I really wonder why people still believe we have send men to the moon.

[frenat]

already talked about.  Zoom in and it is clearly not on the photo.  It looks like a hair on the scanner.  It is NOT on the same rock in other photos.  It is NOT on the same rock in other versions of the same photo.  It is NOT on the same rock in the same photo in a magazine published just weeks after the landing.  There is no evidence props are marked that way.

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

No it isn't.  You have no evidence for that.  Already shown it is NOT on a magazine cover that was published just weeks after the landing.  Give it up, it makes you look silly.

[gwiz]

A magazine cover from 1971, same picture, no C.

Problem is, there are earlier, official pictures, WITH the "c'" ,  mate!

Show me one.

[frenat]

A magazine cover from 1971, same picture, no C.

Problem is, there are earlier, official pictures, WITH the "c'" ,  mate!

No, there are not.  why do you lie?

[frenat]

Don't you know about the 'c' on the rock AND the ground? It is hilarious!

Again evasive behaviour:
You claim this so called 'c' (which isn't on the rock anyway) indicates it is a prop: Where is your evidence for this claim?

o ic you are not familiar with the movie industry?

why bother if you are already convinced there is no 'c'?

Why did you wrote that there is no '' c ". Don't you TRUST the photo?

Apparently you aren't either.  The movie industry does not mark props like that.

yes, it does.

Then prove it.  Stop waving your hands.

[Tindarormkimcha]

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

Post a link that proves this allegation.

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE

[Cat Not Included]

Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:

An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in  your character on the basis of your arguments.

If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.

If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.

[Tindarormkimcha]

No, there are not.  why do you lie?

You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.

Truth is, it is all a hoax.

[Tindarormkimcha]

Just for the record, since some people apparently aren't clear on this:

An ad-hominem attack is when I claim your argument is wrong on the basis of some element of your character. It is NOT when I claim a flaw in  your character on the basis of your arguments.

If I say "You are idiot, therefore I'm not going to respond to your evidence or arguments", that's an ad-hominem attack.

If I say "Due to your complete lack of presenting any evidence or argument, I must conclude that you are a blithering idiot", that's just an insult.

You clearly have no clou to what an Ad Hominem is!

[gwiz]

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

Post a link that proves this allegation.

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE

What makes you think that book pre-dates the magazine cover?

[frenat]

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

Post a link that proves this allegation.

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE

that doesn't prove your allegation.  The book was published AFTER the magazine.

[Tindarormkimcha]

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

Post a link that proves this allegation.

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE

that doesn't prove your allegation.  The book was published AFTER the magazine.

oh boy have you seen the whole video?

[frenat]

No, there are not.  why do you lie?

You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.

Truth is, it is all a hoax.

No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying.  Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.

[frenat]

What if the 'c' was on much earlier, official,  photos and disappeared later? That is indeed the case!

Post a link that proves this allegation.

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdYqldrlqE

that doesn't prove your allegation.  The book was published AFTER the magazine.

oh boy have you seen the whole video?

I watched the first few minutes which YOU SAID it was in.  I can't stand to listen to much more from Jarrah's annoying voice.  The book was published well AFTER the magazine. 

[Tindarormkimcha]

No, there are not.  why do you lie?

You want to think I am lying because you can't handle the truth.

Truth is, it is all a hoax.

No, I KNOW that you are lying because you are lying.  Truth is, you're just a liar trying to get attention.

Man o man

Again some stupid Ad Hominem. All this because I don't agree with your religion,


You just can't handle that.

[Miss Vocalcord]

First few minutes in this video. But I am sure you will 'edit' the information:

The earliest mention in that video is a print of 1981, the magazine is from 1972. So you proved yourself wrong.