The Moon-landings - NASA's Hoaxes & Lies (new video evidence)

[a.king21]

I don't  post as anyone else. You should google Peter Beter and draw your own conclusions.
Nasa's "plans" are just disinfo.
I've heard it all before many times.
The Chinese were going to the moon.
What happened? Nothing.
I was as excited as everyone else when we circumnavigated the moon in 1968.
45 years later and no progress.
I'm done with NASA and it's lies.
Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. He refused to lie and gave very few public statements.
I stick by my previous post unless evidence is produced to the contrary.
I've studied dozens of witness statements from ex NASA employees.
They have a rule, "Lock the doors" - when something alien related gets out.
Then they find out which of their employees needs re-education or threats.
Our only hope is the private sector. If they really get going then Nasa and other big governments won't be able to lie anymore,
just as the Bilderberg group can't hide anymore. Watford June 6th 2013.
My opinion for the many irregularities in the moon photos is that honest Nasa employees tried to get the truth out as best as they
could, leaving subtle clues.
My opinion is still that it's a cover up of the Alien presence, and a monopolising of advanced technology.
It beggars belief that 45 years after circumnavigating the moon and and 40 years after the last landing, we haven't been back.

[e2matrix]

gravityblock you are a nutcase.    a.king21 is in the UK.  I'm not.   Would I be writing private messages to myself on March 14th?   Attached is a screen copy of a couple messages a.king21 sent me after I contacted him about a guy in Kentucky with a supposed self running generator who a.king21 had mentioned in a thread so I contacted him for more info. 

[gravityblock]

gravityblock you are a nutcase.

It is you who is the nutcase to think the moon is an artificial satellite built elsewhere and drugged through vast distances of space by the annukii and left here to increase the fertility rate of women by decreasing their menstrual cycle from 1 year to 28 days when they could have increased the fertility rate easily through genetics, etc.  In addition to this, women follow the cycle of the sun instead of the moon and has a higher fertility rate with a better embryo quality when having a longer menstrual cycle as shown by women undergoing invitro fertilatzation.  There are many here who has more than 1 username, so how does that make me a nutcase to question it in this case?  Besides, I only asked a question if you and a.king21 were the same person, and I listed several reasons for raising this question. I never said the two of you were the same. I try to question everything to find the truth, and you apparently question nothing which leads you to falsehoods.  If you don't ask the right questions, then you won't get the right answers.

Gravock

[eatenbyagrue]

Why do you want the moon so bad?  Since you're ignorantly making a claim to it, then it shall be given to you, as it was given to those long before you.  Don't worry, you will truly be under your "masonic moon" one day soon.  Before this happens, you will behold the destruction of your beloved ones of iniquity.  Did you really think the ones before you could be released prior to the great Day by trying to blow up the entrance on the south pole of the moon?  There is nothing you can do, for it has already been written.

Gravock

It is you who is taking away a great accomplishment of the human race.  And I am not making an ignorant claim.  There is endless evidence for it.

[e2matrix]

It is you who is the nutcase to think the moon is an artificial satellite built elsewhere and drugged through vast distances of space by the annukii and left here to increase the fertility rate of women by decreasing their menstrual cycle from 1 year to 28 days when they could have increased the fertility rate easily through genetics, etc.  In addition to this, women follow the cycle of the sun instead of the moon and has a higher fertility rate with a better embryo quality when having a longer menstrual cycle as shown by women undergoing invitro fertilatzation.  There are many here who has more than 1 username, so how does that make me a nutcase to question it in this case?  Besides, I only asked a question if you and a.king21 were the same person, and I listed several reasons for raising this question. I never said the two of you were the same. I try to question everything to find the truth, and you apparently question nothing which leads you to falsehoods.  If you don't ask the right questions, then you won't get the right answers.

Gravock

I never said that in this thread.  You've pulled something that was more for amusement from another thread.  I didn't say I believe that.   It is something that was told to me face to face by a person with an I.Q. that is off the scale and who has tens of thousands of people who pay substantial money to learn from them.   I consider that info to be rather 'far out there' but not necessarily outside the realm of possibility.   Truth is often stranger than fiction.  That info was brought up in a discussion with Jbigness to add to what he was saying as a tidbit of possible info but more to amuse.   It has little to do with this discussion.  I've presented both pro and con for the moon landings and I am not firmly set on believing either one side or the other.  As I said before I think this is a situation that will be hard to ascertain the absolute truth without having deep insider information.   I'm not even interested in pursuing it further.   I suggest you choose your battles better.   Accusing me of breaking the rules here with having multiple identities may have been posed as a question but done so in an open forum is an obvious attempt to make me or a.king21 look like fakes or liars.   Fortunately I have good proof we are two separate people and you are making yourself look foolish with such talk.   Not to mention it sounds like a.king21 and I have somewhat opposing opinions on this situation.     
Now just ask yourself this.   Do you believe that the Internet has become such a big force that there are people who might have an agenda to use the Internet to influence people?   Do you think there are at least some who might want to discredit one of the America's great moments?   How much real first hand 100% provable concrete evidence do you have?   Do you really understand what I'm saying?   It could probably take a top notch investigative reporter a year or more of full time work in the field (not just on a computer) to get anything close to conclusive proof one way or the other on something like this.   But many people want to sit around 'armchair quarterbacking' and in some cases taking their one or two little tidbits of personal info and turning those tidbits with lots of personal opinions of others  in to a major case for or against something which they really have no clue about.   So I think it is useless to make any firm conclusions on what is largely speculation at best and probably a lot of intentional disinfo from both sides of the coin.