The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 12:38:06 PST 2015
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:11:03 +0000
Razer <rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:38:52 +0000
> > Razer <razer at riseup.net> wrote:
> >> Don't cherrypick my writings dick.
> > I didn't cherrypick anything. I merely highlighted what you
> > said. Feel free to call people who challenge any official
> > story nutjobs, but don't expect much sympathy from me...
> This is 'highhlighting'... Notice the rest of what you said below...
Come on Rayzer. 'Everybody' saw your complete message. I then
just copied a part of it, but your whole message is in plain
sight in the list's archive.
> > ps: your message came from razer at riseup, not rayzer at riseup. I
> > replied (automatically) to razer@ and the reply bounced...
> > 550 5.1.1 <razer at riseup.net>: Recipient address rejected: User
> > unknown
> Now here's the rest of what I said:
Which doesn't erase the fact that, according to you,
"Simply, anyone who doesn't think Armstong walked on the moon
is a nutjob."
So yes, 'simply', anyone who doesn't parrot the party line is a
> > One of the things my dad bequeathed me was an Omega "Moon Watch"...
> > at least that's the way Omega advertised them. What was unique
> > about the one I had vs the advertised store variety was the fact
> > that it was an old fashioned wind-up, as opposed to the retail
> > version, a self-winder.
> > Why the difference? As my dad put it "We didn't know if a
> > self-winder would work in zero-gravity", and they weren't willing
> > to take the risk.
> > If the moon landing was a hoax, it was such an intricate one it
> > would have cost more to execute then actually landing someone on
> > the moon.
More information about the cypherpunks