Flat or globe, plasma moon or stone, we sure as hell never went to the moon


The only people who I've seen push the "we've been there but the gov't is lying" theory are those who believe in aliens or believe Buzz Aldrin's lies

I guess you can add me to those two on your list.  For now, anyway.  

With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles.  I would think that a fair number of very irregularly-shaped objects would have struck the surface of the moon.  Besides that, these are enormous craters and there are lots of them.  We don't see enormous asteroids hitting the moon on a regular basis.  And, no, I don't believe that the earth and moon are billions of years old.

But more than that, I find it utterly preposterous that the moon rotates exactly at the same rate as it revolves around the earth.  What are the odds of that?  They have to be synchronized to the second.  Otherwise, even if it was a second or two off, over the course of years, decades, and centuries, the face of the moon would change.  And then scientists allege the moon is getting slightly farther away each year.  So I guess it also adjusts its speed of rotation to match.

Then there's the amazing coicidence that the sun is exactly 400x larger than the earth and, at the same time, exactly 400x farther away ... thus making eclipses possible.  Of course, pay no attention that the distance between the earth and the sun can vary by about 4%, so why are there perfect eclipses year round.

Finally, what seals the deal for me is the non-movement of polaris.  We are hurtling through space, allegedly, at nearly 2 million MPH, rotating, revolving, etc.  If the earth's angle to polaris were to change even a little bit, just by a couple of degrees, then Polaris would have off center.  Sure, they argue that Polaris is so far away that the angle doesn't change at all.  But the entire solar system and the galaxy hurtle through space on such a flat plane that the angle between earth and Polaris never changes.

So you mean to tell me that with all this movement (as below), the angle of the earth's North Pole in relation to Polaris doesn't change regularly?  Sorry, just not buying it.



Vortexes necessarily mean angle chages, depending on which side of the vortex you're flying around.

Why lie?  Perhaps we weren't getting to the moon on time.  Or perhaps things didn't go as smoothly as we'd hoped.  That's my guess.  But I do think we were there.  That's my opinion for now in this life.  If I die and discover otherwise, that's fine.

I think they just really wanted the "first moon landing" to go smoothly and as planned.  So they likely faked some of it.  Perhaps they used an edited version, in case things didn't go well.  I do think Kubrick was involved.  But after that---after the "space race to the moon" was won, I think they didn't fake it as much.  I could be wrong.  I don't think I am. 

On the other hand, look at all the damned fαℓѕє fℓαgs we have throughout the 20th/21st centuries.  We live under a blanket of lies and spells. 

Certainly it's preposterous that things always went so smoothly when their practicing on earth didn't even come close even within weeks of the actual launch.  Perhaps there are some dead American "cosmonauts" outside our solar system now as they missed the moon entirely?    There are stories of various Russians who are allegedl dead out there somewhere.

Ok but that’s not the common understanding of what an alien is.  If I asked you about dinosaurs and you interiorly re-define them as “big alligators” or something, it just confuses the conversation. 

With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles.  I would think that a fair number of very irregularly-shaped objects would have struck the surface of the moon.  Besides that, these are enormous craters and there are lots of them.  We don't see enormous asteroids hitting the moon on a regular basis.  And, no, I don't believe that the earth and moon are billions of years old.

It's still always an impact with an explosion when an asteroid hits the moon, that gives us a round crater as the energy is dissipated equally in all directions every time. I've explained this to you previously, yet you reurgitate exactly the same thing again here. I've seen you do this all the time - you don't let any evidence or new information change your way of thinking. That's dangerous.

Finally, what seals the deal for me is the non-movement of polaris.  We are hurtling through space, allegedly, at nearly 2 million MPH, rotating, revolving, etc.  If the earth's angle to polaris were to change even a little bit, just by a couple of degrees, then Polaris would have off center.  Sure, they argue that Polaris is so far away that the angle doesn't change at all.  But the entire solar system and the galaxy hurtle through space on such a flat plane that the angle between earth and Polaris never changes.

Why do you think nautical almanacs are published yearly, and the using old ones with outdated information will give you inaccurate results? Because the stars do change in orientation ever so slightly. From different revisions of this nautical almanac, we can see the shift of the stars’ positions.

From a nautical almanac, we can understand that contrary to what flat-Earthers claim, Polaris’ position does change over time. In 1834, the official British nautical almanac gave us that the declination of Polaris is 88°25’40”. However, in the 1923 edition, it is 88°53’35”, and in 2018, it became 89°20’31”.

The determination of a ship’s position from celestial navigation depends on the accuracy of stars’ position in the nautical almanac being used. Because we do not have a fundamental problem in celestial navigation, we can be sure that the positions of stars being reported in nautical almanacs are correct.

Correct. And there being no wind, rain or anything to disturb the dust, then the craters will remain circles.

Consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there could be up to 35 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, said by NASA to be the first man on the moon, stated that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they tell us they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it according to their own calculations according to the science of uniformitarianism..

An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky.  Makes sense to some.

An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky.  Makes sense to some.

Yeah, given how bright the moon appears in the sky, you'd think that during the moon landings, the astronauts would have been in blindingly-bright conditions, that not gray-black shady stuff.