ZOG's Apollo hoax

[NeverASayanim]

Aaaaaaaaaand you wouldn't use a person who worked in a factory as main proof that a space launch and completed mission ever happened in the first place. Persons of this rank are down the chain of command and can't see what's going on at the top.

Anybody on here know if the moon landing was staged, which of the world's climates would be used at night to accomplish a solid illusion? Gobi, Namib, Simpson, Nyiri deserts?

As for the lucrative non-industry, Hollywood always fakes every topic that's something you kinda can't prove. Like that New Age crap or paranormal stuff. The government can manipulate what goes into educational material before the approval process is complete. For the books, I'm not sure how the still manage to keep it secret it's all not real.

[T.Garrett]

Originally Posted by NeverASayanim

Aaaaaaaaaand you wouldn't use a person who worked in a factory as main proof that a space launch and completed mission ever happened in the first place. Persons of this rank are down the chain of command and can't see what's going on at the top.

Anybody on here know if the moon landing was staged, which of the world's climates would be used at night to accomplish a solid illusion? Gobi, Namib, Simpson, Nyiri deserts?

As for the lucrative non-industry, Hollywood always fakes every topic that's something you kinda can't prove. Like that New Age crap or paranormal stuff. The government can manipulate what goes into educational material before the approval process is complete. For the books, I'm not sure how the still manage to keep it secret it's all not real.

Aaaaaaaaannnnd who might you be? My name is Garrett, and I've used my name since day one here.

FYI the folks I mentioned who would have definitely known if Apollo worked, from my family and their peer group anyway were engineers, scientists and managers who worked at Nasa and at the concerns that built the Saturn V rocket and the spacecraft that flew from the earth to the moon, landed men on the lunar surface and returned them to earth alive. Using 1960s technology and stuff they developed from scratch that is still used today, 50 years after the last moon landing in 1972. It was done using sheer brainpower and slide rules and STILL cant be repeated by anyone in the world as of today (2022)

[T.Garrett]

Originally Posted by Ray Allan
Hey Freddy, Dunrouse, joeylowsac. You're right, it is a fake! Here's the proof...oh, wait a minute, this is from a movie. The Lunar Module being used on Mars confused me for a moment

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

I didn't say that the U.S. moon landing of 1969 was faked. I said that the silence of the thousands of people employed by the contractors and subcontractors involved with the Apollo program didn't prove that the program was successfully completed and that it was an argument not holding water. Nuance.

Skepticism about the validity of a specific argument is not denial or disbelief in the whole thing. Weak arguments don't help their users and sticking to them by arrogance or/and stubbornness is a mistake. The people who can't stand contradiction are of little help for the progress of human knowledge. Just my 2 cents...

In other words, he was simply attacking something that I said Ray and then continues with an emotionally driven diatribe where he, if you look at it closely, actually names and hangs himself

He reminds me of my ex wife, originally I reckoned dunrouse was a woman when he showed on the forum but whatever.

You all saw how he behaved when I showed him his error regarding the origins of Dwight Eisenhower, something which is easily verified ...he and stewy LIE about a lot of things, something which inst good for us since it makes us all look like liars.

[NeverASayanim]

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

Aaaaaaaaannnnd who might you be? My name is Garrett, and I've used my name since day one here.

FYI the folks I mentioned who would have definitely known if Apollo worked, from my family and their peer group anyway were engineers, scientists and managers who worked at Nasa and at the concerns that built the Saturn V rocket and the spacecraft that flew from the earth to the moon, landed men on the lunar surface and returned them to earth alive. Using 1960s technology and stuff they developed from scratch that is still used today, 50 years after the last moon landing in 1972. It was done using sheer brainpower and slide rules and STILL cant be repeated by anyone in the world as of today (2022)

I am a late night shift janitor in a Tennessee city of despair pay. *I'm kinda fine with the way this is, I always have a brain on a late nite buzz by nature. *I don't wanna work in cubicle musical chairs, I'd probably shoot up all the corporate HR people. *Sometimes I live part time on the streets, why give kikes more money than what rent would find useful. *Having it too easy in the modern world can kill a soul.


Your first statement when it reaches "were engineers, scientists, and managers" I'll pull out and make a point that just because somebody has the brains and aptitude to do real science when it's above most of the people's ordinary abilities paradoxically still does not change the fact they are still the same contemptible standing like Everyman. *Reddit is probably like the Wal-Mart of internet hub verse but I could still find a nugget of wisdom in that the best of scientists, professors, and emeritus achievers could be bought out in all principles to none in forking over their abilities to base manipulation when they would get in return a lavish payout. *They don't even have to know the whole deal at its root, they won't be seeing the people who counterfeited truth in the first place.

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

In other words, he was simply attacking something that I said Ray

Don't be so immature. Pointing out the weakness of a laughable specious argument is not "attacking" it. Most grownup people can take it and just say 'thank you' for the constructive criticism.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

and then continues with an emotionally driven diatribe where he, if you look at it closely, actually names and hangs himself

An emotionally driven diatribe?!? Who calls others names in almost every sentence and posts dozens of hysterical smileys in each comment like an emotionally-unstable 16 year-old teenager?

Hangs himself? Did I miss the comment in which you successfully showed that your argument was a valid one?

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

You all saw how he behaved when I showed him his error regarding the origins of Dwight Eisenhower, something which is easily verified ...

You showed nothing. You only asserted it without a proof. As always. I think I've never seen you back up a single claim.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

he and stewy LIE about a lot of things, something which inst good for us since it makes us all look like liars.

Really? So why did you fail to demonstrate it even only once? Anybody can easily call others liars. But proving it is much harder, especially when it's nothing but a big lie. Posturing is not always enough...

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by NeverASayanim

the best of scientists, professors, and emeritus achievers could be bought out in all principles to none in forking over their abilities to base manipulation when they would get in return a lavish payout.

Since you're unable to discuss science or engineering, you instead discuss what someone could have done "for a lavish payout." The intellectual level of some of the posts here is at the level of a tabloid or gossip magazine. That might be okay if we were discussing celebrities, but we are discussing the greatest engineering achievement of mankind.

[Ray Allan]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

Since you're unable to discuss science or engineering, you instead discuss what someone could have done "for a lavish payout." The intellectual level of some of the posts here is at the level of a tabloid or gossip magazine. That might be okay if we were discussing celebrities, but we are discussing the greatest engineering achievement of mankind.

That's the problem, Nikola. These dolts are unable to discuss science and engineering so they revert to National Enquirer-level stuff we've seen and heard ad nauseum and emotionally driven arguments with highly dubious so-called evidence that has been debunked numerous times. That's why I just finally posted the Capricorn One video to show the ridiculousness of it all, these people get tiresome and boring. If the mods had any sense, they would move this thread to the Nutzpah Lounge or the Tard Corral.

[joeylowsac]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

This is the most ridiculous post in this thread so far. If someone's father worked on the Apollo program, then, of course, he would know many other people who worked on the Apollo program, too. If you're younger and never had any connection with the space program, then, of course you wouldn't. If you work at Costco, then you would naturally know many people who work at Costco. I have personally never met anyone that works at Costco. So what?

Do you believe that anything outside your immediate experience doesn't exist? I've personally never met anyone from Afghanistan. Does that mean Afghanistan doesn't exist? I've never met a drug dealer, either, although I'm sure there are many of them out there.

Why would anyone who worked on Apollo need to "publicly claim to be one of these people"?

Your need to resort to Reductio Ad Absurdum says a lot. Your career at Costco is not analogous. If your father worked there 50 years ago and you know dozens of those people that might be relevant.

The alleged employees would not need to publicly claim anything which is why I have never brought it up. However, since someone else made a dubious and entirely unsubstantiated claim about it I stated the fact to explain my inquiry. The claim is suspect independently of the event it regards. You, of course, are free to blindly accept both but you cannot expect me to. The claim in question here is one that you, at any rate, nor the conditions of Costco or Afghanistan are not capable of substantiating.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by joeylowsac

Your need to resort to Reductio Ad Absurdum says a lot.

Your need to resort to a larger font size in boldface and a different color says a lot.

Originally Posted by joeylowsac

Your career at Costco is not analogous. If your father worked there 50 years ago and you know dozens of those people that might be relevant.

These are the relevant quotes:

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

I mentioned the engineers and workers because I personally knew/know dozens of people who worked on Apollo and other space programs 1960's - including close family members, from my late wife's family and extended family and friends.

Originally Posted by Mike in Denver

"I worked at the Johnson Space Center as an engineer for about 5 years in the 70s. I only worked on one Apollo program, Apollo Soyuz, and it did not go to the moon. However I worked with, and drank with many engineers, mathematicians, technicians, who did work on the moon flights.

Yes, dammit...we went to the moon, sent crews of humans to the moon.

Damn, I really despise the White hating trash who deny the most magnificent feat ever accomplished by humans in the history of humanity.

I, to repeat myself, worked with engineers, technicians, all sorts of people who were part of the Apollo missions that sent White Americans to the moon. I partied with them, got drunk. Not once did I hear a rumor, see a wink, or a story that we didn't go. To deny that we went is slime, a denial of what Whites can do.

Any adult who denies the moon flights is either very stupid, or quite mentally disturbed. Right up there with flat earthers.

VNN is very lax to allow anyone on the forum who posts such crap. These dimwits make CIers look reasonable.

To repeat..I had friends, PhD scientists, engineers who worked on moon flights. Friday evenings we would drink lots of beer at a nearby pizza place. Someone would have hinted.

Notice all the verbs in the past tense. They don't necessarily still know all these people. I never knew anyone who worked on the Apollo program, but I used to know someone who worked on the Space Shuttle Program.

Originally Posted by joeylowsac

The claim in question here is one that you, at any rate, nor the conditions of Costco or Afghanistan are not capable of substantiating.

I don't need to substantiate any claim. The moon landings are literally the most documented events in human history. Every single piece of evidence points to their veracity. You want one example? Here is an experiment to determine how a flag would wave on the moon as opposed to on earth:

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping

Even that little experiment proves that the flag was situated in a vacuum, which could only have been on the moon, since vacuum chambers as large as movie back lots do not exist.

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

I don't need to substantiate any claim. The moon landings are literally the most documented events in human history.

An invalid argument. Holohoaxers repeat ad nauseam the very same words about a notorious WWII atrocity propaganda lie in order to be exempted from substantiating any of their claims (and especially the most crucial ones). I hope that the crux of the moon landings is more documented (I've always assumed that it is) than the crux of the "Holocaust"...

[T.Garrett]

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Don't be so immature. Pointing out the weakness of a laughable specious argument is not "attacking" it. Most grownup people can take it and just say 'thank you' for the constructive criticism.

"Thank you"? ...hahaha you are fucking stupid and just like to argue. How is saying that I have/had family members and friends that worked on Apollo who never even hinted that it was anything but a successful endeavor a 'specious argument'?

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

An emotionally driven diatribe?!? Who calls others names in almost every sentence and posts dozens of hysterical smileys in each comment like an emotionally-unstable 16 year-old teenager?

Like you do?

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Hangs himself? Did I miss the comment in which you successfully showed that your argument was a valid one?

Again, post #21

Originally Posted by T. Garrett

I can see how you would believe that tens of thousands of americans would lie about the moon landings dunrouse

I mentioned the engineers and workers because I personally knew/know dozens of people who worked on Apollo and other space programs 1960's - including close family members, from my late wife's family and extended family and friends. That any of these folks lied about the moon landings to deny the Russians 'victory' in the 'space race' is laughable.

Again, the Russians have never claimed that the US didn't put humans on the lunar surface and return them safely to earth multiple times between 1969 and 1972. And they would know and would certainly have said so if the Americans didn't do what they said they did.

In fact, the Russians sent a Soyuz 7K-L1 ...a more technologically advanced spacecraft than the US' Apollo was ...into lunar orbit in August 1969 (a month after the first moon landing) which, amongst other things photographed the Apollo 11 landing site in high resolution. I think this reconnaissance mission was due to Russian paranoia and investigated whether Armstrong and Aldrin (both US military officers) had covertly deployed equipment that would give the US a military advantage over Moscow in case of war between the two sides ...stuff they couldn't observe from earth.

https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=21

What can you prove isn't valid in post 21 faggot?

Originally Posted by U.Dunrouse

You showed nothing. You only asserted it without a proof. As always. I think I've never seen you back up a single claim.

You claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a jew ...but ...

Originally Posted by wiki

The Eisenhauer (German for "iron hewer or "iron miner") family migrated from the German village of Karlsbrunn to the Province of Pennsylvania in 1741, initially settling in York, Pennsylvania. The family moved to Kansas in the 1880s.[3] Accounts vary as to how and when the German name Eisenhauer was anglicized to Eisenhower.[4] Eisenhower's Pennsylvania Dutch ancestors, who were primarily farmers, included Hans Nikolaus Eisenhauer of Karlsbrunn, who migrated in 1741 to Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[5]

Hans's great-great-grandson, David Jacob Eisenhower (1863–1942), Eisenhower's father, was a college-educated engineer, despite his own father Jacob's urging to stay on the family farm. Eisenhower's mother, Ida Elizabeth (Stover) Eisenhower, born in Virginia, of predominantly German Protestant ancestry, moved to Kansas from Virginia. She married David on September 23, 1885, in Lecompton, Kansas, on the campus of their alma mater, Lane University.[6] Dwight David Eisenhower's lineage also included English ancestors (on both sides) and Scottish ancestors (through his maternal line).[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family..._D._Eisenhower

Nothing said about him being a jew, as you claimed in post # 32:

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Eisenhower made sure that they were. As a kike, he knew how important deception and brainwashing are in Goyim control and presidential ambitions.

https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=32

If that man had even a drop of ashkenazi blood, wiki would shout it to the world.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

he and stewy LIE about a lot of things, something which inst good for us since it makes us all look like liars.

Originally Posted by U.Dunrouse

Really? So why did you fail to demonstrate it even only once? Anybody can easily call others liars. But proving it is much harder, especially when it's nothing but a big lie. Posturing is not always enough...

I just did show you to be a LIAR, and up until now I would simply snicker to myself when I read yours or stewys lies on the forum ...but ...

When September rolls around (or after the striper run), I'll be in ALL your threads pointing out the lies and inconsistencies for the "lurkers" to see.

Just like I pointed out your LIE about Eisenhower here.

**kerplop** flush, down the drain you will both go ...bwahahahahaha

[T.Garrett]

Originally Posted by NeverASayanim

I am a late night shift janitor in a Tennessee city of despair pay. *I'm kinda fine with the way this is, I always have a brain on a late nite buzz by nature. *I don't wanna work in cubicle musical chairs, I'd probably shoot up all the corporate HR people. *Sometimes I live part time on the streets, why give kikes more money than what rent would find useful. *Having it too easy in the modern world can kill a soul.

Your first statement when it reaches "were engineers, scientists, and managers" I'll pull out and make a point that just because somebody has the brains and aptitude to do real science when it's above most of the people's ordinary abilities paradoxically still does not change the fact they are still the same contemptible standing like Everyman. *Reddit is probably like the Wal-Mart of internet hub verse but I could still find a nugget of wisdom in that the best of scientists, professors, and emeritus achievers could be bought out in all principles to none in forking over their abilities to base manipulation when they would get in return a lavish payout. *They don't even have to know the whole deal at its root, they won't be seeing the people who counterfeited truth in the first place.

Got damn a martyr ...are you a christian?

I lived on the edge here in NY myself, but quickly tired of it and did some "bad things" to some really bad folks that enabled me to climb out of the financial hole I was in due to my exs illness. We think that she contracted a rare cancer due to her job responsibilities at Brookhaven National Laboratory but the results of the NIOSH dose reconstruction said ...eh, well of course.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html

I had blown through almost $450,000 of my retirement savings but I was happy that the unconventional treatments the oncologists had given her saved her life. BTW, the Lab has since convinced her to come back to her job ...go figure ...

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

An invalid argument. Holohoaxers repeat ad nauseam the very same words about a notorious WWII atrocity propaganda lie in order to be exempted from substantiating any of their claims (and especially the most crucial ones). I hope that the crux of the moon landings is more documented (I've always assumed that it is) than the crux of the "Holocaust"...

The "Holocaust" has been demonstrated to be a fabrication. But beyond that, what historical events do you doubt?

Did ancient Greece actually exist, or is that a hoax?

Did ancient Rome actually exist, or is that a hoax?

Did Washington actually cross the Delaware, or is that a hoax?

Can you substantiate any of those historical events?

Literally every piece of evidence you examine substantiates the moon landings. I posted one example in my last post. Here is another example:

Proof We Landed on the Moon: It's In the Dust

Proof We Landed on the Moon: It's In the Dust

The dust tails produced by the lunar rover could only have been produced in a vacuum, and no vacuum exists on earth large enough to have created that.

[Major Sharpe]

Back in the 1960's, the US was engaged in an intense rivalry with the USSR in regard to space efforts. If anyone would be capable of exposing the Apollo moon landing as "fake" then it would've been the Russians. Only, the Russians never said a word. They knew it was real - just like Sandy Hook was real.

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

The "Holocaust" has been demonstrated to be a fabrication.

Not exactly. It has rather failed to be proved with solid evidence. That's because the victors of WWII had exempted themselves from having to prove what they had poetically named "the facts of common knowledge" (i.e. their own propaganda). The London Charter of August 1945 stipulated that the Nuremberg 'prosecutors' wouldn't need to prove "the facts of common knowledge" but would merely "take judicial notice" of such things. And afterwards, all the antirevisionist Holocaust historians only rehashed the non-probative material produced at the Nuremberg show trial.

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

But beyond that, what historical events do you doubt?

Did ancient Greece actually exist, or is that a hoax?

Did ancient Rome actually exist, or is that a hoax?

Did Washington actually cross the Delaware, or is that a hoax?

Can you substantiate any of those historical events?

Another trick often use by Holohoaxers. The most manipulative ones (such as Deborah Lipstadt) often claim that saying the Holocaust is a propaganda lie amounts to denying WWII ever happened.

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

Literally every piece of evidence you examine substantiates the moon landings.

I didn't say that it doesn't. I only said that evading the substantiation of some claims by saying that something is "the most documented event in history" is a gross manipulation used by some notorious fraudsters.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Not exactly. It has rather failed to be proved with solid evidence. That's because the victors of WWII had exempted themselves from having to prove what they had poetically named "the facts of common knowledge" (i.e. their own propaganda). The London Charter of August 1945 stipulated that the Nuremberg 'prosecutors' wouldn't need to prove "the facts of common knowledge" but would merely "take judicial notice" of such things. And afterwards, all the antirevisionist Holocaust historians only rehashed the non-probative material produced at the Nuremberg show trial.




Another trick often use by Holohoaxers. The most manipulative ones (such as Deborah Lipstadt) often claim that saying the Holocaust is a propaganda lie amounts to denying WWII ever happened.



I didn't say that it doesn't. I only said that evading the substantiation of some claims by saying that something is "the most documented event in history" is a gross manipulation used by some notorious fraudsters.

So what is your point? Are you saying that the moon landings happened, that they didn't happen, or that you just don't know? And, if you don't know, then why comment at all? There is an abundance of evidence supporting the moon landings, far more than for, say, Washington crossing the Delaware. Yet I've never heard anyone claim that Washington crossing the Delaware was a hoax and demand substantiation of the claim.

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

"Thank you"? ...hahaha you are fucking stupid and just like to argue. How is saying that I have/had family members and friends that worked on Apollo who never even hinted that it was anything but a successful endeavor a 'specious argument'?

It's specious because it postulates that deception is a nonexistent thing and that governments never deceive their own employees and people. You could have claimed as well that Colin Powell showed the world some real Iraqi anthrax in 2003 because some veterans of that war told you so, but that would be a specious argument. So, unless you're the son of Buzz Aldrin, the nephew of Neil Armstrong or the cousin of Michael Collins, the words told by some of your family members on the 1969 moon landing can't even possibly prove anything about this topic.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

Like you do?

I've been called several names but never anything "emotional".

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

Again, post #21
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=21

What can you prove isn't valid in post 21 faggot?

Again, post #23. Don't make me repeat my replies.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

You claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a jew ...but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family..._D._Eisenhower

Nothing said about him being a jew, as you claimed in post # 32:

https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=32

Yeah, I know. Most Americans believe that Jewishness is only about religion and they know nothing about crypto-Jews and the fake conversions of numerous Jews to bypass the anti-Jewish laws in Europe.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

If that man had even a drop of ashkenazi blood, wiki would shout it to the world.

Of course not!! Wikipedia is the Jewish Zionist version of things! A source as unreliable as possible for all the information the Jews want to fake, distort or conceal.

NAFTALI BENNETT, CURRENT ISRAEL PM, ORGANIZED WIKIPEDIA EDIT CAMPAIGNS FOR ZIONIST PROPAGANDA &SPIN
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zPbABsvqqbrN/

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

I just did show you to be a LIAR,

A mistaken commenter at best, and only when assuming that wikipedia is useful as a source on anything about that. So stop posturing like a clown. That's ridiculous. Chosing to rely on Jooipedia more than on West Point's 1915 yearbook for info about Eisenhower's Jewishness or non-Jewishness is nothing to brag about.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

and up until now I would simply snicker to myself when I read yours or stewys lies on the forum ...but ...

When September rolls around (or after the striper run), I'll be in ALL your threads pointing out the lies and inconsistencies for the "lurkers" to see.

How could I possibly survive a hunt by such a powerful intellect?

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

Just like I pointed out your LIE about Eisenhower here.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

**kerplop** flush, down the drain you will both go ...bwahahahahaha

Speaks for itself and says it all...

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

So what is your point? Are you saying that the moon landings happened, that they didn't happen, or that you just don't know?

My point is: number one, but I stay open-minded and don't dismiss any possibility.

And, if you don't know, then why comment at all?

Because I can recognize an invalid or a specious argument when I see one and I don't believe that real events need the use of such a thing.

There is an abundance of evidence supporting the moon landings, far more than for, say, Washington crossing the Delaware.

Fine. So the use of that evidence should be enough to prove the event.

Yet I've never heard anyone claim that Washington crossing the Delaware was a hoax and demand substantiation of the claim.

Also a specious argument. The truthfulness of something is not linked to the number of its believers and disbelievers. A true thing is still true even if nobody believes in it. And a false thing is still false even if everybody believes in it. The "national narratives" of all countries contain some more or less fictionalized things after all.

[joeylowsac]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

I don't need to substantiate any claim. The moon landings are literally the most documented events in human history. Every single piece of evidence points to their veracity. You want one example? Here is an experiment to determine how a flag would wave on the moon as opposed to on earth:

Your standard of evidence is anonymous people making claims about other alleged people without names or faces with nothing whatever to back it up, fine, that's your choice. No surprise there. But merely repeating the same baseless claim doesn't strengthen it. Anyone could make the same claim. At least if I made the claim you would have a name and face to go with it, which is more than you have now. You can refer to them in any tense you want, who are they, were they. whatever?

Next, I have never here nor anywhere else ever said anything about a flag. I've always attributed the movement of the flag to the movement of the pole. Since you brought it up though let's consider what the video shows.
First, although I do not dispute the conclusions, such as they are, there are a number of things I dislike about this video as far as experiments go:
1.) Foremost the amount of movement of the flag would be directly related to the amount of twisting of the pole. A crucial variable they make no attempt to regulate or record.
2.) A scientific experiment should pursue truth rather than a specific result.
3.) It is more concerned with entertainment than science so no particulars are given (e.g., the material and weight of the flag; how the amount the man turns translates to the amount of turning of the pole; etc.)
4.) They do not show any part of the "experiment" in its entirety, only brief interrupted seconds. If they showed as much of the experiment as they did of people just standing and talking the value as a scientific experiment would have been greatly increased.
5.) The two flags are not shown for the same time and from the same perspective.
6.) They show the two flags in the "experiment" side by side for about 3 seconds but never compare either to the one on the moon.

So let's consider, what is demonstrated in the video?
1.) In a vacuum a flag will move if the pole is twisted.
2.) When not in a vacuum a flag will move if the pole is twisted.
3.) The movement was not the same in a vacuum as when not. (Neither flag was seen from start to finish and the twisting was not controlled nor sufficiently documented. But there appeared to be differences independent of these.)
a) The flag in the vacuum continued to move for significantly longer after the pole stopped moving.
b) The movement in atmospheric pressure was very stiff, in a vacuum it was not stiff.
[The video was 03:13 long. The flag at atmospheric pressure was shown for 10 relevant seconds and the one in vacuum for 14. The remaining 87.6% of the video was without value.]

I think that covers it. It's not bad for 24 seconds of relevant, if second rate, material. Unfortunately, it's nothing that wouldn't be expected. What else could happen by twisting a flag pole?
The question that would be most helpful to have a meaningful answer to is- How can the content of this video be interpreted as evidence pertaining to the Apollo missions? I honestly don't see how any of this even has a point without comparing to the two flags to the ones from the Apollo record.

Since you place so much value in it why don't you use it to do a simple experiment of your own? Watch the flag plantings (they shouldn't be too hard to find) and compare the movement to the two movements in the video. Which resembles the actual event more? Which description better describes what is seen?

Last but not least, while I never before mentioned anything about a flag something I did mention occurs in the same video of the Apollo 11 flag planting (and many other instances). That is- The astronaut's shadow greatly elongates as they move closer to the light source, that is something that is impossible with light from the sun. But this you ignore in favour of a half-ass demonstration showing that the flag would move regardless of whether in a vacuum or not!

Just a couple things I have mentioned:
*Changing Shadows



*Jet Without A Trace
(I've added the archive numbers, they are extremely high resolution if you want a closer look- https://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/apollo/)

The LEM weighed almost 17 tons and had only one central rocket to decelerate this mass during landing. The engine had a thrust of 10,500 pounds, and even if the nozzle throat had a diameter of 3 feet, the exhaust pressure would have been close to 10 psi. Yet the ground beneath the LEM is undisturbed and the is not a bit of dust on the LEM (this is true of every Apollo mission). A common leaf blower has around ½ a psi, take one to the beach and do an experiment.
It isn't just the visual evidence. In the pressurised cabin literally only a few feet above this jet yet it doesn't cause the slightest vibration. Just like the ground there is no trace.
Apollo 11 Landing - https://app.box.com/s/xe5a9o467b7c15wmnyko4jb48ma5ypmn

I hope this font is less distracting for you. I cannot read it so there may be words out of place.

[T.Garrett]

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

It's specious because it postulates that deception is a nonexistent thing and that governments never deceive their own employees and people. You could have claimed as well that Colin Powell showed the world some real Iraqi anthrax in 2003 because some veterans of that war told you so, but that would be a specious argument. So, unless you're the son of Buzz Aldrin, the nephew of Neil Armstrong or the cousin of Michael Collins, the words told by some of your family members on the 1969 moon landing can't even possibly prove anything about this topic.

Astronauts? Pffft.

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

I've been called several names but never anything "emotional".

You argue like a woman dunrouse, all emotion no logic or real knowledge of anything. No originality, no independent thought.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

What can you prove isn't valid in post 21 faggot?

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Again, post #23. Don't make me repeat my replies.

I'll make you do whatever I want puppet, whatcha gonna do about it? Cry?

Why do you keep bringing the fucking 'holocaust' into this discussion of the US moon landing? Noone here is arguing that it did/didn't happen, and I personally could care fuck one about it. You're obsessed with it, in a really sick sort of way.

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Yeah, I know. Most Americans believe that Jewishness is only about religion and they know nothing about crypto-Jews and the fake conversions of numerous Jews to bypass the anti-Jewish laws in Europe.

Hahaha youre a 'fake conversion' to white racialism bitch.

Originally Posted by T. Garrett

If that man had even a drop of ashkenazi blood, wiki would shout it to the world.

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

Of course not!! Wikipedia is the Jewish Zionist version of things! A source as unreliable as possible for all the information the Jews want to fake, distort or conceal.

I knew you were going to say that. Why wouldnt the jews want to claim Eisenhower as one of their own ... top WWjew general, US president ... and what about the thousands of other references to Eisenhower, NONE OF WHICH SAY HE WAS A jEW!
Why don't you just admit you are wrong and thank me for setting you straight.

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

I just did show you to be a LIAR

Originally Posted by U. Dunrouse

A mistaken commenter at best, and only when assuming that wikipedia is useful as a source on anything about that. So stop posturing like a clown. That's ridiculous. Chosing to rely on Jooipedia more than on West Point's 1915 yearbook for info about Eisenhower's Jewishness or non-Jewishness is nothing to brag about.

Again, he was facetiously given the epithet "terrible Swedish jew" when he was a cadet at West Point by a classmate and it stuck you stupid fuck. Its what we here in the US call a 'nickname', and a sophomoric one at that. Instead of admitting you were wrong you whine like a woman, and then the childish graphics. If you don't have the stones to admit you're wrong you don't belong here dunrouse.