Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid to
find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you, would
consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive money
sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands of
verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to stupid
to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not my
problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid to
find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands of
verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to stupid
to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not my
problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a sock-puppet
account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 8:54:46 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid to
find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands of
verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to stupid
to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not my
problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a sock-puppet
account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk&t=4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p2kzeN0tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:54:43 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid to
find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands of
verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to stupid
to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not my
problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.


My reality exists.

You finally admit you have a *different* reality from everyone else.

Now, still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:03:30 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 8:54:46 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid to
find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands of
verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to stupid
to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not my
problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a sock-puppet
account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk&t=4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p2kzeN0tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0


LOL Poor Bast doesn't have one hint of critical thinking skills.

She's a fair troll. But not much of a challenge to engage and
destroy.

palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 8:54:46 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times.
Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid
to find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands
of verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to
stupid to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not
my problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a sock-puppet
account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw




While it usually is customary to include a descriptions of what the video is
about, so people know what they are about to watch.
I will respond to your first link
"A Funny Thing..." Moon Conspiracy debunked pt 1 of 2 " (sic)


This video goes into how the original video wastes time at the begining
offering little more than unsubstantiated facts, by doing excatly the same
thing.
Then he gets into telling us that the Van Allen radiation belts have "safe"
areas that can be passed through without any problems,....but then shows a
video where the belts are uniformly dense except at the poles.
But does not say how a trip to the moon could go find and go through those
"Safe areas"
Are we supposed to believe that the ships left earth earth at escape
velocity near the poles, then stopped dead and made right turns in space to
go to the moon, which orbits approximately at the equator. Then made the
same dead stop and hard right turn when returning to earth ?


THEN,....he claims that only plexiglass and thin metal would better shield
the astronauts form the radiation in the belts. far better than thick
shielding.
Which makes no sense at all.
Or your dentist would just use a plexiglass plate to protect you and them
when you go in for xrays, and not the heavy lead aprons on you and them
standing behind a wall lined with lead.
Even though the x-rays in space a far stronger, and would last much longer
than the few seconds of a dental x-ray


Then we get into explanations of shadows.
Where the debunker tries to explain that photographs and your eyes work
differently,.....but goes on to say that photos also work like your eyes,
sometimes. e.g. on earth you can still see if you are in a buidlings shadow.
so the film can as well.
However he offers no explanation of why the moon pictures show pitch black
shadows surrounding lit areas in the same shadow.
Reflected light can not pick and choose where it is reflected to.....it will
light a whole area or none of it at all.

Of course the claims that the same radiation would have certainly affect the
film in the cameras that took the photos with the shadows.
Would certainly show fogginess and white spots/streaks after radiaton
exposure for the better part of a week in space.
Yet the debunker, does not even mention that the photos show no degregation
or radiation effects at all. However anyone who has ever traveled with a
camer knows enough not to put their film through the xray inspections at
airports, where the exposure is only a few seconds.
And of course, the photos from Chernobyl and Fukushima clear demonstrates
what effect radiation has on film even in the short term.


DEBUNKING Debunked.

I will leave the rest of the links you posted (below), for others to view,
as I have no need of editing away any evidence that I am certain will be
able to be as easily debunked as I just have with this one instance.


BTW I have taken the time to watch ALL the debunking videos, and they only
have reaffirmed the facts I already knew.
That people are desperate to twist reality any way they can to keep the NASA
fairy tales alive.

It is far easier for some people to keep believing the lie, than to admit
they were naive enough to be fooled in the first place.
......Magicians, count on that human weakness. And so does NASA, and the
politicians.

There are people out there who actually still believe that the Bush's and
Clintons, and even Adolph Hitler, are wonderful trustworthy honorable
people.
Despite any facts or proof you present to them.









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk&t=4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p2kzeN0tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:03:30 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 8:54:46 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times.
Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid
to find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are
thousands of verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're
simply to stupid to find them and too dumb to understand what they
say. Not my problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a
sock-puppet account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk&t=4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p2kzeN0tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0


LOL Poor Bast doesn't have one hint of critical thinking skills.

She's a fair troll. But not much of a challenge to engage and
destroy.





Uh,....already one step ahead of you.
See my response already posted that I actually took the time to compose and
explain,...and not just lower myself to your level and take a cheap sniper
shot then run away.

You don't destroy so good , do you ?
As I'm still here. And still kicking your ass with logic and facts.

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:54:43 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times.
Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid
to find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are thousands
of verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're simply to
stupid to find them and too dumb to understand what they say. Not
my problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.


My reality exists.

You finally admit you have a *different* reality from everyone else.

Now, still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.







A lot of talk and false bravado,....but still no links to back you up.
Present the actual evidence,.....I'm willing to destroy it as fast as you
can shovel it.

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:03:30 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 8:54:46 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:07:26 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:27:14 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:02:46 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:47:47 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:


So you

Are still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio
intercepts being logged to and from the surface of the moon.
Six times. Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


So your story still goes.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times.
Six missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

But no actual proof.

I provided proof, Bastie. It is not my fault you are too stupid
to find it in the thread and read it.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.


You only provided a vague referrence to something that only you,
would consider "proof"

Keep lying, Bastie. These are still in the thread.

Message-ID:
Message-ID:


You convinnced no one, that Apollo and NASA was/is not a massive
money sucking lie.

I don't need to convince anyone of the truth. There are
thousands of verifiable and scientific proof on the web. You're
simply to stupid to find them and too dumb to understand what they
say. Not my problem.


Now my proof again.

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.




Ya right,....

Still waiting for you to refute the evidence of radio intercepts
being logged to and from the surface of the moon. Six times. Six
missions landed on the moon, Bastie.

and it's just as plausible that I went to the planet Mars for
my Christmas vacation last year.


I doubt anyone reading this on alt.astronomy would question that
you're not a space cadet.


Urban Dictionary: space cadet

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space

some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of
existence. either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most
likely a combination

a person perceived as out of touch with reality.





My reality exists.
There are links on the web to it.
You can only resort to insults, deleting my posts, and making your own
unverifiable vague references.
No wonder why the world perceives that you are hagar with a
sock-puppet account.


Now,..... my proof again.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4


NASA LIED ABOUT APOLLO, and likely a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk&t=4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p2kzeN0tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0


LOL Poor Bast doesn't have one hint of critical thinking skills.

She's a fair troll. But not much of a challenge to engage and
destroy.








Here is a freebie debunking for you. Just to show how charitable and
generous I am during the Chrstmas season.

Moon hoax conspiracy debunked: Engine halos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSikP0i3fr0


Now lets go over it, shall we.
The landing video clearly shows dust/debris being shot out radially during
the landing video taken by the astro-nots themselves.
It is even mentioned in the audio that they are "throwing some dust"

But after the landing, not one photo shows any disturbance of the surface
under the lander, or any sign of the radial lines the dust would have
formed.
Even the tinyest of craters are still pristine and round.

Now,....please explain to me and the other "conspiracy nuts" .....where did
that dust during the landing come from,.....and where did it go immediately
AFTER the landing.

I await your response. with all the anticipation of a giddy schoolgirl.


FREEBIE ADDENDUM:
I'll even offer you a video produced by NASA of what it should look like
when something like a rocket exhaust disturbs the surface of loose ground at
one point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaHHCUUI55E




Whoops sorry,....I should have warned you it would be loud.

BTW you can also try to explain why the audio during the moon landing, has
no noticable sound of the rocket only a few feet below the astro-nots,
transmitting even a whisper of noise through the ship.
and you can hear their voices clearly.

Can you imagine this occuring ??? After listening to this video ?
(I'm so charitable at this time of year I even sicken myself)

Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

.... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into these conspiracy theories...