You havn't studied much Mechanics, have you?. If you're going to try to
prove that the moon doesn't really exist, you should at least look up
your facts. I read you page with "proofs" and find it interesting but
the part where you claim that the moon should fall down (if it exists
that is) is based on weak knowledge. I suspect that you are quite
familiar with something called the Centrifugal force. In kids terms you
could say that the moon stays up (if it exists) because it goes around
the earth with such speed that the Centrifugal force and the Gravity
cancel each other out.

So, conclusively. Maybe the moon doesn't exist (I've never been there..)
BUT Newton's equations is not the way to prove it.

Sincerely
Henrik

First of all, you say that the moon stays in orbit because it is moving so fast.  Well, I've been moon-watching for quite some time and it doesn't look like its going very fast to me.  So if you intend to make such an assertion, you're going to have to back it up with some FACTS.

But even assuming that this is true (and considering the intellectual dishonesty that the Lunar Establishment has shown in the past, I'm not willing to automatically take it at face value) it should be pointed out that all you have shown is that the moon could exist, not that it does.  The burden is on those who assert that this absurd object hangs above the earth to prove it.  Speculation on how such a thing might be possible is not sufficient, as you well know.

But it is gratifying to hear from a scholar who is open to the possibility that revisionism might someday be vindicated after all, and I thank you for your contribution.

Yours in science,

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