More Evidence Moon Landing was Faked

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds23.1.html

Moon Dust, Rocket Engines, and NASA
by Morgan Reynolds
by Morgan Reynolds
Recently by Morgan Reynolds: Nerds at the Rally





At 12:31 a.m. central time August 6 NASA will bless us with its latest extravaganza, a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long effort to launch a six-wheel rover dubbed ‘Curiosity’ on the red planet 154 million miles from home. Reading the newspaper one morning, I was amused to learn about the Rube Goldberg "braking" system invented to control landing on Mars. A huge parachute is supposed to slow the craft despite an atmosphere only one percent of the earth’s, followed by freefall, then eight rocket engines ignite and lurch the craft out of the path of the trailing parachute somehow previously jettisoned, followed by a second freefall episode beginning at 66 feet altitude followed by a ‘sky crane’ lowering the rover as it unfurls its wheels, capped off by pyrotechnic charges that send blades to cut the nylon tethers. Oh my.

The rationale for this dubious landing system? "In theory, the rockets could provide a gentle enough landing to finish the job. But in practice, they would kick up such a dust storm that it could ruin the rover." Ah yes, I agree the inevitable dust storm would be a big problem. Engineers must design around that. But why wasn’t a dust storm a formidable problem on July 20, 1969, the occasion of man’s "greatest technological achievement," landing a man on the moon and returning him safely via Apollo 11? The moon is plenty dusty too.

Dust, or lack of same, is one of many puzzles about the Apollo missions NASA showed us over four decades ago: how the heck could there be no surface disturbance below the lunar module (LM), no crater blown out by the LM’s rocket engine? All six moon landings NASA "conducted" (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) showed the same ‘no hole’ below the LM. No disturbance whatever (notice no stars in the background too?). If we trust the NASA-generated "real time" broadcast, Neil Armstrong called the surface "fine and powdery" and continued: "Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about one foot clearance on the ground. We’re essentially on a very level place here."


Click on image to enlarge. Source: NASA


How fortunate. And impossible, well, impossible if the landing was real. There was no dust on the LM support legs or leg pads either and no sign the engine nacelle or ground below it was burned, singed or melted. How could that happen? A 10,000 lb. thrust engine, even if throttled back to 3,000 lb. must blow out a crater, down to bedrock for heaven’s sake, making a landing treacherous because of virtually zero visibility and unknown terrain exposed. The motor would generate heat of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and even if throttled back to, say, 3,000 d.F., only 1,300-2,400 d.F. is required to melt and fuse rock. None of what we expect happened.

Despite a rocket descent engine allegedly working hard a few feet below Armstrong and Aldrin, incredibly, and I do mean incredibly, Apollo 11’s moon landing was remarkably quiet beneath the voices of astronauts and Houston control. It should have been loud as all-get-out, around 140 dB. The engine displayed admirable noise-vibration-harshness properties too, setting off no shake, rattle and roll aboard the flimsy craft, no heat problem, in fact, no problems of any kind. Oddly, Armstrong did not hover like a helicopter pilot does during landing, despite the difficulty of controlling an LM in a vacuum versus earth atmosphere. It was the first time anyone had landed a LM yet reverse thrust control went flawlessly, like everything else with Apollo. By contrast, Armstrong was nearly killed when he could not control the LM simulator on earth in May 1968 but for a timely ejection.

Abundant evidence proves NASA never pulled off the moon landings back in the slide-rule days of the 1960s. The biggest obstacle remains the lethal radiation unprotected astronauts must encounter above low earth orbit from three sources: the Van Allen radiation belts, galactic cosmic rays, and solar particle events, aka sun flares. Radiation makes manned deep space travel impossible to this day. Dr. James Van Allen, credited with discovery of the radiation belts, knew it full well and in 1970 courageously supported U.S. Senator William Proxmire (D, WI) and three other Senators in their attempt to eliminate NASA’s manned space flight program.1

Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for man, one giant leap of faith for mankind," injecting a note of honesty into this governmental swindle. The moon fraud will bite the dust eventually, of that there is no doubt, if only because it failed to sprinkle enough moon dust out from under the Lunar Module as well as into our eyes.

Well there was no shortage of tinfoil...

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/nasaguy-th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Well there was no shortage of tinfoil...

---

Actually, that is gold foil, and I do not see any hats made of it! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Actually, that is gold foil, and I do not see any hats made of it! :)

---

No kidding! I thought it was the lighting. Where do we get gold foil?

Mom cooked a couple chickens in the oven with it and then gave it to them. It's called recycling. Since they were all down in the basement anyway, they agreed the chicken drippings were good as gold.

The Van Allen radiation belt belt would fry any living thing trying to get beyond it. It's all a big hoax and it's up there with the holocaust amongst the biggest. The three biggest must be the following: The theory of evolution, the moon landing, the holocaust.

Ever notice how if you question official narratives people ask you: Oh yeah maybe you question the moon landing as well? As if you are some kook for doing that.

IMO the so called moon landing ties in with an end time illusion yet to come, maybe some simulated alien attack.

So, you think they just made up this Darwin guy and his "theory"? I'm thinking you're probably a short-order cook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrippa

So, you think they just made up this Darwin guy and his "theory"? I'm thinking you're probably a short-order cook.

---

tell me your not "anty epp" from gim??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norweger

The Van Allen radiation belt belt would fry any living thing trying to get beyond it. It's all a big hoax and it's up there with the holocaust amongst the biggest. The three biggest must be the following: The theory of evolution, the moon landing, the holocaust.

Ever notice how if you question official narratives people ask you: Oh yeah maybe you question the moon landing as well? As if you are some kook for doing that.

IMO the so called moon landing ties in with an end time illusion yet to come, maybe some simulated alien attack.

---

Each of us is a prisoner of his assumptions, misunderstandings, biases and privileges. I've always been struck by how violently and adamently a person will defend a believe that he personally has not investigated and interrogated. Tell someone that the moon landings were faked and he becomes incredulous and even combative. Yet all he knows are the fuzzy images in black and white on the TV screen back then and the newscaster's authoritative narrative.

We are told my our masters that a person can completely separate his religious beliefs and convictions from his actions as a politician and leader. If true, then religious faith is truly worthless in practice, merely an adult's version of a child's daydreaming and fantasy. Yet men fight and die for God and Country.

After joining GIM, and then GSUS, I discovered that I too was a prisoner of my beliefs and misunderstandings. But I opened my mind to at least consider all of the facts and observations, only to discover the Holohoax, the 9-11 False Flag and the total implausability of the Apollo moon landings. Why hadn't I seen these before? If I had been blind to these for so long, how many other beliefs or supposed facts are actually false?

The great challenge is to get your loved one, neighbor, friend or colleague to give up his security blankets, his religious nostrums, his conventions, his beliefs untested and unquestioned, and withstand the discomfort of going forth [ideologically] naked with open mind, come what may. He may not like what he discovers; but he will be more awake and aware for it, and more alive and free.

I think most on this thread are open enough to entertain the possibility that the moon landing was faked. Even if not the case, it is understandable why it could be questioned. For one thing it would expose the extent of the deception that is occuring.

I do not think that many on this thread have an open enough mind to question even a bigger assumption:

http://www.geocentrism.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamboni

The great challenge is to get your loved one, neighbor, friend or colleague to give up his security blankets, his religious nostrums, his conventions, his beliefs untested and unquestioned, and withstand the discomfort of going forth [ideologically] naked with open mind, come what may. He may not like what he discovers; but he will be more awake and aware for it, and more alive and free.

---

In my experience it typically takes a year or more of de-programming to undo each year of programming. The average Joe, when he finally finds himself on his own, has sixteen or more years of schooling to undo, and countless hours of TV. If he devoted himself to the task of unlearning all the bullshit and replacing it with actual knowledge he'd be fifty by the time he was done. There isn't time in life for this.

The best hope is to awaken young people, who haven't yet accumulated more mis-knowledge than they can afford to replace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

I think most on this thread are open enough to entertain the possibility that the moon landing was faked. Even if not the case, it is understandable why it could be questioned. For one thing it would expose the extent of the deception that is occuring.

I do not think that many on this thread have an open enough mind to question even a bigger assumption:

http://www.geocentrism.com

---

Why would you create a virtual reality for one set of observers that are trapped to a fairly small playing field (Earth) which requires infinite amount of programming and processing power, when there are no other observers in other locations, if you could present a virtual reality based on the rule that the observers are stuck in the playing field which required only limited programming and processing? I would argue you would not, nor would God. It cannot be proved scientifically one way or the other.

The big-bang is ctrl-alt-del. Set the operating system, mount some devices, boot it up and there you are. Instant humanity.

Of course, this supports the idea of a Creator, Architect, or God. So people will naturally want to find some scientific means of avoiding that little issue. If you programmed all the history of the world up until such point you "went live", then all the bones would be there, all the rocks and sediments and fossils. All the stuff to make it real would be there. It was created for us. It's a fucking video game.

Someone wrote it. And he also wrote a neat book that tells you how to play and gives great insight into what the game is about.

If you want to expand the thought experiment a bit further, you could find that all of history up until some such date of your choosing (Perhaps going back two generations so that people who would know they were programs were dead) was already in the code. This thing could have been booted up in 1900 and all the rest is just imposed rules and story-boarding. We could actually be the only souls of humanity, right now, living out the script(ures) that were programmed into the game we are playing.

When you put it in terms of bits and bytes, it would be logical that some of the players might try to exploit weaknesses in the "system" to get advantage, and that some exploit might have given them some knowledge behind the curtain. These players might have gotten pissed off that they were playing a game and determined that they would continue to exploit the system in order to gain more power in the game, and tools with which to play; to further the goal of finding a way to beat the system, perhaps even take over the "network" where the server resides and lauch further attacks into whatever is "out there". Evil and greed is perhaps the hackers gaining a new resource they think they will need in another level. Furthermore, the hacking into the program is evidenced by biotech, pharma (mind control of other players) and actual cloning and bastardization (pollution, chemtrails) of the program/game landscape. They are somewhat successful in hacking it.

The ones that want to Out-God God. The hackers and grabblers and their minions. At some point there will be a required patch and the servers will have to be bounced.

Thanks for your post, it made me think a bit.

It is usually good to question things. If, however, you question everything, you spend your entire life questioning and not actually doing anything. Indeed you may enter into the mode where you start to question even the questions that you're trying to question, and you end up in an infinite regression, and become a drooling madman rocking gently in the corner.

I saw the article originally posted over at lewrockwell.com, and read it. Then did a few google searches and found a vast multitude of articles answering every single one of the supposed indicators of it being a hoax. Frankly, on this one I'll go with it not being a hoax. I admit that I might be wrong, but I estimate that to be an extremely low probability.

Also, you may note that the writer of the article is given as "Morgan Reynolds is professor of economics emeritus, Texas A&M University, and a former chief economist in the U.S. Department of Labor." An economist writing on space exploration reminds me of several doctors and surgeons I've met, who assume that because they are excellent doctors they must necessarily also be fantastic sailors of yachts, or excellent rock climbers, without having to learn much about those activities. Sadly, the libertarian movement is full of economists who think that all of human behavior is solely economic, and thus they remain ignorant of any other type of motivation for human behavior, which leaves them wondering why so many of their theories aren't occurring in reality.

After consideration, I have removed lewrockwell.com from my bookmarks. Life is too short to waste time on a site where such lunacy (if you'll pardon my pun) is given any credence. Indeed, I also considered removing this site from my bookmarks, but then I thought that the very reason it may have been written and spread around is to get people to stop visiting sites like this, even when other threads and people are discussing other information that is quite valuable. (I do not know that this is the reason, and I am not trying to make an attack of any kind on the original poster of this thread... but we're supposed to question things, right?)

But oh, don't worry, I'm an extremely infrequent poster; I'm probably part of a conspiracy or something. Pay me no mind.

Quote:

---

I'm probably part of a conspiracy or something.

---

Maybe you should look into it. As they say, "leave no stone unturned." :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wastrel

It is usually good to question things. If, however, you question everything, you spend your entire life questioning and not actually doing anything. Indeed you may enter into the mode where you start to question even the questions that you're trying to question, and you end up in an infinite regression, and become a drooling madman rocking gently in the corner.

I saw the article originally posted over at lewrockwell.com, and read it. Then did a few google searches and found a vast multitude of articles answering every single one of the supposed indicators of it being a hoax. Frankly, on this one I'll go with it not being a hoax. I admit that I might be wrong, but I estimate that to be an extremely low probability.

Also, you may note that the writer of the article is given as "Morgan Reynolds is professor of economics emeritus, Texas A&M University, and a former chief economist in the U.S. Department of Labor." An economist writing on space exploration reminds me of several doctors and surgeons I've met, who assume that because they are excellent doctors they must necessarily also be fantastic sailors of yachts, or excellent rock climbers, without having to learn much about those activities. Sadly, the libertarian movement is full of economists who think that all of human behavior is solely economic, and thus they remain ignorant of any other type of motivation for human behavior, which leaves them wondering why so many of their theories aren't occurring in reality.

After consideration, I have removed lewrockwell.com from my bookmarks. Life is too short to waste time on a site where such lunacy (if you'll pardon my pun) is given any credence. Indeed, I also considered removing this site from my bookmarks, but then I thought that the very reason it may have been written and spread around is to get people to stop visiting sites like this, even when other threads and people are discussing other information that is quite valuable. (I do not know that this is the reason, and I am not trying to make an attack of any kind on the original poster of this thread... but we're supposed to question things, right?)

But oh, don't worry, I'm an extremely infrequent poster; I'm probably part of a conspiracy or something. Pay me no mind.

---

OK, so bring up your strongest evidence from the vast multitude of articles you found answering the the questions raised in this article. My mind can always be changed if the evidence is strong enough. You spent some time writing your post, surely you could spend a similar amount of time refuting the article...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skid

OK, so bring up your strongest evidence from the vast multitude of articles you found answering the the questions raised in this article. My mind can always be changed if the evidence is strong enough. You spent some time writing your post, surely you could spend a similar amount of time refuting the article...

---

No. I only spoon-feed infants. Go to google, type in "moon hoax answers", and start reading. You, or anyone, can read the responses and evaluate them for yourself. If you're really seeking the truth (or as close to it as anyone can get in this imperfect world), that will suffice. If you're not, nothing I could type here would be enough to convince you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wastrel

No. I only spoon-feed infants. Go to google, type in "moon hoax answers", and start reading. You, or anyone, can read the responses and evaluate them for yourself. If you're really seeking the truth (or as close to it as anyone can get in this imperfect world), that will suffice. If you're not, nothing I could type here would be enough to convince you.

---

Yup, didn't think you had anything solid that you could share... Hmm, please answer why the lunar module isn't sitting in a crater and isn't covered in dust. See video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_j...yer_detailpage

See, isn't that easy to provide evidence? Took me all of 30 seconds. I don't mind spoon feeding. It's so easy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skid

OK, so bring up your strongest evidence from the vast multitude of articles you found answering the the questions raised in this article. My mind can always be changed if the evidence is strong enough. You spent some time writing your post, surely you could spend a similar amount of time refuting the article...

---

A JUST question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrippa

In my experience it typically takes a year or more of de-programming to undo each year of programming. The average Joe, when he finally finds himself on his own, has sixteen or more years of schooling to undo, and countless hours of TV. If he devoted himself to the task of unlearning all the bullshit and replacing it with actual knowledge he'd be fifty by the time he was done. There isn't time in life for this.

The best hope is to awaken young people, who haven't yet accumulated more mis-knowledge than they can afford to replace.

---

Nominated as Quote of The week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouse

Why would you create a virtual reality for one set of observers that are trapped to a fairly small playing field (Earth) which requires infinite amount of programming and processing power, when there are no other observers in other locations, if you could present a virtual reality based on the rule that the observers are stuck in the playing field which required only limited programming and processing? I would argue you would not, nor would God. It cannot be proved scientifically one way or the other.

The big-bang is ctrl-alt-del. Set the operating system, mount some devices, boot it up and there you are. Instant humanity.

Of course, this supports the idea of a Creator, Architect, or God. So people will naturally want to find some scientific means of avoiding that little issue. If you programmed all the history of the world up until such point you "went live", then all the bones would be there, all the rocks and sediments and fossils. All the stuff to make it real would be there. It was created for us. It's a fucking video game.

Someone wrote it. And he also wrote a neat book that tells you how to play and gives great insight into what the game is about.

If you want to expand the thought experiment a bit further, you could find that all of history up until some such date of your choosing (Perhaps going back two generations so that people who would know they were programs were dead) was already in the code. This thing could have been booted up in 1900 and all the rest is just imposed rules and story-boarding. We could actually be the only souls of humanity, right now, living out the script(ures) that were programmed into the game we are playing.

When you put it in terms of bits and bytes, it would be logical that some of the players might try to exploit weaknesses in the "system" to get advantage, and that some exploit might have given them some knowledge behind the curtain. These players might have gotten pissed off that they were playing a game and determined that they would continue to exploit the system in order to gain more power in the game, and tools with which to play; to further the goal of finding a way to beat the system, perhaps even take over the "network" where the server resides and lauch further attacks into whatever is "out there". Evil and greed is perhaps the hackers gaining a new resource they think they will need in another level. Furthermore, the hacking into the program is evidenced by biotech, pharma (mind control of other players) and actual cloning and bastardization (pollution, chemtrails) of the program/game landscape. They are somewhat successful in hacking it.

The ones that want to Out-God God. The hackers and grabblers and their minions. At some point there will be a required patch and the servers will have to be bounced.

Thanks for your post, it made me think a bit.

---

Are you trying to interpret reality through the Matrix or something? I do believe there is a reality, and it is not completely obscured from us.

I see this issue as understanding the depth of the deception, and how long it has been going on. Scientifically, no one has ever established that the earth is moving or even rotating. We had a change in perception of the nature of the universe around 400 years ago. It did make some logical sense, and the establishment of the time jumped on it, confident that they would prove it correct within a hundred years or so. This issue is a fundamental one to the veracity of the current failing establishment.

A quote from Nietzsche:

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

I like this thread because the discussion has turned more towards open-mindedness and trying to discern what is true. Ultimately, the truth-finding process is much more important than any particular debate.

One of the biggest problems people have is that of the false dichotomy, also known as binary thinking. We either accept all or nothing. You either believe someone or you reject them completely. This may be one of those things that takes years to unlearn, but we have to gain the ability to pull out truth wherever we find it. There will always be inconsistencies to someone's story or reputation, but that doesn't make something they say which is true be any less true.

The second thing we need to do is not invest ourselves in any particular 'picture of the world'. Our beliefs should not be emotional attachments, but rather probabilities of what we think the truth is based on what we know. Fundamentally, discovering the truth is all about taking in information from the world and seeing what's self-consistent. The truth will always be self-consistent. Big lies will also be self-consistent. Therefore, just like puzzle pieces from several puzzles mixed together, we have to start fitting them together in several separate chunks. The chunk with the most puzzle pieces on it is 'what we believe to be true'. The smaller chunks with less puzzle pieces are not then discarded, but instead continually built upon.

In the method described above, we first accept everything as being potentially true, then build parallel possibilities. This is an important distinction, for it is not deductive reasoning but abductive reasoning.

We're taught to use deductive reasoning. In that case, when we're about 5 years old, we're given a puzzle piece and told "this is the absolute truth". For the rest of our lives we see what fits onto it and discard everything contrary to it. Deductive reasoning only works if it has some absolute foundation from which to build upon. Abductive reasoning on the other hand more closely matches the situation we're in as humans: we enter the world knowing nothing and have to figure everything out from there. It won't give us that secure feeling of 100% assurance that we are right, but it will hopefully keep us over 50% and allow us room to grow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norweger

maybe some simulated alien attack.

---

Based on the preparation we have been given I vote for this one. The influx of "aliens" has been so intense (particularly, right after WW2, does 1947 ring a bell??) and the propaganda that we are being visited and have been visited by "ALiens" from another world is so great I find it difficult to not believe it will not be used as an explaination for Biblical events and who knows what other "controls" will be hoisted over everyone based on this. (Hollywood being the main proponent and propaganda machine for this)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wastrel

If, however, you question everything, you spend your entire life questioning and not actually doing anything.

---

What in particular do you think you should be "doing"? Perhaps being involved (conspiracy) in another hoax? Perfecting one perhaps since this one has so many holes in it??

Puma Punku and a number of other sites still blow my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCQ_xA6eY78

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimswift

Puma Punku and a number of other sites still blow my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCQ_xA6eY78

---

I don't buy the 'only modern man could do these things' type arguments. Civilizations rose, and fell. They understood flatness. They understood mechanisms. They had engineering. We flatter ourselves about our intelligence. True, we do have more capability now, but they understood the basic concepts, and made do with what capability they could garner. They did have rivers for power.

JQP:

In regards to my post above. It's just a thought experiment. Similar to your "Earth Center" theory that you pointed to.

When you think how ludicrous the notion that there was "nothing" and in this nothing something happened "big bang" that set forth an infinitely exponentially expanding something full of all this "stuff" we have in our "universe", it's not a far walk down the hall to find any other theory that explains it not just as well, but better.

The big bang theory only really makes sense if you contemplate "nothing" state, being no power applied to the machine, and big bang state, being booting the machine. Thence from nothing, comes as much something as you can compute, had you pre-programmed it to be so. And from there it's very easy to find yourself in the matrix or wonderland and any ridiculous programming could in fact be true.

I don't have any answers, just more questions.

Thanks

I personally don't believe in the big bang or the expanding universe theories.

The reason light is red shifted from distant stars, and more red shifted the further we look away, is because of non-linear losses light encounters as it moves through space which cause the frequency to decrease.

With all the non-physical postulates and magic hidden energies and particles modern science needs to keep the current models in place, I don't think it's too difficult to come to the conclusion that it's probably very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wastrel

It is usually good to question things. If, however, you question everything, you spend your entire life questioning and not actually doing anything. Indeed you may enter into the mode where you start to question even the questions that you're trying to question, and you end up in an infinite regression, and become a drooling madman rocking gently in the corner.

I saw the article originally posted over at lewrockwell.com, and read it. Then did a few google searches and found a vast multitude of articles answering every single one of the supposed indicators of it being a hoax. Frankly, on this one I'll go with it not being a hoax. I admit that I might be wrong, but I estimate that to be an extremely low probability.

Also, you may note that the writer of the article is given as "Morgan Reynolds is professor of economics emeritus, Texas A&M University, and a former chief economist in the U.S. Department of Labor." An economist writing on space exploration reminds me of several doctors and surgeons I've met, who assume that because they are excellent doctors they must necessarily also be fantastic sailors of yachts, or excellent rock climbers, without having to learn much about those activities. Sadly, the libertarian movement is full of economists who think that all of human behavior is solely economic, and thus they remain ignorant of any other type of motivation for human behavior, which leaves them wondering why so many of their theories aren't occurring in reality.

After consideration, I have removed lewrockwell.com from my bookmarks. Life is too short to waste time on a site where such lunacy (if you'll pardon my pun) is given any credence. Indeed, I also considered removing this site from my bookmarks, but then I thought that the very reason it may have been written and spread around is to get people to stop visiting sites like this, even when other threads and people are discussing other information that is quite valuable. (I do not know that this is the reason, and I am not trying to make an attack of any kind on the original poster of this thread... but we're supposed to question things, right?)

But oh, don't worry, I'm an extremely infrequent poster; I'm probably part of a conspiracy or something. Pay me no mind.

---

Joe returns!

@ dmac..one can hope ;)...
well im no expert on this subject so ill take the shortcut....well, IS the successful moon landing the "official story ' backed by hollywood and the media"?? well, then its a lie.
simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDRock

@ dmac..one can hope ;)...
well im no expert on this subject so ill take the shortcut....well, IS the successful moon landing the "official story ' backed by hollywood and the media"?? well, then its a lie.
simple.

---

Lol... Yeah, it's gotten that bad. Preponderance of evidence.

This is a very worthwhile book to read if you have an open mind (the cover and edition have likely changed since this picture). Once you see the history of how the big bang theory developed, you will understand that it and all the complications in cosmology were introduced to maintain the Copernican principle at all costs. See this chart for a very brief and partial illustration.

Attachment 3365

For the theologically minded, there is a volume II also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

This is a very worthwhile book to read if you have an open mind (the cover and edition have likely changed since this picture). Once you see the history of how the big bang theory developed, you will understand that it and all the complications in cosmology were introduced to maintain the Copernican principle at all costs. See this chart for a very brief and partial illustration.

Attachment 3365

For the theologically minded, there is a volume II also.

---

This is a hard one to wrap my brain around. The earth as center of the universe? Wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamboni

This is a hard one to wrap my brain around. The earth as center of the universe? Wow.

---

Bullshit. I know because I'M the center of the universe. :cool:

since no one has a telescope powerful enough to see the whole universe, it is impossible to tell where the center is, let alone judge the earth to be the center of it. it's like me saying my house is the center of the united states, but i can only see 2 miles out on the horizon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

Bullshit. I know because I'M the center of the universe. :cool:

---

If we wanted to wax metaphysical/philosophical (and I typically do), then we could say that everyone is the universe as centered on his or her being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamboni

This is a hard one to wrap my brain around. The earth as center of the universe? Wow.

---

It is extremely hard, and therein lies its power to blow the lid off the current failed establishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

Bullshit. I know because I'M the center of the universe. :cool:

---

The fact that everything is rotating around you may be due to drinking too much. ;)