"I always thought revisionists were whacko, your diatribe on the moon conspiracy simply proves this.
     Why would the moon not stay in orbit? Hundreds of satellites have been placed into orbit and most(not all) manage to stay up there quite nicely.
     As long as the weight, speed and distance from earth remain constant, this body can float there forever.
     Why does the earth orbit the sun, or the other planets for that matter? Or do you not believe that is the case either?
     I think there are enough real conspiracies on this planet, that we don't have to invent new ones especially ones that are as retarded as this one is."

THE MAD REVISIONIST responds:

> I always thought revisionists were whacko, your diatribe on the moon
> conspiracy simply proves this.

We mock what we do not understand.

> Why would the moon not stay in orbit? Hundreds of satellites have been placed into orbit and
> most(not all) manage to stay up there quite nicely.

Aha!  And don't you find it suspicious that the only objects other than the alleged moon that have managed to remain in orbit around our earth are MAN-MADE objects SPECIALLY DESIGNED for that purpose.  What makes you think that the moon is not the same?

> As long as the weight, speed and distance from earth remain constant,
> this body can float there forever.

Ah, but read the scientific analysis posted at http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon3.htm
Even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer believe that the moon retains a constant distance from the earth.  Such fables have long since been discredited, yet equally absurd stories still persist among the "scientific" community.  You should keep up to date on the latest Moon dogma.

> Why does the earth orbit the sun, or the other planets for that
> matter? Or do you not believe that is the case either?

Who cares?  There's no government agency milking billions of dollars from the taxpayers pockets every year because the earth orbits the sun.

> I think there are enough real conspiracies on this planet, that we
> don't have to invent new ones especially ones that are as retarded as
> this one is.

Isn't that always the way of the establishment defender: when faced with the arguments of the revisionist, they curiously refuse to debate him. All they can do is call him names.

Further revisionist analysis by a satillite expert!

A retort from a skeptic

--
Back to: THE MAD REVISIONIST
We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm