your very well written and funny (!) sceptic strips. keep up the excellent work
From the Oval Office ffxiv gil, a setting designed to command ffxiv gil gravity and attention, Obama
will ffxiv gil declare Tuesday night that ffxiv gil Iraqis are now the ones ffxiv gil in charge of a war he had ffxiv gil opposed. Within hours on ffxiv gil Wednesday, he will wow gold be immersed in talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, underscoring the hopeful
but precarious U.S. role Louis Vuitton Handbags as a middleman.
i think that the idea that we haven't gone to the moon was a conspiracy started by the soviets in hopes that we would lose faith in our country and that we would become soviet sympathizers
So how could 1960's astronauts in flimsy gear get past the hundred mile belt of radiation? You would need to be in-cased in lead to not die.
Great work, fabulous art.
Not being able to get through the Van Allen belts is the big one, however -
All of the pictures (on the magic non-melting film) that have a background have a separation line due to using front-screen projection to fake all the perfectly framed (with a belly cam/no view finder) photos.
jfgi
Very good post. Man still cannot land on moon, and that's for sure ;)
All good stuff, but one issue left unmentioned.
The cross hairs, ON THE LENS OF THE CAMERA, appear hidden behind/cut-off by the subjects on photographs.
This does not mean people did not go to the moon, just that the photographs were doctored.
But why? Comments please
While personally convinced of veracity of the evidence supporting the moon-landings, in every instance there is an interpretation that supports the opposing argument. While the weight of probability certainly points to that conclusion, simply because some people choose to interpret that evidence differently does not automatically make them idiots. Do not forget that you can number several nuclear physicist among moon hoaxers, to describe such people as idiots seems arrogant to me.
Secondly this comment thread seems to be largely filled with vitriol, do none of these people have any respect for the opinions of others or their rights to freedom of speech. You should frankly be ashamed of yourselves, if you think that attitude is in the spirit of mutual scientific enquiry, then it is you sirs and madams who are the idiots.
Dear Anon. A t no point in my strip do I call anyone an idiot. Nor would I.
Darryl Cunningham
@Darryl I know you do not. As I said I was referring to the comment thread.
A couple of question for you to ponder...
1)the radiation on the moon is about 100 times that on Earth, yet when the Russians asked the US govenment for any help with Chenybol, the US said they had nothing that would withstand the radiation, though it was still less than the surface of the moon.
2) the dish that transmitted live TV pictures small than a SKY TV dish today, yet they managed to produce enough gain to transmit TV signals from the moon, at a time when we struggled to get TV pictures from the US to Europe, and still struggle with analouge signals from Geo stationary orbits. The power required to send TV signals all that way, on such a small dish, is large, larger than what a battery powered device in the 1970's could produce
wow ive been fascinated with this topic for some time now it seems tha a lot of prople are waking up to the powers that be.were the 33 degree masons have anything to do with the monn landing.
No retrorockets on the command module, a re-entry speed equal to gravitational escape velocity of approx 25,000 mph, with only atmospheric wind resistance and two parachutes to reduce the six tonne capsule to circa 20mph before final splashdown in the Pacific. I'm no rocket scientist but that seems somewhat implausible, or frankly, just downright ridiculous. See this guy's article for the full case: www.happinessmanifesto.com (lunar conspiracy theorists).
To rebuff some of the pro-hoax comments:
The Van Allen radiation belt is persistent and causes problems, but is not immediately lethal. Prolonged exposure to the tune of several months or more might have harmed the astronauts, but a few days passing through weren't dangerous. Also, even a few millimeters of aluminum will reduce the radiation levels significantly.
Also, re: Andy -- Russia didn't ask the US for help with Chernobyl. The US offered help when they saw the radiation cloud, on the proviso that Russia actually tell them what was going on. See here:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/174
Really, doing the smallest bit of your own independent research on any of the hoax claims will reveal the logistical flaws. It just takes a few words in Google, y'all. What the conspiracists should really be focusing on are the things that cannot be rebuffed by easily available evidence. Like the hardcore Illuminati symbolism plastered all over Lady Gaga's work =P
Selecting certain pics, events can make the Landings seem plausible. There are many pics that defy logic. Many pics that clearly COULD not have been legitimate, yet have NASA official codes printed on them.
For me personally I do not for one second believe Man went anywhere near the moom.
hi darryl - have come late to this via WJC's [excellent] blog.
this is a great strip.
picking up something that maria wrote early on in the comments, i wonder if you've heard the tune 'dave the moon man' by looper?
that has a kind of positive take on the motivation of at least some of lunar landing conspiracy theorists, and is well worth a listen...
I am a moon hoaxer, and I'm awestruck indeed...but not into silence but into hilarity instead.
I have gathered so much evidence against the moon landings, including technical one, that it is not a simple comic strips which is going to make me change my mind.
Moon hoaxers must feel real silly now that there are actual pictures made by the LRO that show exactly where the Lunar Roving Vehicle was left during the Apollo 17 mission. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043 Or maybe that's a hoax too?
To me the most convincing evidence that the moon landings were real and that the video of moon walks is NOT faked is watching the way the dust they kick up behaves: it does not hang in the air, but travels in a perfect parabolic (ballistic) arc.
You can't fake that except by having a perfect vacuum and a low gravity.
It's not that complicated to get to the moon. Launch at the right place, time, angle and thrust and your rocket is on its way until it is grabbed by the moons gravity. Sure, you need to do some calculations and adjust in flight, but the hardest part in travelling to the moon is sustaining life support. Every ounce costs fuel.
Try the free space flight simulator Orbiter. It's cool to run sims of launches and watch what's happening.
the truth about the faked moon landings…
http://westlake72.blogspot.co.uk/
To Eric:
No, I don't feel silly about the LRO pictures, because they are completely ridiculous, and easy to debunk; the shadows are wrong, there are duplicate landers, incorrectly placed (too close to holes), and the fact that we can see the footsteps and the tracks of the rover at that distance is pure fantasy; they are as fake as the photos of the missions.
To David:
The way the dust they kick up behaves? But have you ever heard about the resistance of air? The dust falls slowly because it is slowed down by air; if I kick dust on earth, it falls exactly the same way as what I see on the videos; your theory of the perfect parabolic arc is pure fantasy.
The Real Value of Practice Test for GED
best ged book
There was also a set of mirrors placed on the moon. Shooting a laser beam at it can verify the fact that we humans were there by measuring the strength and frequency of the return beam.
meizu mx5 review
meizu m2 review
meizu mx5 price
The reality is exposed Moon landings were fake or not?
There are several books I used & really loved. But my favorite is On the moon rocks by Anna Milbourne. My other resources we used & loved are above this post.
moon landing
congrats for 41 anniversary and nice book Thank you
Write for us
Except. We didn't. Why assume "the US government" tricked us. Isnt that looking away from those who did the trick?
Right, the "soviets" would have told us. Why do some assume that?
"They" would have talked.
Looking into those who did the trick, why assume "they" would have talked?
Besides, there is NO footage proving landing is real. Why then so many
beLie vers?
Correct. Which was done back in -62.
Are you aware this is BBC?
You need to reference your claim.
Just. They did.
Both the moon hoax and the Vietnam war was orchestrated by same force that want to :
Gain power
Demonstrate power
Gain from power
Ignore this fact, and live a "better" life.
What gives the moon hoax away is :
These days when first persons own investigation of available evidence confirms it being a hoax instead of trusting "reliable" information coming from second or third party observation and "fact"-supporting.
"American Moon" is just released.
Correct. Or biking to Mars.
Point is, it's impossible.
How expensive is impossible.
Geeze, it's embarrassing to convey the obvious.
Why do we choose to beLieve?
That's the real question here.
This is a great news that i must share with you all i have been looking for a way to break into my wife's phone because she has a pass-code on her phone and always receiving late night calls and text messages i have been suspecting her for past 1 year then i contacted this hacker named ALBERT who helped me hack into her phone and got me results under 24 hours he got me results of her call logs, text messages and even deleted text messages i was so happy to find out the truth about my wife i never knew she was a big time cheat until the HACKER (Albert) helped me, his prices are affordable contact him if you want to know more about your spouse and your relationship state and other hacking/IT services. Email. Theredhackergroup@gmail.com whatsapp/Text no: +1 571 318 9498
Revolutionary Startup is an upcoming platform for entrepreneurs and businessmen that have added significant value by their revolutionary startups. We bring you everything you need to know about entrepreneurs – right from why they began their journey to how they overcame challenges and achieved success.
If you are interested in writing on technology and startups then write for us at Revolutionarystartups.
Post a Comment