[cosmored]

This cleaned and transported sand idea is not intended to be evidence of a hoax. It is intended as a means to try and explain away actual video evidence that displays the behavior of dust on the Moon. It's a way out, nothing more. But a way out proves nothing.

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

I would say having good credentials lends credence to the prospect that someone is not a con-artist. But you will project what is necessary to support and protect your beliefs.

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

So do you have any information as to the relative curvature of Apollo era visors and Shuttle era visors, or do you believe that they are still wearing the same space suits?

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

Nothing you talked about here was mentioned.
http://hypography.com/forums/strange...tml#post204345

A person hypothesizing that one can remove the dust-size particles of sand so that a vehicle can kick up plumes of it that fall to earth at nearly the same rate

Are you saying the dirt is falling at the same rate at which it is launched?

YouTube - Apollo 16 Grand Prix

YouTube - Was Moon Landing Faked?

We have to look at the sand that was launced at a low angle. It's hard to follow the trajectory of the sand that is launched at a low angle as the camera is looking at it at an angle that is less than ninety degrees.
It looks to me just like any rooster tail behind a vehicle I've seen on earth.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by cosmored

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

Were they caught in a big lie? Can you prove that?

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

Apples are not bananas.
A does not necessarily equal B.

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

Do you have physical measurements demonstrating this?

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

The first link in that google search list should be sufficient for understanding how changing the center of curvature and focal point can produce different results. Angle of incidence is also important. Have you considered all of this?

Are you saying the dirt is falling at the same rate at which it is launched?

First of all, it is not "dirt", it is lunar regolith.

Have you ever put your fingers in ash and rubbed them together? If you do, then you can often times see your fingerprint as the dust is so fine, it seeps into the miniature cracks and crevices of your skin. Much of the surface of the moon is composed of a very fine powder, as evidenced from the rover videos.

In Earth's atmosphere, this fine dust would hang in the air as "clouds" for FAR longer than shown on the NASA videos.

The argument that it should fall as quickly as it comes up is flawed. The spinning tires are kicking up the regolith at a velocity that accelerates the dust far past the "downward" acceleration of the moon's gravity. The result of this is the dust going up fast and then falling down slower as the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's.

YouTube - Was Moon Landing Faked?

This guy is a character.

He questions why there are no stars seen in the background of the photos. I imagine this has everything to do with photography. If they used a tripod and a longer shutter speed, I imagine we would have seen quite the starfield.

Bottom line is, if there were stars in the background of all the pics, it would simply be attributed to NASA's movie set with a black backdrop embedded with thousands of LEDs. The HBs would simply shift the focus.

We have to look at the sand that was launced at a low angle. It's hard to follow the trajectory of the sand that is launched at a low angle as the camera is looking at it at an angle that is less than ninety degrees.
It looks to me just like any rooster tail behind a vehicle I've seen on earth.

Looks to me to abide the laws of physics I'd expect on the moon.

[modest]

I wonder how the USSR's Luna 16 (as well as later probes) returned lunar samples that are geologically nearly identical to Apollo's return samples a year earlier? I can't think of a conspiracy explanation for this. Is the contention that none of the samples came from the moon? If so, they all would need to have been faked by the same person or group of people to maintain consistency between them. How is that in any way possible?

-modest

[REASON]

I believe Freeztar sufficiently answered your last post cosmo but I'd like to expound on a couple of points.

Originally Posted by cosmored

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

What's to recognize, your notion that his stating on a Clavious forum that the transportation and placement of cleaned sand would create dust is illogical, so therefore it is a fact that he is a liar? What does it say to you that nobody seems to want to recognize that? How about for no other reason than it's simply rude to call someone a liar when you can't support such a claim. You have avoided my question as to whether there's been any research done to confirm this allegation. I presume there is zero. So again, what's to recognize?

Who is Jay Windley compared to the entire Apollo program anyway? Why is this so important for you? Maybe, since virtually every bit of hoax theory evidence you have been hanging on to has been debunked with simple, rational, reasonable, scientific explanations that confirm the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings, this issue is one of the last remaining strands you have to hold on to before you plummet back to reality. Well take my advice. Just let it go. Trying to hang on mentally to this utterly flimsy and unsupported hoax conspiracy claim has got to be driving you nuts.

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

Again, there's no fact he was lying, just your claim that he was. What's your motivation for making such a claim? And being caught in lie doesn't make someone a "con artist." Everybody's human, everybody lies to some extent, and everyone's gotten cought in a lie at some point in their lives. This doesn't make everyone con artists. If we were all con artists, you wouldn't be able to recognize someone specifically as a con artist. Con artist is a tag you have applied in an effort to discredit him. So what! It literally does not bolster your hoax claim.

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

This statement is simply not good enough. Freeztar asked if you had any physical measurements to demonstrate this. I can safely presume that if you did, you would have presented it gleefully, but since you didn't, you don't, rendering your claim unsubstantiated and invalid.

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

Nothing you talked about here was mentioned.
http://hypography.com/forums/strange...tml#post204345

That's because those sites only deal with reflections on convex surfaces. In my post, I addressed other aspects of the Lies In Your Visors clip beyond the relative size of the solar reflections.

Since I'm asserting that the comparitive photos in the clip are from different eras of the space program, a proposition that can be supported by the equipment in the pictures, the quality of the photographic equipment including lenses, film, and resolution will also have a direct affect on the presentation and clarity of those reflected solar images.

And, since the reflection of sunlight appears differently depending on the reflective surface, an advancement in the reflective materials used on more recent visors, combined with more advanced photograhic techniques, could produce a higher resolution, truer representation of the sun, than a solar reflection from the Apollo era. I wouldn't expect those sites to make mention of these issues.

These are tricks designed to appeal to the average person's ill-informed common sense. They are unsubstantiated claims that are miniscule in comparison to the enormous weight of the entire Apollo program and the testimony of thousands of people involved in what was an historic scientific achievement.

I understand being skeptical by nature. I am too. But skepticism becomes delusion when it cannot be legitimately substantiated. It would be in your interest to personally reflect on what it actually is that drives your need to continually believe in this particular conspiracy considering that there is literally no legitimate evidence in support of it.

[cosmored]

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.
Were they caught in a big lie? Can you prove that?

You seem to be playing games here. I explained the situation. Instead of pretending you don't see it, you should be analyzing it.

It's all explained here.
http://hypography.com/forums/strange...tml#post204636

Look what Jay says and then look at the link to the geology forum.

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.
Apples are not bananas.
A does not necessarily equal B.

If he's seeking the truth, why did he lie? This is pretty serious. He's a scientist who's supposed to be explaining why the evidence shows they went to the moon and he tells an obvious lie about science. You can play this down all you want but this is glaring evidence that he's owned and he knows the moon missions were faked.

This explains who Jay Windley is.
Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.
Do you have physical measurements demonstrating this?

Look at the curvature of the two visors.
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t...lstmark/A5.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11nogold5903.jpg

The difference in the size of the reflection is five-fold or more. That's impossible. Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious.
Compare the size of the reflection in the shuttle visor in the above link with the reflection of the visor in the first ten seconds of this video.

YouTube - Moon Landing: Apollo 17

This is from Apollo 12. It looks just like the shuttle reflection.
http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/...entenary_4.jpg

Was this one taken in the desert and the other clip taken in a studio?

There is a picture of area 51 taken by a Soviet satellite in this video at the 10 minute 28 second mark. It shows craters.

Man didnt land on the moon

According to the hoax theory some of the footage was taken in a studio and some was taken in the desert.

APOLLO FAKE
The footage in the desert was taken with a camera with a special lens.

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.
The first link in that google search list should be sufficient for understanding how changing the center of curvature and focal point can produce different results. Angle of incidence is also important. Have you considered all of this?

I don't see anything in here that would explain a more than five fold difference.
Reflection and Image Formation for Convex Mirrors

First of all, it is not "dirt", it is lunar regolith.

You're playing games again. I know that moon soil is called regolith. I'm talking about simulated moon soil. What we're discussing here is whether it's possible to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free so that there are no dust clouds when it is driven over even though it's in atmosphere. You know this.

Have you ever put your fingers in ash and rubbed them together? If you do, then you can often times see your fingerprint as the dust is so fine, it seeps into the miniature cracks and crevices of your skin. Much of the surface of the moon is composed of a very fine powder, as evidenced from the rover videos.

In Earth's atmosphere, this fine dust would hang in the air as "clouds" for FAR longer than shown on the NASA videos.

You ignored the point I made about sifting and washing sand to make it dust-free so it there would not be any dust floating in the atmosphere in the studio so it would appear to be a vacuum. You're playing games.

The argument that it should fall as quickly as it comes up is flawed. The spinning tires are kicking up the regolith at a velocity that accelerates the dust far past the "downward" acceleration of the moon's gravity. The result of this is the dust going up fast and then falling down slower as the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's.

My understanding is that in a vacuum the speed of an object doesn't change after it's launched.

Look at the diagrams where it shows how to calculate the range and height of trajectories in this link.
Trajectories

The horizontal speed should be constant in a vacuum. Something launched should form a perfect parabola. It's hard to see the soil that is launched at a lower angle in this video.

YouTube - Apollo 16 Grand Prix

When I first saw the video I mistakenly thought that the soil was moving according to the arrows in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r...randprix01.jpg

It was explained to me that the soil is moving according to the arrows in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r...p_frames_2.jpg

It's hard to get a good look at what's happening in the video unless we can look at it a frame at a time to follow the trajectory of some soil that is launched at a low angle so we can see if it follows a parabolic arc.

He questions why there are no stars seen in the background of the photos. I imagine this has everything to do with photography. If they used a tripod and a longer shutter speed, I imagine we would have seen quite the starfield.

I don't have any experience in photography so I'm not using the no-stars argument to further my case that they didn't go to the moon. The answer that stars need a longer exposure time does make sense.

There are some suspicious contradictions about seeing stars though.

FLY SOUTH AVIATION NEWS AFRICA

LiveLeak.com - No stars visible on Moon?

YouTube - Phil Plaits Lying Bullshit PT.3

Never A Straight Answer -- NASA and Lunar Mysteries
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------
If one were to add up all the astronauts’ stated observations of the appearance of space above the atmosphere one would come to the conclusion that they were either crazy, incompetent or they never went, or, perhaps some of them were lying??? Alan Sheppard, first American to be catapulted up reported seeing no stars, ditto for Virgil Grissom. John Glenn reported seeing some brighter stars only (and he saw those weird “fireflies”).
To quote some astronauts on the subject:
Neil Armstrong: “The sky is black, you know,” “It’s a very dark sky.”
Mike Collins on Gemini 10:: “My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” This was written 14 years after, and remember that the Gemini 10 space walk photo shown here has now been proven fake.
Mike Collins on Apollo 11: “I can’t see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena,... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds...” “What I see is disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it is difficult to recognize them when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars...”
Gene Cernan on Apollo 17: “When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it’s black. I didn’t say it’s dark, I said black. So black you can’t even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn’t strike on anything, so all you see is black.”
Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut: “Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows.”
Prof. August Piccard on his high altitude balloon flight circa 1938 (many miles up with special heated suit) said that the sky turned from blue to deep violet to black. It is said that he claimed the sun disappeared as he got to the higher altitudes, though I have been unable to locate this exact reference.
My own investigations of NASA, circa 1987, revealed people who claimed that the stars could not be seen in space, but that special diffraction gratings were being developed to attempt to see them. This was from the period from Sheppard on to Skylab. I later spoke with John Bartoe who was up on an early shuttle flight and he laughed at this, said he couldn’t believe that anyone in NASA would say that because he was in space and the stars were brighter than they are on Earth! (They must have slipped him a working diffraction grating.) I called back my contact in NASA and he told me “Sir, the astronaut is a trained observer and is reporting what he saw, but the information I gave you (about the blackness of space) was essentially correct.” I spoke with the man who developed the film for NASA for 25 years and he told me that the astronauts weren’t even sure if they could see the sun, that it may have been the appearance of the sun on their windows!
The fact is that there are no visible light photographs of the sun, the stars, or any planets (other than the Earth & Moon, and not including specific probes sent to those planets) available in any NASA photo catalog. The fact that no stars appear on any photos was one of the main pillars of evidence for Bill Kaysing’s book. René is the source of the astronauts quotes as above and feels that there must be some serious problem with this selective star-blindness. As there is no definite answer available to us right now as to whether or not we can see the stars in space, I would have to say that we cannot base our conclusion as to the validity of the Apollo flights on the evidence of the appearance (or non-appearance) of stars in NASA photos.
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC - Science & Nature - Space - Vostok 1
(Look in the box with the astronaut's face)

Here's a good thread I found about the stars issue.
NASA Exposes Their Apollo Moon Landing Hoax! - The Education Forum

I wonder how the USSR's Luna 16 (as well as later probes) returned lunar samples that are geologically nearly identical to Apollo's return samples a year earlier?

Maybe the Russians were cooperating with NASA in order to get good prices on grain sales.

I posted this earlier in the thread.

Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked
Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20]

Nardwuar vs Bill Kaysing
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

What's to recognize, your notion that his stating on a Clavius forum that the transportation and placement of cleaned sand would create dust is illogical, so therefore it is a fact that he is a liar

It's very logical. He said that after treating sand to make it dust-free that just transporting and placing it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That's so basically wrong that almost any high school science student knows it.

How about for no other reason than it's simply rude to call someone a liar when you can't support such a claim. You have avoided my question as to whether there's been any research done to confirm this allegation. I presume there is zero.

I asked some people with backgrounds in geology and they thought is was so basically wrong that they laughed.
I posted this thread from a geology forum.
A strange scenario re sifted sand | GeologyRocks

I guess you didn't see it.

Who is Jay Windley compared to the entire Apollo program anyway?

The fact that he's there lying about science at all is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Why all these attempts at damage-control if there's no damage to control?

Maybe, since virtually every bit of hoax theory evidence you have been hanging on to has been debunked with simple, rational, reasonable, scientific explanations that confirm the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings, this issue is one of the last remaining strands you have to hold on to before you plummet back to reality.

There's lots of evidence that hasn't been debunked.

This for instance.
----------------------------------

YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.

YouTube - Moon Hoax- Apollos Atmospheric Moon

--------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage -...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

Man didnt land on the moon

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More in this link to post #46 of this thread.
http://hypography.com/forums/strange...tml#post203675

And, since the reflection of sunlight appears differently depending on the reflective surface, an advancement in the reflective materials used on more recent visors, combined with more advanced photograhic techniques, could produce a higher resolution, truer representation of the sun, than a solar reflection from the Apollo era. I wouldn't expect those sites to make mention of these issues.

You sound like you think you've debunked this issue. All you've done is put forth another possible explanation. That is not debunking.

Why is the reflection in this visor similar to the reflection in the shuttle astronauts' visors?
http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/...entenary_4.jpg

Here's a good thread I found about this issue.
One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind - The Education Forum

It's got a lot of good info.

They are unsubstantiated claims that are miniscule in comparison to the enormous weight of the entire Apollo program and the testimony of thousands of people involved in what was an historic scientific achievement.

Lots of the people in the Apollo program were probably fooled too. This means nothing. All the data they say they learned is bogus. It would be easy to create bogus data--in fact it would have to be part of a conspiracy al big as this one.

I understand being skeptical by nature. I am too. But skepticism becomes delusion when it cannot be legitimately substantiated. It would be in your interest to personally reflect on what it actually is that drives your need to continually believe in this particular conspiracy considering that there is literally no legitimate evidence in support of it.

Not recognizing the evidence doesn't make it go away.

Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.

[CraigD]

I’m impressed by one mystery of this thread: why, with posts such at the one containing

Originally Posted by cosmored

Lots of the people in the Apollo program were probably fooled too. This means nothing. All the data they say they learned is bogus. It would be easy to create bogus data--in fact it would have to be part of a conspiracy al big as this one.

does the poll have, as of this moment, 0 “No” votes?

Unless one is being disingenuous, I’m unable to understand how one could make statements such as the above, yet answer “Yes” or “Skeptical” to the question “Have earth people walked on the moon?”. Would not the certainty expressed in such posts be matched by an equally certain “No” vote?

IMHO, this thread has for some time contained no new ideas, only repetition of claims that all but one participant appear to have rejected. If this remains the case, it will be closed.

[Buffy]

To paraphrase Stormin' Norman:

He is neither a researcher nor is he schooled in the experimental arts, nor is he a logician, nor is he a scientist. Other than that he's a great judge of evidence.

Wild duodenum are lurking in the trees, and the jungle swarms with green apostrophes,
Buffy

[freeztar]

I'm not going to touch on the individual issues you brought up because it's simply a waste of my time, seeing as you ignore/dismiss every reasonable response given to you. I do want to touch on a couple things though.

Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious.

One of the forum rules is that you must provide evidence for your claims. I asked you for this evidence and you dismiss my request as unneccesary. Do you see the problem here?

My understanding is that in a vacuum the speed of an object doesn't change after it's launched.

The moon is not a vacuous environment, and it has gravity.
The Lunar Atmosphere

You sound like you think you've debunked this issue. All you've done is put forth another possible explanation. That is not debunking.

You would be wise to heed your own words.

Not recognizing the evidence doesn't make it go away.

I agree.

Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.

In your skepticism of "proof that they went to the moon", it's remarkable that you take the claims that they didn't go to the moon as "proof".
Do you see the problem with this logic?

[cosmored]

does the poll have, as of this moment, 0 “No” votes?

I'd never gotten around to voting. I just voted no.

Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious.
One of the forum rules is that you must provide evidence for your claims. I asked you for this evidence and you dismiss my request as unneccesary. Do you see the problem here?

So are you saying that a difference in a degree or two will cause a five-fold difference in the size of the reflection on a visor? You can't be serious. It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to close the thread because you and the other pro-Apollo people are floundering.

The moon is not a vacuous environment, and it has gravity.

How much effect would the slight atmosphere have on a thrown grain of sand? Would the curve be effected enough to be noticed? Would it be non-parabolic?

Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.
In your skepticism of "proof that they went to the moon", it's remarkable that you take the claims that they didn't go to the moon as "proof".
Do you see the problem with this logic?

Everything you people have presented, such as the number of people involved in the Apollo program, has plausible alternative explanations. If just one piece of real evidence is found that at least some of the footage was taken on earth, all of that evidence with other plausible explanations falls by the wayside.

In post # 59 and in my last post I presented this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

(first six seconds)

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage -...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

Man didnt land on the moon

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody analyzed this evidence. You know what the viewers are going to think if you ignore strong evidence.

Rules of Disinformation
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's hear an analysis of this from a pro-Apollo person.

[Tormod]

Closing this thread as it belongs at a hoax site and not here at Hypography.