Eric has blocked me because I can debunk him and his 20 reasons why the moon landing is fake. Write him a message to allow the other profile Nick Rose to provide more debunking evidence of his video. Read this below which debunks his first point. I can debunk everything but he won’t let me! Censorship is bad on both sides. How anyone can argue that the moon is not a physical body is unbelievable given anyone can buy a telescope and see that it is a solid object. The reason you can see the blue sky on some parts of the moon during the day is the same reason you see dark areas of the moon at night. It is because the moon reflects light differently based on the composition of the moon at different parts. Thus during the day, there is no light reflected from these areas, so you see only the blueness of the sky that is in front of these dark areas. As for the assertion that you can see stars behind the moon, that is a lie. When I was younger, I looked through my telescope for years without ever seeing a star behind the moon. And I would love for Eric to explain how you can see a solar eclipse if the moon is a luminary, or how during a lunar eclipse, you can see the moon slowly disappear and even when it does, see the ghostly remnants of the spherical shape as some light still illuminates it. Go on Eric. Explain it. As for your evidence using a mid-19th century astronomer using a mid-19th Century telescope, why resort to this one person, and not declare the whole observation that were made by Sir James South? In relation to your quote, he adds ‘It is established …that when the moon’s limb is approaching a star, it sometimes (but not always) appears to go at first behind the star, so as distinctly to offer the appearance which would be presented if the star were on this side of the moon; this appearance lasts only one or two seconds of time…and then the star, while thus seen on the moon’s face, disappears suddenly.’ Funny how you leave out this bit that the effect is only sometimes, and only for one or two seconds. Doesn’t look like a luminary object now does it, but rather a transient effect of refraction of light due to the Earth’s atmosphere, and possibly due to the primitive optics of the period. Can you find more contemporary examples of this happening? And I do not mean the picture you showed us - can you name which stars you are pointing to? Are we to believe this to be genuine after deceiving us about the quote from Sir James South?
Hi Nick. Well, they do say the best way to deal with a conspiracy theory is to lead it! Like those pushing the ridiculous holographic plane argument for 9/11! Some believe Eric is a disinformation agent, sent forward to put out inaccurate (or worse) information and discredit others within the movement, but I’m still on the fence. I agree with you on what you’re saying in terms of the moon being a solid object, but I’m still not convinced the footage and photos we were shown of the moon landing(s) are genuine. Whether we actually went or not is another story (and I don’t believe we did) but I will always keep an open mind.
