I believe NASA DID go to the moon!

[displayname22]

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?

Remember what Bill Cooper said? Although Jim Marrs has now come out against Cooper's theory of the driver shooting JFK, that could have been a lucky scape goat of sorts, Cooper talked about a fake alien invasion which was actually led by the new world order elitists to unite the world. You know that military technology is never new. What you see is decades old. So what makes you think NASA's (German scientists) rockets were new when BMW (German corporation) had a patent for a flying saucer back in the twenties? (From what I remember, although the patent could have been faked).

I think they intentionally faked the footage because they didn't want you to see the real moon or what was going on there, although they probably could have filmed it in a barren area of the moon to make a better fake. I am more than certain they are there right now with ships you don't even know about. They probably didn't make a better fake on the real moon because they want you to think that they don't have the technology to go to the moon so when the fake invasion comes they can pretend they're not really the aliens who attack us and unite us under one world government ruled by the 'V's' which is really them. I think it sounds more likely than the story everyone seems to be promoting on here, that we just couldn't go to the moon, unless they wanted everyone to think they were much more powerful than they really are. People say we don't have the technology to prevent radiation but how do they know? Either way is equally logical and there is no way we can know accept through hints from insiders. And the insiders are in hollywood (V for example). Watch Jordan Maxwell's new presentation 'Dawn of a New Day' about the show V. But regarding the moon rocks that were brought back, yea they could have faked those to. They could be here from comets that struck the moon long ago and they 'snuck' it in. I'm just really getting tired of everyone trying to prove it was faked in post after post. I think we need to focus more on the why, although I am new hear so pardon me if I haven't read every post.

[displayname22]

I just don't see how anyone can say, "PROOF we NEVER went to the moon." Who is WE? What is this absolutist statement's validity?

[cosmo1]

I just don't see how anyone can say, "PROOF we NEVER went to the moon." Who is WE? What is this absolutist statement's validity?

You get that all the time here :D;).

No doubt 'they' will be along soon enough to expound 'their' views and call you names; happy foruming :cool::D!

[cluas]

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?

Remember what Bill Cooper said? Although Jim Marrs has now come out against Cooper's theory of the driver shooting JFK, that could have been a lucky scape goat of sorts, Cooper talked about a fake alien invasion which was actually led by the new world order elitists to unite the world. You know that military technology is never new. What you see is decades old. So what makes you think NASA's (German scientists) rockets were new when BMW (German corporation) had a patent for a flying saucer back in the twenties? (From what I remember, although the patent could have been faked).

I think they intentionally faked the footage because they didn't want you to see the real moon or what was going on there, although they probably could have filmed it in a barren area of the moon to make a better fake. I am more than certain they are there right now with ships you don't even know about. They probably didn't make a better fake on the real moon because they want you to think that they don't have the technology to go to the moon so when the fake invasion comes they can pretend they're not really the aliens who attack us and unite us under one world government ruled by the 'V's' which is really them. I think it sounds more likely than the story everyone seems to be promoting on here, that we just couldn't go to the moon, unless they wanted everyone to think they were much more powerful than they really are. People say we don't have the technology to prevent radiation but how do they know? Either way is equally logical and there is no way we can know accept through hints from insiders. And the insiders are in hollywood (V for example). Watch Jordan Maxwell's new presentation 'Dawn of a New Day' about the show V. But regarding the moon rocks that were brought back, yea they could have faked those to. They could be here from comets that struck the moon long ago and they 'snuck' it in. I'm just really getting tired of everyone trying to prove it was faked in post after post. I think we need to focus more on the why, although I am new hear so pardon me if I haven't read every post.

Read This :

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html

I think youre right :)

[cosmo1]

Read This :

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html

I think youre right :)

*gasp!!!* :D sorry, sorry

[chopper999]

Your quote

"I am more than certain they are there right now with ships you don't even know about"

I Wanna know if anyone else here believes that they { REP'S} will appear in the skys above in big mother ships - David talks about the {REP'S} revealing themselves in his new book.

Surely they have the tech to take over and dominate us or are we all gonna just be friends with them {rep's} when the truth vibrations are too strong for them to resist it's POWER.

Please excuse my spelling I never gave a shit about school when I was there. - Mark

[moving finger]

Read This :

http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html

I think youre right :)

So Stanley Kubrick, legerndary director, whose word and deed Hollywood pays attention to, was involved in the Moon landings and decided he wanted to tell everyone about it.

Does he:

a) Call NBC news?
b) Tell the Washington Post?
c) Call a press conference and tell everyone he can think of?
d) Take a novel, film it and leave clues so obscure you have to be on psychotropic medication to find them?

Really?

Really?

[subl1minal]

If they brought the Moon here, they clearly go back to it everyday. They faked the Moon landings in order to create the Illusion that it's just a dead piece of Rock.

[existenz]

What's with all the moon landing threads. Obviously they DID go to the moon, possibly with secret technology. And obviously they did shoot a fake video for the public too. Everyone happy?

[truegroup]

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?

No, actually the question we need to ask is how more obscure can HBs get with their hoax beliefs. We have 'filmed on Earth in a studio', 'outside in the desert', filmed on the Moon(!)', 'filmed on another planet (yep, seen that one too!)' and now we have, 'they went, but faked the pictures because of aliens'. Ohhh dear.

But regarding the moon rocks that were brought back, yea they could have faked those to. They could be here from comets that struck the moon long ago and they 'snuck' it in.

No, they could not have faked them (and they didn't fake the pictures or the video). The entire scientific community of geologists can verify their authenticity. Comets are usually made up of frozen gasses, no idea why you would use anything 'off-Moon' to pass off as Moon rock??

'snuck it' in? Well strictly speaking they did. They snuck it in the LM and transferred it to the CM, then snuck it in on re-entry.


I'm just really getting tired of everyone trying to prove it was faked in post after post.

You're not wrong. This 'proof' is so flimsy, and repeated so often it is just down to HBs having fixed beliefs that they refuse to change.
I have posted endless debunking information, but have yet to see an HB agree with any of it. As though EVERY one of these stupid contentions is correct. That should tell you everything about Moon Hoax believers.

[truth seeker 09]

I believe NASA DID go to the moon!

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go.

Exactly, although I believe that only some of the footage is fake.

Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?

Exactly.

I think they intentionally faked the footage because they didn't want you to see the real moon or what was going on there

That's what I think too.

[wez004]

I just don't see how anyone can say, "PROOF we NEVER went to the moon." Who is WE? What is this absolutist statement's validity?

Who is WE? Thats me and my dog Fido. WE have never been to the moon and I can prove it.

[david c]

You're not wrong. This 'proof' is so flimsy, and repeated so often it is just down to HBs having fixed beliefs that they refuse to change.
The proof that the video we saw was faked is so clear that the only way the government can make people keep thinking they went to the moon is to keep people from seeing the eivdence. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
http://www.brainsturbator.com/forums/viewthread/1335/

(Sorry about linking to another forum but there's some kind of technical problem preventing me from posting it here.)

[truegroup]

http://www.brainsturbator.com/forums/viewthread/1335/

(Sorry about linking to another forum but there's some kind of technical problem preventing me from posting it here.)

You are lying

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058986002&postcount=1175

[graflok]

The proof that the video we saw was faked is so clear that the only way the government can make people keep thinking they went to the moon is to keep people from seeing the eivdence. Here's a link to some of the evidence.


Totally true.

[graflok]

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?


They have also faked most if not all of the photography of Mars since the
1970s Viking missions. A likely place used for this is Devon Island or, perhaps,
a nearby location with similar terrain.

[david c]

You are lying

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058986002&postcount=1175
I wanted to post the whole list but it won't take on this forum for some reason so I post links to the info on other forums. I'd like to make one post on this forum with the info and keep referring to it but I can't so I keep referring to it by linking to where I've posted it on other forums. Why did you say I was lying?

[truegroup]

I wanted to post the whole list but it won't take on this forum for some reason so I post links to the info on other forums. I'd like to make one post on this forum with the info and keep referring to it but I can't so I keep referring to it by linking to where I've posted it on other forums. Why did you say I was lying?

You've made that same post 3 times to my knowledge already on this forum with no problem! God know how many on other forums. Just a cut and paste - see the link - I've listed some of the ones Google found.

When will you stop doing this and debate properly. ie. one point, to its conclusion, at a time??

[pessi_optimist]

So Stanley Kubrick, legerndary director, whose word and deed Hollywood pays attention to, was involved in the Moon landings and decided he wanted to tell everyone about it.

Does he:

a) Call NBC news?
b) Tell the Washington Post?
c) Call a press conference and tell everyone he can think of?
d) Take a novel, film it and leave clues so obscure you have to be on psychotropic medication to find them?

Really?

Really?

Not that i'm an advocate for this shining/apollo 11 theory, i've only just read it, but it is easy to see the logic of it. A,B and C are illogical suggestions in this context, and D is a logical suggestion. The clues aren't that obscure if they are laid out, and are even quite convincing. Kubrick wanted to live, and to make his movies, and calling NBC is....well it's just a stupid thing to write in this context. Many top-tier film-directors work in symbology, that is well documented, but the general publiv are never going to pick up on them.

Even if they are told the general public would forget about it within a week or just not care, or even understand. Your argument is a bit pedantic, i'm sorry to say.

Again, i'm not saying that i follow this theory.

[displayname22]

So the WHY.

Which conclusion is most logical?

They faked it because:

A: They wanted us to believe they are more powerful than they are.

B: They probably revealed the fakery themselves as part of the plan, so you would believe they weren't powerful enough to go to the moon, so you wouldn't believe it was really them that attacks Earth and begins the One World Govt, as double agents, so to speak.

C: They wanted to see just how dumb people really were, or how clever they really were.

D: Propose another reason, and if you can choose A-C please explain why one is more logical than the other.

I believe it is B for reasons I have already expressed. I don't think it was to cover up space ships unless there are so many they can never get a moment of film without them.

[cluas]

So the WHY.

Which conclusion is most logical?

They faked it because:

A: They wanted us to believe they are more powerful than they are.

B: They probably revealed the fakery themselves as part of the plan, so you would believe they weren't powerful enough to go to the moon, so you wouldn't believe it was really them that attacks Earth and begins the One World Govt, as double agents, so to speak.

C: They wanted to see just how dumb people really were, or how clever they really were.

D: Propose another reason, and if you can choose A-C please explain why one is more logical than the other.

I believe it is B for reasons I have already expressed. I don't think it was to cover up space ships unless there are so many they can never get a moment of film without them.

B is most logical

No doubt in my mind, they faked it.
Answer to why:
They had something to hide, not to be shown to the public....


The real question: WHAT was it, we could not be allowed to see ??

Don't have the answers for this one, but it must have been BIG

:)

[deca]

hmm people are waking up about all the lies they been told......

Plan B.....get them to believe in aliens and UFO`s.....:rolleyes:and that wishfull thinking gona save them....

then call them HB`s conspircy nut jobs, so nobody takes them seriously


Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?


I think they intentionally faked the footage because they didn't want you to see the real moon or what was going on there

[ultima1]

No doubt in my mind, they faked it.

Too bad you cannot explain away the American reflectors that were placed on the moon by manned landings.

[deca]

I surprised they can get a clear shot at that moon with all them UFO`s and moon bases.......:rolleyes:

[ultima1]

I surprised they can get a clear shot at that moon with all them UFO`s and moon bases.......:rolleyes:

I am surprised you can form a sentence the way you sound.

I would tell you to do research but i know you are too afriad to becasue you would find the truth.

[camreeno]

Well yeah, saying NASA didn't go to the moon, and saying the moon landings between 1969 to 1970 (that were broadcasted) were faked, are two totally different things.

Yeah, I believe NASA went to the moon in some form, but that's not to say they didn't fake the official moon landings. They are well aware of their anti-gravitational technology and I'm sure they're gone there plenty of times. In fact they must have considering men in military uniforms are so frequently sited in UFO sightings. If people in military uniforms can get aboard UFOs then people from NASA can (or they're men in military uniform or who work for NASA?). Now that we know the US stashes UFOs in Area 51 and the nearby S4, then it's no doubt they've gone to the moon in them. If they got ahold of UFOs then what's the first place you think they'd go?

[deca]

I am surprised you can form a sentence the way you sound.

I would tell you to do research but i know you are too afriad to becasue you would find the truth.


er what truth....is it a big secret that NASA landed on the moon or hoaxed it?
internet full of it......

so what you are arguing over weather the NASA 40 year old propaganda movie,pictures "one small step" moon buggys, playing golf , saulting the flag apollo missions ....was actually filmed on the moon or in a film set on earth.....boring

[ultima1]

Yeah, I believe NASA went to the moon in some form, but that's not to say they didn't fake the official moon landings.

Then what was all the time and money spent on the capsiles and landers for?

[cluas]

Too bad you cannot explain away the American reflectors that were placed on the moon by manned landings.

There are many ways to explain....

According to some researchers, NSA went there already in the '50's, could have been put there back then, or later.
Not nesceserely (sp?) by a manned mission...

How many manned missions were there ?

I'm not saying they were ALL and totally fake....

Just saying there was something there, they did'nt want us to see :)

Something for sure is wrong with the whole apollo 11 thing.... Look at this article from Jay Wiedner, he's on to something ....

Jay Weidner Website (http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html)

:)

[deca]

how much did NASA spend on making a pen to work in space? the russians just used a pencil.....somebody made a few quid out it, weather they went or did not....i.e militray complex


NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars). The costs associated with the Apollo

thats some movie!!!!

you ask me they realsied the cost, thought fuck that, faked the man landing , probadly did an unmaned mission and spent the money on Black projects in space....satilites, ICBM`s ect....

after all they just bump the president .....

[ultima1]

According to some researchers, NSA went there already in the '50's, could have been put there back then, or later.
Not nesceserely (sp?) by a manned mission...


Instead of opinions, how about facts?

I'm not saying they were ALL and totally fake....

Then what are you saying?

[dragond]

I just think that if they really did go to the moon, how comes they havent been there ever since? The last mission as i recall was in 1972, and since then there were no manned moon landings.. why?? If they had the technology back then why cant it be done now with even better technology?? just a thought...


D

[truth seeker 09]

I just think that if they really did go to the moon, how comes they havent been there ever since? The last mission as i recall was in 1972, and since then there were no manned moon landings.. why?? If they had the technology back then why cant it be done now with even better technology?? just a thought...


D

According to contactee Alex Collier we were told by an ET race not to go back to the Moon.

Watch from 4:55 onwards:

UFO Hypotheses - Alex Collier Volume Three (09 of 12) - YouTube
UFO Hypotheses - Alex Collier Volume Three (09 of 12) - YouTube

[dragond]

According to contactee Alex Collier we were told by an ET race not to go back to the Moon.

Watch from 4:55 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJQZ68Bvsx4

possible.. just checking out his lecture on ur sig.. thanks


D

[truth seeker 09]

possible.. just checking out his lecture on ur sig.. thanks


D

You're talking about Collier's lecture in January 2010. It was a good lecture (as always) but it doesn't deal with the Moon. If you want Collier's info about the Moon and Mars and the human bases on them, here's a collection of Collier's lectures and interviews between 1994 - 2010:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54953&page=27

[truegroup]

So the WHY.

Which conclusion is most logical?

They faked it because:

A: They wanted us to believe they are more powerful than they are.

B: They probably revealed the fakery themselves as part of the plan, so you would believe they weren't powerful enough to go to the moon, so you wouldn't believe it was really them that attacks Earth and begins the One World Govt, as double agents, so to speak.

C: They wanted to see just how dumb people really were, or how clever they really were.

D: Propose another reason, and if you can choose A-C please explain why one is more logical than the other.

I believe it is B for reasons I have already expressed. I don't think it was to cover up space ships unless there are so many they can never get a moment of film without them.

Strawman.

None of them are true, as they didn't fake it.

[truegroup]

I just think that if they really did go to the moon, how comes they havent been there ever since? The last mission as i recall was in 1972, and since then there were no manned moon landings.. why?? If they had the technology back then why cant it be done now with even better technology?? just a thought...


D

Because it costs a frickin' fortune to do it, and the US government vetos it every time it gets proposed.

[ultima1]

I just think that if they really did go to the moon, how comes they havent been there ever since?

Well the last Apollo boosters were used for the Skylab.

Then NASA started work on the shuttle and the Apollo missions kind of got lost.

And they are talking about going back to the moon.

But also costs had a lot to do with the end of Apollo.

[redman]

Because it costs a frickin' fortune to do it, and the US government vetos it every time it gets proposed.




Mate, if they went they would have a fucking Mcdonalds on the fucker by now. With rich fat American families taking holidays there filling their fat fucking faces.


Also tell me why I should believe everything they claim about the moon landings but the same Governments and agencies have showed time and time again that they tell lies, not just small ones but big fat fuck off ones.


You could show me all the evidence under the sun that we went, I would still not be 100% certain we did because the evidence is coming from a source that are masters of duping the public day in, day out.


Do you believe the official story of 911 Timegroup ?

[ultima1]

Mate, if they went they would have a fucking Mcdonalds on the fucker by now.

Maybe back during the spavce race when congrees was for moon launches but not now.

Also tell me why I should believe everything they claim about the moon landings but the same Governments and agencies have showed time and time again that they tell lies, not just small ones but big fat fuck off ones.

Do not believe them do your own research. Look at the reflectors that we placed on the moon and are still in use.

[truegroup]

Mate, if they went they would have a fucking Mcdonalds on the fucker by now. With rich fat American families taking holidays there filling their fat fucking faces.
Nope, not even Mackydees can afford the airfare.

Also tell me why I should believe everything they claim about the moon landings but the same Governments and agencies have showed time and time again that they tell lies, not just small ones but big fat fuck off ones.
No reason really. You believe what you want. People made Apollo happen, not the government. To cover it up would have been impossible.

You could show me all the evidence under the sun that we went, I would still not be 100% certain we did because the evidence is coming from a source that are masters of duping the public day in, day out.
If you doubt it for that reason, that is your perogative. But if you doubt it because of the 'hoax' evidence, then you're not as smart as I think you are.


Do you believe the official story of 911 Timegroup ?

Well Redmoon, start by getting my name right. But since you ask, didn't I already answer that?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058949038&postcount=239

[camreeno]

Then what was all the time and money spent on the capsiles and landers for?It was just a show. They didn't want to reveal the anti-gravity technoloy to go to the moon, so they felt it was best to just fake it and develop technology that would give the impression we could go to the moon. If you look at the footage where they test the Apollo capsules that supposedly landed on the moon, you'd see they were in no shape to efficiently hover over the Lunar surface, and the things frequently crashed in tests. Why did everything go so smoothly just coincidentally during the moon missions?

Apollo 13 was a show too. They just chose the number 13 to be symbolic and created a fake scenario where some astronauts were in a predicament in order to garner international and public attention back to the moon missions. They were planning on doing 6 missions from the start, and they knew people would get bored by then, so they created the bogus Apollo 13 mission to redeem lost viewers who got bored after the first mission. The viewer numbers of Apollo 12 were ridiculously low compared to Apollo 11, so they needed to stage an event to give a good reason to continue on the moon hoax missions.

All the time and money just went to the invisible government as usual. The billions of dollars were largely spent on developing the launching technology, and few people who worked at NASA actually knew the whole game. It was compartmentalized, as each employee only knew his or her individual part and very few actually understood it all. Few knew the impossibility of the physics involved, but since it was all compartmentalized there were few ways that could be publisized. I'm sure a lot of the money was just embezzled, as is the case with the recent bail-out bills and whatnot. It happens with virtually any major government project with little transparency.

[cluas]

Instead of opinions, how about facts?



Then what are you saying?

Look I said it in post # 4 if you'd care to read :rolleyes:

[carnivalofsouls]

Guys watch the following vid!

It was aired on the Greek national television, and its about this guy that informed this spanish or argentenian reporter about the stuff that the austronauts on the Apollo 11 mission found on the moon. Besides unidentified craft, they found an actual BUILDING! WATCH!!

ΑΠΟΛΛΩ� 11 ΜΕΡ.2 - YouTube

So my 5 cents is we went to the moon, found all this stuff that could not be presented to the public due to fear of panic.

[truegroup]

Guys watch the following vid!

It was aired on the Greek national television, and its about this guy that informed this spanish or argentenian reporter about the stuff that the austronauts on the Apollo 11 mission found on the moon. Besides unidentified craft, they found an actual BUILDING! WATCH!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw5IG058qyA

So my 5 cents is we went to the moon, found all this stuff that could not be presented to the public due to fear of panic.

My 5 cents says they made this video up, and because you haven't read the Greek comments in google translator, you don't know they were talking about all the silly errors in it.

[carnivalofsouls]

But I AM Greek! They're not talking about errors nor do they question its authenticity. They're saying

"The real reason Apollo 11 went to the moon was because they knew about it {structures on the surface}, that's why they wanted to check it out. Armstrong & Auldrin drew away just a few meters from the shuttle to film this previously unreleased footage. These mysterious ruins had already been photographed by previous unmanned missions. They had found deserted, maybe ancient buildings/ruins up there. Who built them they don't really know. The astronauts continued with their observations, took samples from the structure & left. The unusual structure looked like some kind of storage facility or hangar and measured 60 meters length & 9 meters height. It had 12 "windows" on the side & a central "entrance". It was made from the same material found on the moon - it consisted of 60% atoms of oxygen & 0.01% hydrogen. It was observed that the walls were extremely erroded which led the scientists to believe that it's thousands of years old."

The guy from NASA who presented the reporter with all this information died in an accident 1 month after his meeting with the reporter.

[truegroup]

But I AM Greek! They're not talking about errors nor do they question its authenticity. They're saying

"The real reason Apollo 11 went to the moon was because they knew about it {structures on the surface}, that's why they wanted to check it out. Armstrong & Auldrin drew away just a few meters from the shuttle to film this previously unreleased footage. These mysterious ruins had already been photographed by previous unmanned missions. They had found deserted, maybe ancient buildings/ruins up there. Who built them they don't really know. The astronauts continued with their observations, took samples from the structure & left. The unusual structure looked like some kind of storage facility or hangar and measured 60 meters length & 9 meters height. It had 12 "windows" on the side & a central "entrance". It was made from the same material found on the moon - it consisted of 60% atoms of oxygen & 0.01% hydrogen. It was observed that the walls were extremely erroded which led the scientists to believe that it's thousands of years old."

The guy from NASA who presented the reporter with all this information died in an accident 1 month after his meeting with the reporter.

Οκ είμαι συγγνώμη

It's a hoax video. I've seen every EVA from every Apollo. Someone is toying with you. As for the comments (with translation errors):


We also recognize that the video is fake because of irregularities in the video 3:57 As observed by some friends , and because the uniform of the astronauts and the walls are too beacon . Also in 4:52 selinakato seeing the outside one of the windows of the building , but as I said before the lunar landing point was far from it 50 km . Even the astronaut had to be walking too slowly because of the weight of the suit and because the land is full of debris.

Well this whole video is fake. First landing point is 50 kilometers from the crater Moltke near where is this building . I do not believe astronauts to walk 50 miles to see this building . It would take days. And we had then and with them the Lunar Rover to go faster. After the astronauts have a video camera on their chest which admittedly is not very easy , so the constant change in the height of the camera is not true.

OMG, thats one big pile of rubbish. Standard is built , probably entirely in 3D program. Like any man with eyes and mind could see that the vinteoliptis passes through a pile of rubble, stone or whatever , well these are the anomalies in the soil, while normally it should be drunk stumbles like the outfit he is wearing as though she weighed just 13.6 kilos on the moon by 81 pounds on Earth, and that it was more convenient to ride on the crag of the moon.

[ultima1]

It was just a show.

Come on are you serious, is that the best you could come up with?

What about all the independent people and agencies that watched and tracked the manned moon landings?

They didn't want to reveal the anti-gravity technoloy to go to the moon,

Evidence of this so called anti-gravity technology please.

[deca]

funny how the russians never went to land a man on the moon but built an low orbit space station to monitor the effects space would have on humans and did another first and whipped US arse again:D

[ultima1]

funny how the russians never went to land a man on the moon but built an low orbit space station to monitor the effects space would have on humans and did another first and wiped US arse again:D

Oh they tried to get a manned mission on the moon but had problems with thier boosters.

They had to settle for umanned missions to the moon.

[piskavac]

That's what I think too.

but, what you think exist on the Moon (or beneath it's core).

[truegroup]

but, what you think exist on the Moon (or beneath it's core).

Either its a great big chunk of rock with measureable gravity based on the effect it has on our tidal system, exactly matching all known physics calculus determining the gravity to mass for a large body such as the Moon

or

it is hollow and inhabited

Clangers : The Intruder - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s

[displayname22]

Either its a great big chunk of rock with measureable gravity based on the effect it has on our tidal system, exactly matching all known physics calculus determining the gravity to mass for a large body such as the Moon

or

it is hollow and inhabited



why not both?

[infidelyork]

posted by accident, sorry.

[camreeno]

Come on are you serious, is that the best you could come up with?

What about all the independent people and agencies that watched and tracked the manned moon landings?



Evidence of this so called anti-gravity technology please.What independent people and what tracking of the moon landings? All the footage was provided by the Federal Government. Does that sound like a very accessible and reliable source? It's the same government that hasn't released footage of the supposed 757 passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and it's the same one that lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that launched the Vietnam War (or at least the US involvement in it).

There hasn't been any independent investigation where they looked through a telescope and took pictures of the supposed landing zone. Ever. There was an Australian company that worked in tandem with NASA to broadcast the moon footage, but that wasn't even an independent company as it was working closely with the Federal Government.

If you think about it, how CAN they do some independent investigation when high-powered telescopes are in short supply and have little accessibility?

[ultima1]

What independent people and what tracking of the moon landings? All the footage was provided by the Federal Government.

I am talking about tracking and telematry from different sites. Easily found with basic research.

There hasn't been any independent investigation where they looked through a telescope and took pictures of the supposed landing zone. Ever.

But theres has been US, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian probes that have photographed the manned landing sites.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/
The Japanese lunar mission SELENE (Selenological and Engineering Explorer), also known as "Kaguya" has imaged the "halo" left behind in the lunar surface from Apollo 15's lunar module engine exhaust plume. This is the first time a mission after the Apollo Program has detected such a feature


http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html
Chauhan said Chandrayaan-I, which India launched late last year, located the Apollo 15 landing site by identifying disturbances on the moon's dark surface.

"The disturbed surface is bright," he said, in a presentation in the western state of Goa, where a conference on space missions is being held.

"Our images also show tracks left behind by the lunar rovers which were used by the astronauts."

US, Japanese and Russian scientists have previously found evidence of Apollo 15's landing site by studying photographs.

[truegroup]

why not both?

For the gravity calculus to work, the mass of the Moon cannot be hollow.

[griffinman]

I tell you what convidenced me. Nasa Nerds.
You know they documented every minute on the moon missions.
because the time scale/to fuel energy consumtion was so important.
and you can read them all in the mission transcripts.
You couldn't fake that...

However, I think you could make a case that some of the film footage and photos could've of been faked.

[ultima1]

However, I think you could make a case that some of the film footage and photos could've of been faked.

Maybe NASA made a film to have a backup in case the astronauts died on the moon.

[tonyburke]

I have a theory which gives a better reason why they might have faked the Apollo Landings,..Money !
It appears that the Military Industrial Complex has had antigravidic superluminal craft (Flying Saucers) well before the supposed moon landings but Kennedy put them on a spot [Hell he didn't know] with his announcement because "They'd already been there" in such vehicles but they weren't going to tell anyone were they?
What better way to solve their dilemma, save face with the Russians and everyone else than to fake the moon landings and make a pile of money for the Black Ops people, on the side. Congress approves the massive funds required for a Moonshot but only a small portion goes to Apollo because they're only going into Earth Orbit. Most of the loot is siphoned off to the Black Ops people. Everybody is happy and Kennedy is off their backs. It doesn't matter if Kennedy finds out because they know that they're going to knock him off soon anyway.

[tonyburke]

Maybe NASA made a film to have a backup in case the astronauts died on the moon.

Yes I thought that might have been the reason for the fake footage but why edit so much stuff out of the footage ?

[truegroup]

Yes I thought that might have been the reason for the fake footage but why edit so much stuff out of the footage ?

What footage was faked? Please pray tell. We've had about 30 threads on this since I've been here, and I've not seen one piece of 'evidence' that even comes close to showing fakery.

If you are talking about the 'halfway to the Moon' footage, there's a thread here that has completely buried that, plus the first link in my signature does a good job.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=168510

Here is Moving Fingers' analysis on Apollohoax forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132


So, again, what was faked?

[redman]

What footage was faked? Please pray tell. We've had about 30 threads on this since I've been here, and I've not seen one piece of 'evidence' that even comes close to showing fakery.

If you are talking about the 'halfway to the Moon' footage, there's a thread here that has completely buried that, plus the first link in my signature does a good job.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=168510

Here is Moving Fingers' analysis on Apollohoax forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132


So, again, what was faked?


You talking about the Moon again... :rolleyes:

[maxi]

Apparently Carl Sagan and a few others are aboard a secret spacecraft (in the mold of Voyager) on a one way ticket to interstellar space...

His death was faked in 1996.

[curtaincat]

Yes, they went to the moon.

Yes, they showed us fake footage from studio's.

Yes, mum, I am eating my apple, :D

,... and it is still the issue of the day :rolleyes::p

[211200]

I read somewhere... can't remember where... as it was a good 36 years ago.... that the Americans were the second nation on the moon after the Bulgarians. :)

[mag131]

So what if they did go to the moon? If its true,well done on a truly remarkable feat.

If they didn't? -again, so what? We have been spun a lie for over 40 years-big deal.

Goverments and other organisations lie to us all the time, its how they work

The truth will come out, maybe not this week, month, year but it will come out.

It has to.

Peace brother.

[211200]

So what if they did go to the moon? If its true,well done on a truly remarkable feat.

If they didn't? -again, so what? We have been spun a lie for over 40 years-big deal.

Goverments and other organisations lie to us all the time, its how they work

The truth will come out, maybe not this week, month, year but it will come out.

It has to.

Peace brother.

Yes, of that we can be sure.... Truth will always surface in the end.

[jackdaw]

Apparently Carl Sagan and a few others are aboard a secret spacecraft (in the mold of Voyager) on a one way ticket to interstellar space...

His death was faked in 1996.

:D Why says? How far do you think they'd get in say 20 years even at a few thousand kph? That is assuming they had a suitable craft, sufficient resources and life support. Where were they headed? Proxima Centauri? :D

[elton]

I read somewhere... can't remember where... as it was a good 36 years ago.... that the Americans were the second nation on the moon after the Bulgarians. :)

It was not the Bulgarians, it was the Dutch. They even brought rock back but they were persuaded by the Americans to say they got them from NASA.

The Dutch launch pads can still be seen in north Holland.

[moving finger]

It was not the Bulgarians, it was the Dutch. They even brought rock back but they were persuaded by the Americans to say they got them from NASA.

The Dutch launch pads can still be seen in north Holland.

Those guys are permanently spaced.

Just for fun:

Screenshot of the 2nd Apollo 8 live TV broadcast on 23/12/68

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3900/apollo8flicker.jpg

Long Beach Independent newspaper from 24/12/1968, the day after the live broadcast:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6917/longbeachindependent.jpg

ESSA 7 satellite weather image of the southern hemisphere 23/12/68, which because of the way ESSA 7 took pictures would not have been completed until after the Long Beach Independent went to press:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1260/231268.jpg

Take a look at the twin stream of clouds extending from South America to the South Atlantic. That same cloud feature is on the TV broadcast and newspaper front page.

Ask yourself: how did they do that?

[graflok]

ESSA 7 satellite weather image of the southern hemisphere 23/12/68, which because of the way ESSA 7 took pictures would not have been completed until after the Long Beach Independent went to press:


The way ESSA 7 took pictures according to whom? NASA? Some NASA affiliated agency?

Gosh, I just can't imagine how that was done. What a baffling enigma wrapped in a riddle! :rolleyes:

[truegroup]

I just can't imagine how that was done.

How what was done? A black and white grainy photograph was magically transformed into colour moving pictures in realtime, and at the same time high resolution photographs were also taken - that follow the weather patterns on the ESSA 7 and Ground based meteoroligical data?

I'm not surprised you don't know how that was done, since it is impossible.

http://www.apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html

[moving finger]

The way ESSA 7 took pictures according to whom? NASA? Some NASA affiliated agency?

Gosh, I just can't imagine how that was done. What a baffling enigma wrapped in a riddle! :rolleyes:

Yeah they completely faked the weather to cover it all up.

Looking forward to your version.

[mrunhappy]

Yeah yeah

Of course we went, past the Van Allen belts, in a shit rocket built in the 1960's...

And then of course we never went back again after the 1970's because there wasn't any money around to do such in the 80's or 90's was there? I mean, NASA, Goldman Sachs, etc., they always struggle to get money don't they?

And of course we learned everything we needed to know when we were there.. I mean, why bother diving in the ocean again huh?

All those successful missions to the moon.....

Anyone that seriously believes we went to the moon is a friggin gimp.

As for the usual shill/unenlightened doo doo brains claiming that videos of the earth and its weather prove we went. Get real. They didn't go to the moon. They did go into earth's orbit. The end.

[truegroup]

Anyone that seriously believes we went to the moon is a friggin gimp.

Nope, they are educated in matters pertaining to space travel. Unlike you and every other HB.

As for the usual shill/unenlightened doo doo brains claiming that videos of the earth and its weather prove we went. Get real. They didn't go to the moon. They did go into earth's orbit. The end.

Armwaving crap.

Please explain how it isn't proof. Detailed analysis please of how they took a static scanned black and white image and magically made it into a high resolution photograph, one of very many, then magically used that same photo to create moving pictures of the Earth rotating. The footage was clearly taken in a weightless environment, with distance consistent with how far they were away from Earth. The footage also clearly shows they weren't in LEO and has the Earth moving within the window, so obviously not a static image (therefore not a transparency) and over time with continuous footage the Earth is rotating. In addition, the weather matches the photography and video at a distance that only something beyond the VAB could possibly photograph.

Also, please explain how nobody noticed Apollo orbiting the Earth with signal loss (orbiting every 90 minutes), a change of signal direction. This should include how amateur radio hams tuning into the signal also did not notice the direction change. The same radio hams and radio dish teams that tracked a signal to the Moon, which became two signals, one fixed on the Moon, one orbiting and disappearing as it went around the far side.

Thanks.

If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary..... - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q

[saty]

moon is an alien base.That's why they faked the footage.Don't forget that NASA is a NWO puppet

[redman]

Nope, they are educated in matters pertaining to space travel. Unlike you and every other HB.



Armwaving crap.

Please explain how it isn't proof. Detailed analysis please of how they took a static scanned black and white image and magically made it into a high resolution photograph, one of very many, then magically used that same photo to create moving pictures of the Earth rotating. The footage was clearly taken in a weightless environment, with distance consistent with how far they were away from Earth. The footage also clearly shows they weren't in LEO and has the Earth moving within the window, so obviously not a static image (therefore not a transparency) and over time with continuous footage the Earth is rotating. In addition, the weather matches the photography and video at a distance that only something beyond the VAB could possibly photograph.

Also, please explain how nobody noticed Apollo orbiting the Earth with signal loss (orbiting every 90 minutes), a change of signal direction. This should include how amateur radio hams tuning into the signal also did not notice the direction change. The same radio hams and radio dish teams that tracked a signal to the Moon, which became two signals, one fixed on the Moon, one orbiting and disappearing as it went around the far side.

Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q

You still talking about the bloody Moon. :rolleyes:

[truegroup]

moon is an alien base.That's why they faked the footage.Don't forget that NASA is a NWO puppet

No it isn't. No they didn't. No it isn't.

[saty]

No it isn't. No they didn't. No it isn't.

i can assure you that i'm 100% sure NASA is corupted.The first two are a guess which is very debatable

[redman]

i can assure you that i'm 100% sure NASA is corupted.The first two are a guess which is very debatable

According to truegroup, everything NASA say and publish is 100% true.

[truegroup]

According to truegroup, everything NASA say and publish is 100% true.

Nope. According to me they are a government space travel agency. There is the same level of secrecy and corruption as with any organisation.

As for suggesting a whole space program is faked, because someone 'is sure' they are under NWO control, cobblers. I like seeing proof, and since the level of proof on a Moon landing hoax is zero so far, I'm not holding my breath.

[redman]

Nope. According to me they are a government space travel agency. There is the same level of secrecy and corruption as with any organisation.

As for suggesting a whole space program is faked, because someone 'is sure' they are under NWO control, cobblers. I like seeing proof, and since the level of proof on a Moon landing hoax is zero so far, I'm not holding my breath.

Well that's where you are dead wrong.

You say you like to see proof, and then back up everything NASA comes out with.

You come on a conspiratorial website and post over 4000 times about the same shit, nigh on every day, which just so happens to go with the official story every fooking time.


Face facts, you're full of shit. NASA shit.

[redman]

Nope. According to me they are a government space travel agency. There is the same level of secrecy and corruption as with any organisation.

As for suggesting a whole space program is faked, because someone 'is sure' they are under NWO control, cobblers. I like seeing proof, and since the level of proof on a Moon landing hoax is zero so far, I'm not holding my breath.

Who said the whole space program is faked ?? I sure fucking never.


I do believe a lot of photo's are fakes and fucked about with, and I think the live footage feed we got was fake as fuck to.

But the whole space program, nah, wouldn't surprise me if the sad sadistic twats were mining the moon as we speak. One thing is for sure if they were, we wouldn't hear a fucking thing about it ' officially '.

[ianw]

Please explain how it isn't proof. Detailed analysis please of how they took a static scanned black and white image and magically made it into a high resolution photograph, one of very many, then magically used that same photo to create moving pictures of the Earth rotating.

Thats real easy and its been pointed out on numerous occasions, but for some strange reason you remain fixated on the essa mosaics.

Launched in November 1967, the ATS-3 was in service for 34 years before finally being decommissioned in 2001. Among its widest-known achievements are the first full-disk, colour Earth images transmitted from a satellite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-3

[truegroup]

Well that's where you are dead wrong.

Says you. And since I have yet to see you make an eloquent factual point on this subject or any other for that matter, without the customary effing and blinding, I think I will disregard your uninformed opinion.

As for me being in a minority, the last thing this forum needs is a bunch of back slapping nodding dogs who all agree with each other. Disagreement breeds debate, the fact that people chose to ignore factually presented eveidence corroborated over and over, against their own illogical fixed opinion is not my problem.

I couldn't give two small guffs what you think, or anybody else who agrees with you. I debate stuff based on my knowledge base, you seem to argue on emotion, with nothing but hot air to back it up.

[frenat]

Thats real easy and its been pointed out on numerous ovations, but for some strange reason you remain fixated on the essa mosaics.
How is a satellite that doesn't provide video and ONLY looks at the Western hemisphere supposed to work when they had video of other hemispheres?

[ianw]

How is a satellite that doesn't provide video and ONLY looks at the Western hemisphere supposed to work when they had video of other hemispheres?

Nasa never did show footage of earth moving.
I can only find clips about 15 seconds long edited together to make the footage.
The temporal resolution of the ATS satellite was one frame in twenty minutes,
so it did provide images that could be strung together as a 'video' thou slower than the temporal resolution of the more modern satellites.
The modern satellites have a slow temporal resolution in comparison to a video camera.
The earth dont move much in 15 seconds of out of focus footage provided by nasa if at all.
Since the ATS satellite took full earth images it goes without saying the images contained both hemispheres.

[frenat]

Nasa never did show footage of earth moving.
I can only find clips about 15 seconds long edited together to make the footage.
Only because you only look online. Longer video is available from NASA or spacecraftfilms.com Your failure to look adequately doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The temporal resolution of the ATS satellite was one frame in twenty minutes,
so it did provide images that could be strung together as a 'video' thou slower than the temporal resolution of the more modern satellites.
The modern satellites have a slow temporal resolution in comparison to a video camera.
The earth dont move much in 15 seconds of out of focus footage provided by nasa if at all.
Since the ATS satellite took full earth images it goes without saying the images contained both hemispheres.
Do you even know what geostationary means? The satellite you THINK gave the images was in geostationary orbit, ALWAYS looking ONLY at the Western hemisphere. So no, it does NOT go without say that the images contained both hemispheres. By "full Earth" it means it took a picture of the whole globe but still ALWAYS of the Western hemisphere so the images would ONLY work from the same angle and orientation. The VIDEO from Apollo was often from different angles and/or hemispheres. Your "theory" fails.

[truegroup]

Since the ATS satellite took full earth images it goes without saying the images contained both hemispheres.

It goes without saying that you have no idea about the subject matter. Geostationary satellites follow the same point on the Earth, so it goes without saying also, that their progressive pictures would show a terminator moving to the left as darkness approaches, whereas Apollo footage demonstrates the opposite, a fixed terminator and the Earth rotating to the right.

[ianw]

It goes without saying that you have no idea about the subject matter. Geostationary satellites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS3YEgIShc4)follow the same point on the Earth, so it goes without saying also, that their progressive pictures would show a terminator moving to the left as darkness approaches, whereas Apollo footage demonstrates the opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA), a fixed terminator and the Earth rotating to the right.

For the terminator to be Fixed as seen from the apollo that would mean the apollo would have to be travelling at a speed that would take it round the earth in twenty four hours.
Can you tell me how far away from the earth you think it was so I can calculate its speed ?
I think its going to be very fast.

[truegroup]

For the terminator to be Fixed as seen from the apollo that would mean the apollo would have to be travelling at a speed that would take it round the earth in twenty four hours.
Can you tell me how far away from the earth you think it was so I can calculate its speed ?
I think its going to be very fast.

With every post you make you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject matter.

For the terminator to be fixed, an object needs to be travelling AWAY from the Earth, regardless of their speed.:rolleyes:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/178/trolling.png

[ianw]

With every post you make you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject matter.

For the terminator to be fixed, an object needs to be travelling AWAY from the Earth, regardless of their speed.:rolleyes:

So it must of been flying towards the sun other wise the earth they was looking at would be dark.
At 45 degrees like your diagram that would put a quarter of the earth in the dark .It's not what the nasa footage says

But yet they landed on a bright moon.
If they was flying away what widow was they looking out of, the rear ?

[truegroup]

So it must of been flying towards the sun other wise the earth they was looking at would be dark.

They were flying towards the Moon. The Sun is 93 million miles away:rolleyes:

But yet they landed on a bright moon.
Incredible. You don't think the Sun can light the Earth and Moon at the same time?

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3417/muttley.gif


If they was flying away what widow was they looking out of, the rear ?

Wow, that is your smart question is it? The side window. The craft is following an extreme Earth orbit, ie. elliptical. As can be seen from the camera footage, the camera is angled backwards, indicating the craft has followed an elliptical path, whilst at the same time the Earth has moved 10 hours through space in its own orbit of the Sun.

The moving away from the Earth is denoting a change in perspective of the terminator over 10-11 minutes during the GET 10 footage, over a much longer time(such as 20 hours later clearly noticeable on the GET 30 transmission) the terminator moves, since the Apollo has followed a trajectory around the Earth, albeit at great distance.

In the same 10 minute period, ESSA would show the teminator moving 2.5 degrees and the same section of the Earth.

Here is the whole thing explained:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

[truegroup]

At 45 degrees like your diagram that would put a quarter of the earth in the dark

My diagram is a simple demonstration showing your contention to be brainless:rolleyes:

[redman]

It goes without saying that you have no idea about the subject matter. Geostationary satellites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS3YEgIShc4)follow the same point on the Earth, so it goes without saying also, that their progressive pictures would show a terminator moving to the left as darkness approaches, whereas Apollo footage demonstrates the opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA), a fixed terminator and the Earth rotating to the right.

It goes without saying, you're full of shit.


Always blabbering on about how NASA went to the moon and they told the truth about everything.

You're a fucking joke.


:D

[truegroup]

It goes without saying, you're full of shit. Always blabbering on about how NASA went to the moon and they told the truth about everything. You're a fucking joke. :D

Thanks. We went, get over it.

[philthy53]

Always blabbering on about how NASA went to the moon and they told the truth about everything.

Instead of filling each and every post you make, with gratuitous profanity, how about providing some evidence, real, testable evidence that shows NASA, didn't land men on the moon? Profanity laced posts really do not make you appear to know what you are talking about. Just the opposite in fact.

In actual, historical, provable, fact, NASA did land 12 men on the moon, just because you choose to hide away and dismiss it, doesn't make any less real.

Men have been to the moon, deal with it.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for your evidence.

Phil

[chris_morganti]

i can assure you that i'm 100% sure NASA is corupted.The first two are a guess which is very debatable

NASA was founded by NAZI's and occultists.

Research Jack Parsons ..

[phrased eyebrow]

Get over it. :p

Wenters.

[tsaritsin]

Secret Nasa - Real Footage - YouTube

made me chuckle :)

[pound]

Obviously the footage was fake, but that doesn't mean they didn't go. Now the question we need to ask is WHY would they fake the footage?

Remember what Bill Cooper said? Although Jim Marrs has now come out against Cooper's theory of the driver shooting JFK, that could have been a lucky scape goat of sorts, Cooper talked about a fake alien invasion which was actually led by the new world order elitists to unite the world. You know that military technology is never new. What you see is decades old. So what makes you think NASA's (German scientists) rockets were new when BMW (German corporation) had a patent for a flying saucer back in the twenties? (From what I remember, although the patent could have been faked).

I think they intentionally faked the footage because they didn't want you to see the real moon or what was going on there, although they probably could have filmed it in a barren area of the moon to make a better fake. I am more than certain they are there right now with ships you don't even know about. They probably didn't make a better fake on the real moon because they want you to think that they don't have the technology to go to the moon so when the fake invasion comes they can pretend they're not really the aliens who attack us and unite us under one world government ruled by the 'V's' which is really them. I think it sounds more likely than the story everyone seems to be promoting on here, that we just couldn't go to the moon, unless they wanted everyone to think they were much more powerful than they really are. People say we don't have the technology to prevent radiation but how do they know? Either way is equally logical and there is no way we can know accept through hints from insiders. And the insiders are in hollywood (V for example). Watch Jordan Maxwell's new presentation 'Dawn of a New Day' about the show V. But regarding the moon rocks that were brought back, yea they could have faked those to. They could be here from comets that struck the moon long ago and they 'snuck' it in. I'm just really getting tired of everyone trying to prove it was faked in post after post. I think we need to focus more on the why, although I am new hear so pardon me if I haven't read every post.


Great post. The scenario you speak of sounds totally plausible to me.

[philthy53]

Great post. The scenario you speak of sounds totally plausible to me.

Unfortunately, for you, there is nothing in the post that even comes close to anything that's a truth.

Phil

[pound]

Unfortunately, for you, there is nothing in the post that even comes close to anything that's a truth.

Phil

Oh that's it, you've totally changed my mind. *sarcasm*

Pound

[ragnarok]

NASA is a cool guy. He goes to moon and doesn't afraid of nothing. Even Van Halen and his belt.

[tsaritsin]

NASA is a cool guy. He goes to moon and doesn't afraid of nothing. Even Van Halen and his belt.

What are you hinting at Rag :)

Naughty Radiation,

Not taking sides or anything, but NASA are still doing experiments concerning "Cosmic Radiation", 40 years after they went to the moon.

Shouldnt all the Astro guys be dead from cancer by now,

just a thought,

need a nice cup of tea in my care cup c[_] :rolleyes:

[koagula]

Obviously the footage was fake

No, the footage wasn't fake.

[tsaritsin]

No, the footage wasn't fake.

Soo, they were prancing around, on the Moon, taking vid footage, photo's, collecting rocks, falling over, doing experiments and driving buggies.

I seem remember a space walk a few years back that got aborted due to "fatigue", that was in orbit, from the space shuttle.

Any "fatigue" reported on the Moon ?, just asking, just a thought.

[bertl]

Space Shuttle astronauts are a bunch of wusses compared to the Apollo astronauts. :D

[koagula]

soo, they were prancing around, on the moon, taking vid footage, photo's, collecting rocks, falling over, doing experiments and driving buggies.

I seem remember a space walk a few years back that got aborted due to "fatigue", that was in orbit, from the space shuttle.

Any "fatigue" reported on the moon ?, just asking, just a thought.

fail.

[tsaritsin]

fail.

lol, yeah you just failed to answer, dickhead

[koagula]

lol, yeah you just failed to answer, dickhead

Cool story, Bro!

[moving finger]

Thats real easy and its been pointed out on numerous occasions, but for some strange reason you remain fixated on the essa mosaics.

And for some reason, you ignore them. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, your logic is flawed and your understanding absent. Are you still insisting these were digital images done in photoshop?

I posted a picture from Apollo 8 showing the whole Earth, and a newspaper with that picture taken the day after. The ESSA 7 image I posted wasn't completed until the newspaper went to press. How did they do that?

How did Apollo get whole disk images of areas not covered by ATS-3, like Australia, for example?

How did they manage to whole disk images from low earth orbit, when you need to be a minimum of 22000 miles out to do that?

How did Apollo get colour images from ATS-3 when its colour capability failed 3 months after launch neither ESSA nor NIMBUS had colour?

How did NOAA manage to fool the 80 countries that received their satellite images through their own receiving stations?

Originally Posted by tsaritsin
soo, they were prancing around, on the moon, taking vid footage, photo's, collecting rocks, falling over, doing experiments and driving buggies.

I seem remember a space walk a few years back that got aborted due to "fatigue", that was in orbit, from the space shuttle.

Any "fatigue" reported on the moon ?, just asking, just a thought.

Yes. The first Apollo mission to the moon, Apollo 8, had its experimental programmed curtailed after the mission commander order the crew to sleep, rather than risk making mistakes. through fatigue.

[moving finger]

Yeah yeah

Of course we went, past the Van Allen belts, in a shit rocket built in the 1960's...

And then of course we never went back again after the 1970's because there wasn't any money around to do such in the 80's or 90's was there? I mean, NASA, Goldman Sachs, etc., they always struggle to get money don't they?

And of course we learned everything we needed to know when we were there.. I mean, why bother diving in the ocean again huh?

All those successful missions to the moon.....

Anyone that seriously believes we went to the moon is a friggin gimp.

As for the usual shill/unenlightened doo doo brains claiming that videos of the earth and its weather prove we went. Get real. They didn't go to the moon. They did go into earth's orbit. The end.

Shill? You might want to try proving that. You won't be able to, and you won't even try. If that's your best argument, give up.

Unenlightened? Really? You show zero evidence of having done any research into the subject and you may as well just be a ventriloquist's dummy, all you do is repeat the same line every time. If you don't believe that the satellite photos prove anything, say why not. Put up or shut up.

The difficult bit is getting to and returning from earth orbit. Getting to the moon is easy after after that. If they had the technology to get to orbit, they had the technology to go the rest of the way.

[porridge]

Cool story, Bro!

NASA bot? :confused:

[tsaritsin]

NASA bot? :confused:

lol, dunno, he answered with "fail" to a question, which kinda makes me think he's just a shill.

[dreamscope]

It was not the Bulgarians, it was the Dutch. They even brought rock back but they were persuaded by the Americans to say they got them from NASA.

The Dutch launch pads can still be seen in north Holland.

Are you sure those aren't old V1 / V2 launch sites? I'm sure people would have noticed...

[saty]

if Nasa landed that doesn't mean there isn't life on the Moon.
You can land in a dryest desert on Earth and say there is no life on it.Think about it

[r4pture]

I just think that if they really did go to the moon, how comes they havent been there ever since? The last mission as i recall was in 1972, and since then there were no manned moon landings.. why?? If they had the technology back then why cant it be done now with even better technology?? just a thought...


D
In my own personal opinion I thinks it's not a case of not being able to but more along the lines of not allowed back up there. If there is something up there they didn't want us to see ( hence faked footage ) I can only guess at it being untelligent life or technology. Maybe that life or tech sent us away with our tail between our legs. Just a thought musings if you will

[koagula]

Soo, they were prancing around, on the Moon, taking vid footage, photo's, collecting rocks, falling over, doing experiments and driving buggies.

I seem remember a space walk a few years back that got aborted due to "fatigue", that was in orbit, from the space shuttle.

Any "fatigue" reported on the Moon ?, just asking, just a thought.

There is such a thing as sleep... However, apart from the vitality gained from the latter, these guys train for years to be fit enough to do their job. Obviously there is fatigue, however, considering the condition these people are in, I am sure that they were able to carry out their work on the moon. Furthermore, I expect that adrenaline levels were very high, which would have added to their physical endurance.

The problems that they would have encountered were, muscular atrophy along with a loss of bone mass.

I'm not a shill, nor am I a NASA Bot.

[runlikehell]

lol, dunno, he answered with "fail" to a question, which kinda makes me think he's just a shill.



I'm not a shill, nor am I a NASA Bot.

if you's two wanna get all personal with each other then can you do it in the forum singles thread or via PM ;)

[tsaritsin]

There is such a thing as sleep... However, apart from the vitality gained from the latter, these guys train for years to be fit enough to do their job. Obviously there is fatigue, however, considering the condition these people are in, I am sure that they were able to carry out their work on the moon. Furthermore, I expect that adrenaline levels were very high, which would have added to their physical endurance.

The problems that they would have encountered were, muscular atrophy along with a loss of bone mass.

I'm not a shill, nor am I a NASA Bot.

Yes, and by the same reasoning the astronaut who aborted a space walk due to fatigue had also had years of training, and was also wearing a space suit that was about 40 years in advance of the space suits used on the Moon, and the space suits make a big difference.

I am firmly sitting on the fence with this subject, 50/50 :)

[truegroup]

Yes, and by the same reasoning the astronaut who aborted a space walk due to fatigue had also had years of training, and was also wearing a space suit that was about 40 years in advance of the space suits used on the Moon, and the space suits make a big difference.

I am firmly sitting on the fence with this subject, 50/50 :)

Just a thought..

Perhaps you should provide a link to the incident you refer to. We can see if the reason was something other than just normal tiredness, and what they were doing.

[phrased eyebrow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ecBbSIdBKI

made me chuckle :)

No wonder there was no landing in 1973. :p Entertaining stuff. Thanks for the link.

[koagula]

Yes, and by the same reasoning the astronaut who aborted a space walk due to fatigue had also had years of training, and was also wearing a space suit that was about 40 years in advance of the space suits used on the Moon, and the space suits make a big difference.

I am firmly sitting on the fence with this subject, 50/50 :)

Ignorance knows no bounds.

EPIC FAIL...

[phrased eyebrow]

I heard today about the space-walker with something causing a sting of pain his eye. And he was on a space walk of 5+ hours or more... Did you read about that? Looked pretty intense. 2001 intense. That guy definitely showed he has the right stuff.

And the right equipment. So it's not unreasonable to believe that 40+ years of technology has made it easier, too?
Because they were having a good ol' time in those sanctioned Apollo videos. Football follies fun. Why land's sake. Didn't they appreciate what hardship they'd endured by comparison?

[moving finger]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/25/science-spacewalk-feustel-fincke-nasa-iss.html

A spacewalking astronaut's eye pain, which almost forced him to retreat into the safety of the International Space Station, was caused by soap, NASA reports.

NASA astronaut Andrew Feustel said it stung "like crazy." But several minutes later, he said he was feeling better and the third spacewalk of shuttle Endeavour's final voyage continued as planned for about seven hours.

[graflok]

I posted a picture from Apollo 8 showing the whole Earth, and a newspaper with that picture taken the day after. The ESSA 7 image I posted wasn't completed until the newspaper went to press. How did they do that?

How did Apollo get whole disk images of areas not covered by ATS-3, like Australia, for example?

How did they manage to whole disk images from low earth orbit, when you need to be a minimum of 22000 miles out to do that?

How did Apollo get colour images from ATS-3 when its colour capability failed 3 months after launch neither ESSA nor NIMBUS had colour?


None of this proves Apollo landed astronauts on the moon. Taking photos
from space isn't landing astronauts on the moon -- it's just taking photos
from space. You don't need an astronaut to take a photo from space. The
idea that the photos were taken by the Apollo mission is just what NASA
said. They could have been taken via other hardware not publicly revealed.
Are you aware that people can tell lies?

How did NOAA manage to fool the 80 countries that received their satellite images through their own receiving stations?


It wasn't necessary to "fool 80 countries." Just the 80 fools who received
the images from NASA and believed what they were told about them as you
did. How hard is that to do?

NASA: "Here are the latest images from (snicker) Apollo."
local idiot: "Wow -- cool! Thanks!"

[truegroup]

None of this proves Apollo landed astronauts on the moon. Taking photos
from space isn't landing astronauts on the moon -- it's just taking photos
from space. You don't need an astronaut to take a photo from space. The
idea that the photos were taken by the Apollo mission is just what NASA
said. They could have been taken via other hardware not publicly revealed.


Nonsense. The pictures match the weather. The video matches the weather and pictures and shows the Earth rotating in realtime. The video was taken from the CSM clearly showing astronauts in the capsule, and was clearly taken by an astronaut panning the camera and moving around.


It wasn't necessary to "fool 80 countries." Just the 80 fools who received
the images from NASA and believed what they were told about them as you
did. How hard is that to do?

NASA: "Here are the latest images from (snicker) Apollo."
local idiot: "Wow -- cool! Thanks!"

Simplistic pish ignoring the hundreds of other things, such as lasers, radio signals, telemetry and independent tracking....and on and on.

[brucel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ecBbSIdBKI

made me chuckle :)

too funny. :D

[graflok]

Nonsense. The pictures match the weather. The video matches the weather and pictures and shows the Earth rotating in realtime. The video was taken from the CSM clearly showing astronauts in the capsule, and was clearly taken by an astronaut panning the camera and moving around.

Pictures of Earth don't prove the Apollo astronauts did anything. Taking
photos does not require the presence of a human being.



Simplistic pish ignoring the hundreds of other things, such as lasers, radio signals, telemetry and independent tracking....and on and on.

None of which proves the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. Lasers were
bounced off the moon without "reflectors" years prior to Apollo. And, radio signals,
telemetry and "independent" tracking don't prove the Apollo astronauts went to
the moon either -- all can be provided via other means. They're not "proof" that
those guys went to the moon or did anything at all.

Simplistic? Yes -- the truth is simple.

[tsaritsin]

too funny. :D

Glad you liked :)

And remember, many a true word, spoken in jest :)

[moving finger]

None of this proves Apollo landed astronauts on the moon. Taking photos
from space isn't landing astronauts on the moon -- it's just taking photos
from space. You don't need an astronaut to take a photo from space. The
idea that the photos were taken by the Apollo mission is just what NASA
said. They could have been taken via other hardware not publicly revealed.
Are you aware that people can tell lies?



It wasn't necessary to "fool 80 countries." Just the 80 fools who received
the images from NASA and believed what they were told about them as you
did. How hard is that to do?

NASA: "Here are the latest images from (snicker) Apollo."
local idiot: "Wow -- cool! Thanks!"

You've clearly done hours and hours of research on how the satellites worked and done loads of your own work on the subject so perhaps you'd like to explain how the satellite photos were taken? Or maybe you don't know anything about the subject and are just displaying a knee jerk reaction to something that you don't understand but threatens your entire world construct by proving you were wrong all this time.

Where did I say 80 people? I said 80 countries. There were over 300 receiving stations in those 80 countries, and it was not a one man job per receiving station. The satellite photos were not sent by NASA, they were transmitted from orbit, all you need is a simple aerial (not even a satellite dish, just an FM aerial) to pick them up and the equipment to translate the signal into a TV picture. NASA were not the only people to have satellites up there - the USSR, China and many European countries had their own too and they never ever once came out and said "our photos are different to yours - how come?". NASA never ever claimed any matches with the weather on satellite images. Some people have looked at the weather maps at the time, and some at comparing live TV & apollo, but the first time satellite images and apollo images were compared was right here on this site, by me.

Those satellite images were available worldwide (I'm in contact with the Australian Meteorology Bureau to get copies of the ones they have in their archives), and were used in weather forecasting and meteorological research. They are not made up, they are absolutely genuine. They match exactly photographs and videos(including live TV) taken in space at the same time. Some of those photos & videos even have astronauts in them. If you think they were faked you need to describe how.

If you think they were done on a computer at the time, you need to find the software they to fake the images. Good luck with that because photoshop wasn't around, they did all the image storing on tape, there were no jpg or bmp images, and according to the anti-apollo camp the computers around couldn't even point a spacecraft at the moon, never mind process complex digital information. Dilemma there - were the computers powerful enough or not?

The simple fact is: the apollo photographs were taken in space, by astronauts, when they said they were taken, where they said they were taken, and the weather patterns visible in the images are proof of that. Suck it up.

[phrased eyebrow]

Pictures of Earth don't prove the Apollo astronauts did anything. Taking photos does not require the presence of a human being.

I've seen enough circumstantial evidence to doubt the "fact" that the landings occurred. But I'm certain the above statement is accurate.

[graflok]

You've clearly done hours and hours of research on how the satellites worked and done loads of your own work on the subject so perhaps you'd like to explain how the satellite photos were taken?

Those photos aren't evidence the Apollo astronauts went to moon so why
bother? You could say they are evidence that a camera was placed in space
but they are in no way evidence the Apollo astronauts had anything to do
with them. Obviously, NASA has placed unmanned cameras in space before
and since so what is so hard to figure out about how it could be done? A
school child could tell you how.



Where did I say 80 people? I said 80 countries.

Yes, NASA fooled most of the entire planet. Tell me something we don't
already know. So what? The public believes whatever their TV sets tell them.
We already know this. But that doesn't turn those photos into evidence that
the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.


There were over 300 receiving stations in those 80 countries, and it was not a one man job per receiving station. The satellite photos were not sent by NASA, they were transmitted from orbit, all you need is a simple aerial (not even a satellite dish, just an FM aerial) to pick them up and the equipment to translate the signal into a TV picture. NASA were not the only people to have satellites up there - the USSR, China and many European countries had their own too and they never ever once came out and said "our photos are different to yours - how come?". NASA never ever claimed any matches with the weather on satellite images. Some people have looked at the weather maps at the time, and some at comparing live TV & apollo, but the first time satellite images and apollo images were compared was right here on this site, by me.

Sorry, it's still not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
Signals from space are just signals from space. NASA and Russia have
been sending signals from space without human presence as far back as
the 1950s at least. So what? You don't need a human presence to send
signals from space. Signals from space are not evidence that the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon or that any human who was located in space
at the time of transmission was involved in sending them. Signals from space
are only evidence that signals were sent from space. Nothing more.


Those satellite images were available worldwide (I'm in contact with the Australian Meteorology Bureau to get copies of the ones they have in their archives), and were used in weather forecasting and meteorological research. They are not made up, they are absolutely genuine. They match exactly photographs and videos(including live TV) taken in space at the same time. Some of those photos & videos even have astronauts in them. If you think they were faked you need to describe how.

So what if they were available worldwide? Even if they were available galaxy-
wide they're still not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
They're only evidence that some photos were taken from space and, as we
know, human presence is not necessary to take photos.


If you think they were done on a computer at the time, you need to find the software they to fake the images. Good luck with that because photoshop wasn't around, they did all the image storing on tape, there were no jpg or bmp images, and according to the anti-apollo camp the computers around couldn't even point a spacecraft at the moon, never mind process complex digital information. Dilemma there - were the computers powerful enough or not?

Done at a computer from home? Who said that? Not me.


The simple fact is: the apollo photographs were taken in space, by
astronauts, when they said they were taken, where they said they were taken, and the weather patterns visible in the images are proof of that. Suck it up.

This is where your logic breaks down. You can argue that the photos were
taken from space but there is absolutely no evidence or proof that the Apollo
astronauts (or any human for that matter) took those photos from space.

You're treating NASA's word as evidence that the Apollo astronauts took
the photos but it is NASA's honesty that is in question here as they are the
accused hoaxers. Of course, NASA would say the Apollo Mission took the photos!
It wouldn't be much of a hoax if they didn't say such things!

As I've said over and over, they are simply photos that appear to be taken
from space but human presence is not required to take photos so they are
not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. You can huff and
puff all you like but you can't make them into something they're not.

[truegroup]

Those photos aren't evidence the Apollo astronauts went to moon so why
bother? You could say they are evidence that a camera was placed in space
but they are in no way evidence the Apollo astronauts had anything to do
with them. Obviously, NASA has placed unmanned cameras in space before
and since so what is so hard to figure out about how it could be done? A
school child could tell you how.

Come on then - explain. All you are doing is your typical armwaving pish.

The pictures are taken of a craft that is moving progressively further away from Earth. They correspond to the trajectory taken by Apollo 11. The pictures show a progressively rotating Earth, and weather patterns altering very slightly.

Then there is the video. The video clearly taken by an astronaut matches the photos. The video matches the weather. The video can be demonstrated to show a moving Earth.

Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

http://www.apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html


Sorry, it's still not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
Signals from space are just signals from space. NASA and Russia have
been sending signals from space without human presence as far back as
the 1950s at least. So what? You don't need a human presence to send
signals from space. Signals from space are not evidence that the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon or that any human who was located in space
at the time of transmission was involved in sending them. Signals from space are only evidence that signals were sent from space. Nothing more.

More simplistic pish. The signals didn't just come from space, they came from a craft heading in that direction with doppler shift in the signal. When they arrived at the Moon, they then split into 2 signals. One in orbit with doppler shift and disappeared behind the Moon, and one from a fixed point on the Sea of Tranquility. All tracked by numerous countries and amateurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Done at a computer from home? Who said that? Not me.
Nope you didn't. What are you saying then? By way of explanation rather than more armwaving?

How exactly did they get current weather patterns to match photography and video from Apollo 11 on the way to the Moon and in orbit around the Moon?



This is where your logic breaks down. You can argue that the photos were taken from space but there is absolutely no evidence or proof that the Apollo astronauts (or any human for that matter) took those photos from space.

But there is proof. We have 3 transmissions showing the CSM footage of the Earth, clearly taken by an astronaut, showing what should be shown, matching Stellarium (and anything else!) matching the pictures, matching the weather.

As I've said over and over, they are simply photos that appear to be taken from space but human presence is not required to take photos so they are not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. You can huff and puff all you like but you can't make them into something they're not.

It is you who is huffing and puffing, providing no evidence or explanation. I am expecting more of the same responses.:rolleyes:

[tsaritsin]

Still sitting on the fence :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

All this proves is that something was in orbit and took pictures of Earth, proves nothing else.

There is a big difference between going into orbit, travelling to the Moon and then landing on the Moon, 3 distinct phases.

1. Into Orbit,
2. Travel to Moon,
3. Landing on the Moon,

I want conclusive proof of all 3 stages :)

[truegroup]

Still sitting on the fence :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

All this proves is that something was in orbit and took pictures of Earth, proves nothing else.

Errrr... not quite. The stills are from video footage actually used by hoax conspiracists showing it taken by Buzz Aldrin in the CSM. They suggest it was a shot of LEO or a transparency. Just click the first link in my signature for a clear and concise explanation why neither of these stand up to scrutiny.

To take 2 pictures 10 minutes apart with no terminator movement is provably IMPOSSIBLE from ANY orbit. Orbit involves going around the planet, or for geosynchronous satellites, stationary with the same Earth view.

There is a big difference between going into orbit, travelling to the Moon and then landing on the Moon, 3 distinct phases.

1. Into Orbit,
2. Travel to Moon,
3. Landing on the Moon,

I want conclusive proof of all 3 stages :)

Then you need to read up on your subject. Do you dispute the Saturn V made orbit? The post by Moving Finger shows irrefutably(by anybody without a fixed belief system - not you it would appear:)) that they were travelling to the Moon.

Landing on the Moon, has plenty of video footage on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=A754DE37029E57AF

This is a good video:
The Apollo 11 LM Eagle's Descent As Seen In Google Moon - YouTube

Some reading material:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
http://www.landingapollo.com/

If you suspect a hoax, try listing your best evidence for scrutiny, and I will tell you why it is nonsense, or alternatively go here and read refutations for most of it:
http://www.clavius.org/

[graflok]

Come on then - explain. All you are doing is your typical armwaving pish.

I will try to make it as simple as possible for you.


The pictures are taken of a craft that is moving progressively further away from Earth. They correspond to the trajectory taken by Apollo 11. ...

Trajectories of objects are not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to
the moon. Moving objects can have trajectories with or without humans
being present.



The pictures show a progressively rotating Earth, and weather patterns altering very slightly.

Yes, very pretty.


Then there is the video. The video clearly taken by an astronaut matches the photos.

The video NASA says was taken by an astronaut while in space, uh huh.


The video matches the weather. The video can be demonstrated to show a moving Earth.

Cool.




The signals didn't just come from space, they came from a craft heading in
that direction with doppler shift in the signal.

Doppler shifts are not evidence the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. "A
craft heading to the moon" is not the same as astronauts heading to the
moon. A craft does not necessarily require humans. NASA sends lots of
craft all over the place with no humans aboard. So do other countries.

I didn't say NASA didn't send a craft to the moon. I said the photos posted
earlier are not evidence that NASA sent the Apollo astronauts (or any
humans) there. Humans are not required to take photos or videos from
space.


When they arrived at the Moon, they then split into 2 signals. One in orbit with doppler shift and disappeared behind the Moon, and one from a fixed point on the Sea of Tranquility. All tracked by numerous countries and amateurs.

Groovy but still not evidence the Apollo astronauts went to the
moon. All can be accomplished without humans being present in space.


Nope you didn't. What are you saying then? By way of explanation rather than more armwaving?

My arms are right here at my side where they've always been. I see no reason
to wave them.


How exactly did they get current weather patterns to match photography and video from Apollo 11 on the way to the Moon and in orbit around the Moon?

Whether the data "matches" or not -- it's still not evidence the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon.

It would only show that 2 photos/videos apparently taken from space match
but no humans are required for that feat.


But there is proof. We have 3 transmissions showing the CSM footage of the Earth, clearly taken by an astronaut, showing what should be shown, matching Stellarium (and anything else!) matching the pictures, matching the weather.

Explain how the footage is "clearly taken by an astronaut" while in space.

Is it because NASA says it was taken by an astronaut while in space?
Is is because NASA gave us a photo of an astronaut taking the footage
"from space"? Is there some other reason? Please explain.


It is you who is huffing and puffing, providing no evidence or explanation. I am expecting more of the same responses.:rolleyes:

You want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence? Very funny. :D

I'm providing no evidence because there is no evidence and that is my
point. There is no evidence in your data of the Apollo astronauts going to
the moon. :)

[truegroup]

Trajectories of objects are not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. Moving objects can have trajectories with or without humans being present.

OK, I acknowledge that.

Yes, very pretty.

Yep, a craft heading to the Moon. We are in agreement.:D

The video NASA says was taken by an astronaut while in space, uh huh.

No, the video that has weightless astronauts in space.

Clearly in space. Dialogue matches the received dialogue by numerous tracking stations and independent radio hams.

Apollo 11 zero gravity demonstrations - YouTube

Apollo 11 half way to the Moon - YouTube

Cool.

The video was shot by a human in a weightless environment, it matches weather and photography. Now let's try answering that point again shall we?

Doppler shifts are not evidence the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. "A craft heading to the moon" is not the same as astronauts heading to the moon. A craft does not necessarily require humans. NASA sends lots of craft all over the place with no humans aboard. So do other countries.

I didn't say NASA didn't send a craft to the moon. I said the photos posted
earlier are not evidence that NASA sent the Apollo astronauts (or any
humans) there. Humans are not required to take photos or videos from
space.

The radio signals show delay consistent with the distance. You are suggesting some sort of relay signal to a moving craft from Earth or elsewhere, that would involve delays that do not match. You are also ignoring the fact that the craft split in two and one of the signals comes from the Sea of Tranquility.

Try again.

Groovy but still not evidence the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. All can be accomplished without humans being present in space.

Explain how they faked a signal from the Moon. You suggest the craft was unmanned in orbit, but then again the delay would not match the interchange if they used a relay.

My arms are right here at my side where they've always been. I see no reason to wave them.

Armwaving is where somebody posts without saying anything substantial, as per your last post.

Whether the data "matches" or not -- it's still not evidence the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon.

Then you need to explain how weather patterns at the given time in question could be relayed along with fake telemetry and video that matches the weather can be faked. The video shows realtime Earth movement.

Try again.

It only shows that 2 photos/videos apparently taken from space match but no humans are required for that feat.

The photos are stills from video provably shot in a weightless environment.

Explain how the footage is "clearly taken by an astronaut" while in space.

Is it because NASA says it was taken by an astronaut while in space?
Is is because NASA gave us a photo of an astronaut taking the footage
"from space"? Is there some other reason? Please explain.

The simple explanation is that you like 99% of all HBs hasn't even seen the 3 Lunar coast transmissions, clearly weightless, clearly showing Earth from distance, clearly filmed by Buzz Aldrin and matching weather patterns.



You want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence? Very funny. :D

I'm providing no evidence because there is no evidence and that is my
point. There is no evidence in your data of the Apollo astronauts going to
the moon. :)

Going all daft and semantic now? I mean evidence of a fake. Since there is none that holds up to scrutiny, I shall expect either repeated rubbish or a dismissive reply.

[graflok]

No, the video that has weightless astronauts in space.

Well, the trouble with videos of "weightless astronauts in space" is that
astronauts don't need to be in space to be weightless. There are aircraft
like the "Vomit Comet" that simulate weightlessness and aren't anywhere
near the moon or space at all.


Clearly in space. Dialogue matches the received dialogue by numerous tracking stations and independent radio hams.

Maybe they are "in space" in that video or maybe they're not. Astronauts
don't have to be in space to be weightless. But, in any case, being "in
space" isn't being on the moon and I have spoken only about evidence (or
lack of it) that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. I didn't say
they didn't go "in space" so your argument once again is not evidence that
the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.

And, as for radio hams listening in, once again, voices over radio are not
proof that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. Radio signals can
be transmitted from most anywhere without humans being present.


The video was shot by a human in a weightless environment, it matches weather and photography. Now let's try answering that point again shall we?

Which video and what are you using for evidence that "the video was shot
by a human in a weightless environment" and why are we talking about that
when this discussion is about the photo that moving finger posted?


The radio signals show delay consistent with the distance.

No humans required.


You are suggesting some sort of relay signal to a moving craft from Earth or elsewhere, that would involve delays that do not match.

Are you saying this couldn't be simulated with hardware alone? I doubt that.


You are also ignoring the fact that the craft split in two and one of the signals comes from the Sea of Tranquility.

Still no humans required even if it really did come from the moon.


Explain how they faked a signal from the Moon. You suggest the craft was unmanned in orbit, but then again the delay would not match the interchange if they used a relay.

I don't know how they faked signals from the moon and I also don't know
how the magician sawed the lady in half but I do know that the magician
didn't really saw the lady in half and, in much the same way, I also know
that the Apollo astronauts didn't really go to the moon.

I know this because of the mountain of evidence that points to fraud and
merely because I can't replicate every detail of how those criminals pulled
off their hoax does not mean they are not guilty, something you NASA
huggers don't seem to like to confront. Fortunately it's not necessary
to explain how a criminal performed all his crimes in order to hang him. :)


Armwaving is where somebody posts without saying anything substantial, as per your last post.

Do you always go to so much trouble replying to posts that say nothing
substantial?


Then you need to explain how weather patterns at the given time in question could be relayed along with fake telemetry and video that matches the weather can be faked. The video shows realtime Earth movement.

Unless you can prove that humans in space are required to do the above,
that is, that it couldn't be done with hardware alone, then I don't see that
I need to explain anything.


The photos are stills from video provably shot in a weightless environment.

I'll take your word that they were taken in a "weightless environment" but
we were talking about the necessity of human presence in space while
taking them and the fact that the stills are not evidence that the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon.


The simple explanation is that you like 99% of all HBs hasn't even seen the 3 Lunar coast transmissions, clearly weightless, clearly showing Earth from distance, clearly filmed by Buzz Aldrin and matching weather patterns.

... and still clearly not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.

[truegroup]

Well, the trouble with videos of "weightless astronauts in space" is that
astronauts don't need to be in space to be weightless. There are aircraft
like the "Vomit Comet" that simulate weightlessness and aren't anywhere
near the moon or space at all.

So you are suggesting that a diving plane with 30 seconds of weightlessness, followed by 2g as it pulls out of a dive was the explanation for minutes on end of continuous weightless footage?

Bullshit.

Maybe they are "in space" in that video or maybe they're not. Astronauts don't have to be in space to be weightless. But, in any case, being "in space" isn't being on the moon and I have spoken only about evidence (or lack of it) that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. I didn't say they didn't go "in space" so your argument once again is not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.

Slowly but surely we are getting there. You kind of admit they 'could be in space':rolleyes:

And, as for radio hams listening in, once again, voices over radio are not proof that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. Radio signals can
be transmitted from most anywhere without humans being present.

They were pointing their receivers at where Apollo 11 was. That suggests to anybody who understands radio signals, that it wasn't anywhere else but where they said it was.

Which video and what are you using for evidence that "the video was shot by a human in a weightless environment" and why are we talking about that when this discussion is about the photo that moving finger posted?

The two videos in my first response to you! This discussion is wherever the discussion goes. MF's analysis proves the footage and pictures were shot in space.


Are you saying this couldn't be simulated with hardware alone? I doubt that.

What you doubt is irelevant. Show how it was done.

Still no humans required even if it really did come from the moon.
And more armwaving. You fail to point out how it can be done without humans, or the entire compliment of mission control noticing the incorrect delay.

I don't know how they faked signals from the moon

Conceding defeat.

I also know that the Apollo astronauts didn't really go to the moon.
Knowledge without proof, how quaint. Your uninformed opinion is noted.

I know this because of the mountain of evidence that points to fraud and merely because I can't replicate every detail of how those criminals pulled
off their hoax does not mean they are not guilty, something you NASA
huggers don't seem to like to confront. Fortunately it's not necessary
to explain how a criminal performed all his crimes in order to hang him. :)

The mountain of evidence.:rolleyes: In reality a small pile of poo. Debunked to death by anybody who has bothered to educate themselves.

Unless you can prove that humans in space are required to do the above, that is, that it couldn't be done with hardware alone, then I don't see thatI need to explain anything.

I just did, and you CAN'T explain it, you just admitted it.

I'll take your word that they were taken in a "weightless environment" but we were talking about the necessity of human presence in space while
taking them and the fact that the stills are not evidence that the Apollo
astronauts went to the moon.

They are evidence that astronauts travelled to the Moon. The stills I presented come from live footage transmitted to Earth matching CURRENT weather patterns.

For the 3rd time, explain how this was done, or shall we compare it to the sawing the lady in half trick, because you don't know:rolleyes:


... and still clearly not evidence that the Apollo astronauts went to the moon.

No, it is clear evidence that you, having spent zero time researching this subject are not in any position to say what is and what is not shot in a weightless environment. You argue from a point of opinion, and uninformed at that.

[redman]

So you are suggesting that a diving plane with 30 seconds of weightlessness, followed by 2g as it pulls out of a dive was the explanation for minutes on end of continuous weightless footage?

Bullshit.



Slowly but surely we are getting there. You kind of admit they 'could be in space':rolleyes:



They were pointing their receivers at where Apollo 11 was. That suggests to anybody who understands radio signals, that it wasn't anywhere else but where they said it was.



The two videos in my first response to you! This discussion is wherever the discussion goes. MF's analysis proves the footage and pictures were shot in space.




What you doubt is irelevant. Show how it was done.


And more armwaving. You fail to point out how it can be done without humans, or the entire compliment of mission control noticing the incorrect delay.



Conceding defeat.


Knowledge without proof, how quaint. Your uninformed opinion is noted.



The mountain of evidence.:rolleyes: In reality a small pile of poo. Debunked to death by anybody who has bothered to educate themselves.



I just did, and you CAN'T explain it, you just admitted it.



They are evidence that astronauts travelled to the Moon. The stills I presented come from live footage transmitted to Earth matching CURRENT weather patterns.

For the 3rd time, explain how this was done, or shall we compare it to the sawing the lady in half trick, because you don't know:rolleyes:




No, it is clear evidence that you, having spent zero time researching this subject are not in any position to say what is and what is not shot in a weightless environment. You argue from a point of opinion, and uninformed at that.

Jarrah White completely owns your ass in every department when it comes to the moon landings.

I bet you can't stand him. lol

[graflok]

They were pointing their receivers at where Apollo 11 was. That suggests to anybody who understands radio signals, that it wasn't anywhere else but where they said it was.

The question isn't about where Apollo 11 was. It's about where
the Apollo astronauts were and your radio signals don't prove
that.


What you doubt is irelevant.


My goodness, you are strict!

Show how it was done.

I already told you I don't know how it was done. I know you
think (or perhaps wish is a better word) that not knowing
how the criminals did all their tricks will protect them
but it won't.


And more armwaving. You fail to point out how it can be done without humans, or the entire compliment of mission control noticing the incorrect delay.


See above comment.

Conceding defeat

Nope, just being honest. You might try it. Fortunateley for the honest among us,
not knowing how criminals do all their little deeds does not protect them from
discovering their guilt. :)

Knowledge without proof, how quaint. Your uninformed opinion is noted.

A concept, unfortunately, which you will likely never understand.

The mountain of evidence. In reality a small pile of poo. Debunked to death
by anybody who has bothered to educate themselves

If that were true there would be no need for you to be doing what you are so
desperately doing right now. From all indications I've seen skepticism over
the Apollo missions continues to grow amongst the public despite the phony
"proof," insults and pathetic attempts at bullying on internet forums across
the world. You are losing the battle to hide the truth, my friend, and I think
you know it.


They are evidence that astronauts travelled to the Moon. The stills I presented
come from live footage transmitted to Earth matching CURRENT weather patterns.

You're really stuck on those weather patterns aren't you? Obviously, you
think weather patterns are proof the Apollo guys went to the moon. Well,
you have a right to your opinion but I don't agree, sorry.


For the 3rd time, explain how this was done, or shall we compare it to the sawing the lady in half trick, because you don't know

Giving orders now are we? You should learn to relax. I think you're starting
to lose it.


No, it is clear evidence that you, having spent zero time researching this subject are not in any position to say what is and what is not shot in a weightless environment. You argue from a point of opinion, and uninformed at that.

http://www.smartstunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/barking-dog-alarm.jpg

[truegroup]

Jarrah White completely owns your ass in every department when it comes to the moon landings.

No he doesn't. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He still has a video up of where he fraudulently claimed his college teacher was a photogrammetry expert, who says differing shadow angles were caused by multiple light sources, when everything in the shot has a single shadow. He is none too bright.

I bet you can't stand him. lol

True. I can't stand him because he is an ignorant pillock. One who avoids forums like the plague because he would get his ass handed to him.;)

[truegroup]

http://www.smartstunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/barking-dog-alarm.jpg

Is that your proposed new avatar? :D

[graflok]

^ No, it's a drawing of a NASA scientist explaining the
Apollo Missions. :)

[redman]

No he doesn't. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He still has a video up of where he fraudulently claimed his college teacher was a photogrammetry expert, who says differing shadow angles were caused by multiple light sources, when everything in the shot has a single shadow. He is none too bright.



True. I can't stand him because he is an ignorant pillock. One who avoids forums like the plague because he would get his ass handed to him.;)

I've seen him on plenty of forums owning people like yourself.

[truegroup]

I've seen him on plenty of forums owning people like yourself.

Blah-de-blah. Name one forum, and his screen name.


Oh, and here's proof JW is a pork pie merchant:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1058984679&postcount=1160

And a pro-Apollo supporter owning his ass:

Shadows on the Moon - Revisited - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZB-DosUGeY

[philthy53]

I've seen him on plenty of forums owning people like yourself.

No, you haven't.

I know, I know, you think Jarrah is the "be all, and end all, the "genius from Australia," but he's nothing of the sort.

I like this factual description of ol Jarrah:

"2. Replying to Jarrah and his claims about the Apollo 1 fire:

"Guys like this idiot Jarrah White are a dime-a-dozen and no matter what we say, they are not going to change their mind."

Mr Stephen Clemmons
Apollo 1 Pad Technician (North American Aviation),
Present on Level 7 during AS-204 fire, 27 JAN 67"

More relevant comments how Jarrah hasn't a clue what he's babbling about can be found here:

http://as204.blogspot.com/

If that isn't enough to bury this guy, here's yet more:

where did jarrah get it wrong - Google Search

In short, Jarrah White doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.

[graflok]

No, you haven't.

I know, I know, you think Jarrah is the "be all, and end all, the "genius from Australia," but he's nothing of the sort.

I like this factual description of ol Jarrah:

"2. Replying to Jarrah and his claims about the Apollo 1 fire:

"Guys like this idiot Jarrah White are a dime-a-dozen and no matter what we say, they are not going to change their mind."

Mr Stephen Clemmons
Apollo 1 Pad Technician (North American Aviation),
Present on Level 7 during AS-204 fire, 27 JAN 67"



Interesting comment: "no matter what we say, they are not going to change their mind."

The "we" I presume is NASA. So, he's saying, "No matter what NASA says,
they are not going to change their mind."

As if NASA's merely saying something should be enough for someone to
automatically accepted it without question.

Rather like a god complex.

[brucel]

Those photos aren't evidence the Apollo astronauts went to moon...

i agree.
not only that the static weather doesn't change, earth's protective ozone layer is missing
also there are no detailed recognizable landmass cause nasa obscured all earth's landmass
with happy clouds..

i think bob ross would have done a better job painting nasa's cardboard earth cutout

http://www.ayearwithjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/BobRoss.jpg

[philthy53]

Interesting comment: "no matter what we say, they are not going to change their mind."

The "we" I presume is NASA. So, he's saying, "No matter what NASA says,
they are not going to change their mind."

As if NASA's merely saying something should be enough for someone to
automatically accepted it without question.

Rather like a god complex.

You misunderstand Mr. Clemmons comment.

He meant that no matter what some nutter HB thinks, they are too narrow minded, and/or not educated enough to change what they think is true.

Phil

[brucel]

i've explained this to you before, phil..
"the HBs" are you & your fellow nasa hoax defending colleagues it is YOU who misundurstood.

[philthy53]

i've explained this to you before, phil..
"the HBs" are you & your fellow nasa hoax defending colleagues it is YOU who misundurstood.

Ok, let's see your proof.

Brush aside the mountains of documented video and audio. The 840 pounds of proven rocks that could come from no where besides the moon.

I can be persuaded, I need REAL proof.

So far, all, and every HB'er has exactly none.

You will be the first, so prove it.

And, yes, the burden of proof is on you.

Phil

[brucel]

Ok, let's see your proof.

Brush aside the mountains of documented video and audio. The 840 pounds of proven rocks that could come from no where besides the moon.

I can be persuaded, I need REAL proof.

So far, all, and every HB'er has exactly none.

You will be the first, so prove it.

And, yes, the burden of proof is on you.

Phil

you still confuse, i see... :)

[redman]

I see mentioning Jarrah White stirs up some emotions in you two. Wonder why that is, I think it may have something to do with he is fucking good at exposing NASA's BS, and especially those guilty as fuck looking astronauts.

Neil Armstrong actually looks like he has had to live this lie for as long as he has, the guy looks seriously worn out by it all.


Hey can I ask you two something, let's say if Neil Armstrong makes a deathbed confession that they faked the moon landings. Would you...

a. Believe it, and think to yourself ' fuck, I was wrong '.
b. Claim he was not in a sane mental condition at the time he made the confession.


Answers on a postcard.

[graflok]

You misunderstand Mr. Clemmons comment.

He meant that no matter what some nutter HB thinks, they are too narrow minded, and/or not educated enough to change what they think is true.

Phil

He said what he said.

And, how would you know what he meant? Are we supposed to believe that
NASA suckers can read minds too?

[graflok]

I see mentioning Jarrah White stirs up some emotions in you two goons. Wonder why that is, I think it may have something to do with he is fucking good at exposing NASA's BS, and especially those guilty as fuck looking astronauts.

I think Jarrah did a damn good job of exposing the NASA fraud. With all the
points he made, all the NASA slaves can do is niggle about a few minor issues,
mostly centering around that school teacher who lied to him. They pounce
on that while desperately trying to divert attention away from the main body of
his work which is really very good.

[tsaritsin]

Errrr... not quite. The stills are from video footage actually used by hoax conspiracists showing it taken by Buzz Aldrin in the CSM. They suggest it was a shot of LEO or a transparency. Just click the first link in my signature for a clear and concise explanation why neither of these stand up to scrutiny.

To take 2 pictures 10 minutes apart with no terminator movement is provably IMPOSSIBLE from ANY orbit. Orbit involves going around the planet, or for geosynchronous satellites, stationary with the same Earth view.



Then you need to read up on your subject. Do you dispute the Saturn V made orbit? The post by Moving Finger shows irrefutably(by anybody without a fixed belief system - not you it would appear:)) that they were travelling to the Moon.

Landing on the Moon, has plenty of video footage on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=A754DE37029E57AF

This is a good video:
The Apollo 11 LM Eagle's Descent As Seen In Google Moon - YouTube

Some reading material:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
http://www.landingapollo.com/

If you suspect a hoax, try listing your best evidence for scrutiny, and I will tell you why it is nonsense, or alternatively go here and read refutations for most of it:
http://www.clavius.org/

Yep, I did some reading, though probably not the kind of reading you were expecting, and I found my answer.

And now I am no longer sitting on that fence,

Hermann Oberth
Wernher von Braun
Walter Dornberger
Fritz Lang

FRAU im MOND, Silent Movie, 1927, Fritz Lang, based on the novel "Die Frau im Mond", The Women to the Moon.

NASA is not a Space Agency, its a Hollywood Film Studio :)

[graflok]

NASA is not a Space Agency, its a Hollywood Film Studio :)

Welcome aboard. :)

[philthy53]

I see mentioning Jarrah White stirs up some emotions in you two goons. Wonder why that is, I think it may have something to do with he is fucking good at exposing NASA's BS, and especially those guilty as fuck looking astronauts.

Neil Armstrong actually looks like he has had to live this lie for as long as he has, the guy looks seriously worn out by it all.


Hey can I ask you two fuck wits something, let's say if Neil Armstrong makes a deathbed confession that they faked the moon landings. Would you...

a. Believe it, and think to yourself ' fuck, I was wrong '.
b. Claim he was not in a sane mental condition at the time he made the confession.
c. Kill yourself.

Answers on a postcard fucko's.

And the HBer's why threads get ranted. Sheesh.

Phil

[philthy53]

you still confuse, i see... :)

No, not even a teensy bit, am I confused.

You, as a claiment of an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I await your proof.

I really do want to see your proof.

Real proof, mind you, not youtoobe crap.

REAL.

ACTUAL.

PROOF.

Put up, or shut up.

Phil

[graflok]

I love how the NASA huggers demand proof and give orders. :D

The reason they always demand "proof" is because they know that NASA
controls the entire data set that all this so called "proof" is based. NASA and
their buddies in the Rockefeller-controlled "science" and "education" fields have
a monopoly on what they call space science. Demanding "proof" is also what
criminals do when they are challenged and hope they left no evidence of their
crimes. "Prove it," they'll say, knowing the judge is in their pocket.

But, their fraud is wearing thin and they know it and they're scared. That's
why they bark their orders all the time. Like the cornered rats they are, they
hope you'll back down.

Take a look at this press conference of the Apollo 11 crew shortly after they
"came back from the moon." Watch this and ask yourself, did these guys just
accomplish the greatest human achievement in history? I think there's a
huge amount of real proof about what Apollo was really about in the
eyes and voices of these guys:

Clip of Apollo 11 press conference - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

[philthy53]

I love how the NASA huggers demand proof and give orders. :D

The reason they always demand "proof" is because they know that NASA
controls the entire data set that all this so called "proof" is based. NASA and
their buddies in the Rockefeller-controlled "science" and "education" fields have
a monopoly on what they call space science. Demanding "proof" is also what
criminals do when they are challenged and hope they left no evidence of their
crimes. "Prove it," they'll say, knowing the judge is in their pocket.

But, their fraud is wearing thin and they know it and they're scared. That's
why they bark their orders all the time. Like the cornered rats they are, they
hope you'll back down.

Take a look at this press conference of the Apollo 11 crew shortly after they
"came back from the moon." Watch this and ask yourself, did these guys just
accomplish the greatest human achievement in history? I think there's a
huge amount of real proof about what Apollo was really about in the
eyes and voices of these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro



All debunked decades ago.

Bring something new.....of course with actual, real proof.

Phil

[graflok]

^ :D True to form :D

I am content to let the honest readers of this forum decide what is true and
what is not. Bye now.

[brucel]

No, not even a teensy bit, am I confused.

You, as a claiment of an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I await your proof.

I really do want to see your proof.

Real proof, mind you, not youtoobe crap.

REAL.

ACTUAL.

PROOF.

Put up, or shut up.

Phil

the earth is how old would you say...6 million...5 billion years old ??..has anyone claim to play golf
on the moon beside nasa ?..since nasa has anyone else step forward and claim to have also walked
on the moon ?..

i believe nasa is the only one. :eek:

apollo moonlanding does constitute an EXTRAordinary claim indeed...thus, i fully agree with you!!!
and-so i will revert the above red-highlighted comments back to you for any proof you may hold
that could perhaps validate nasa's claim.... :D

[brucel]

I love how the NASA huggers demand proof and give orders. :D

The reason they always demand "proof" is because they know that NASA
controls the entire data set that all this so called "proof" is based. NASA and
their buddies in the Rockefeller-controlled "science" and "education" fields have
a monopoly on what they call space science. Demanding "proof" is also what
criminals do when they are challenged and hope they left no evidence of their
crimes. "Prove it," they'll say, knowing the judge is in their pocket.

But, their fraud is wearing thin and they know it and they're scared. That's
why they bark their orders all the time. Like the cornered rats they are, they
hope you'll back down.

Take a look at this press conference of the Apollo 11 crew shortly after they
"came back from the moon." Watch this and ask yourself, did these guys just
accomplish the greatest human achievement in history? I think there's a
huge amount of real proof about what Apollo was really about in the
eyes and voices of these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

i kno.
i feel sorry sometime for them, i really do.....
nasa refusal to admit it was all a scam/a lie make their defending job perpetual hell they are perpetual slaves!!!

[skanny]

proof? .... van allen radiation belt.
according to nasa (never a straight answer) they just zipped through it .. no probs. lol

job done!!!

[skanny]

Ok, let's see your proof.

Brush aside the mountains of documented video and audio. The 840 pounds of proven rocks that could come from no where besides the moon.

I can be persuaded, I need REAL proof.

So far, all, and every HB'er has exactly none.

You will be the first, so prove it.

And, yes, the burden of proof is on you.

Phil

840 pounds of moon rock on the lander module, dont think it would have got off the surface with all the extra weight.

can anyone tell me how the lunar lander module was able to fire up its one and only engine to take off from the surface of the moon when they used up all their fuel on the descent?
from nasa's own footage and video record of it which you can check out for yourself.

another major nagging point i have to bring up too ... is the fact that nasa held a news conferance about future missions to the moon where when asked by one member of the audience as to why we havent went back to the moon since the ending of apollo program the answer : "we havent the technology to get there and back as of yet" ..... uh-huh but they have already been there and back several times.

apparently the technology in the 50's -late 60's was far superior to what we have today if you believe nasa.

[truegroup]

I see mentioning Jarrah White stirs up some emotions in you two. Wonder why that is, I think it may have something to do with he is fucking good at exposing NASA's BS, and especially those guilty as fuck looking astronauts.

Jarrah White exposed with every rebuttal video as a complete numpty ny Phil Webb.

http://www.youtube.com/user/philwebb59

I noticed you ignored my comment exposing him as a lying ass.

Neil Armstrong actually looks like he has had to live this lie for as long as he has, the guy looks seriously worn out by it all.

The morning after their quarantine ended press conference, yep, they look hungover.


Hey can I ask you two something, let's say if Neil Armstrong makes a deathbed confession that they faked the moon landings. Would you...

a. Believe it, and think to yourself ' fuck, I was wrong '.
b. Claim he was not in a sane mental condition at the time he made the confession.


Answers on a postcard.

If he made a deathbed confession saying he went would you believe it:rolleyes:

[truegroup]

Yep, I did some reading, though probably not the kind of reading you were expecting, and I found my answer.

And now I am no longer sitting on that fence,

Hermann Oberth
Wernher von Braun
Walter Dornberger
Fritz Lang

FRAU im MOND, Silent Movie, 1927, Fritz Lang, based on the novel "Die Frau im Mond", The Women to the Moon.

NASA is not a Space Agency, its a Hollywood Film Studio :)

If you use Frau Im Mond to jump off the fence I feel sorry for your powers of discernment.:D

[truegroup]

proof? .... van allen radiation belt.
according to nasa (never a straight answer) they just zipped through it .. no probs. lol

job done!!!

They skipped around it lol. Job done!!!

TLI Orbit Slice View - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

[truegroup]

840 pounds of moon rock on the lander module, dont think it would have got off the surface with all the extra weight.

Here's your problem, you don't understand what you are talking about. Really you don't, I don't mean to criticise, but how can you ask a question like that without doing a simple check?

Apollo 11 22 kg 1969
Apollo 12 34 kg 1969
Apollo 14 43 kg 1971
Apollo 15 77 kg 1971
Apollo 16 95 kg 1972
Apollo 17 111 kg 1972

can anyone tell me how the lunar lander module was able to fire up its one and only engine to take off from the surface of the moon when they used up all their fuel on the descent?

As I said you don't know what you are talking about.

There were two engines. One dealt with the descent, and one with the ascent. The ascent stage separated with the descent lower half of the LM.

Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


another major nagging point i have to bring up too ... is the fact that nasa held a news conferance about future missions to the moon where when asked by one member of the audience as to why we havent went back to the moon since the ending of apollo program the answer : "we havent the technology to get there and back as of yet" ..... uh-huh but they have already been there and back several times.

apparently the technology in the 50's -late 60's was far superior to what we have today if you believe nasa.

The technology to get there involves a longer stay and significantly upgraded equipment. Unless you are suggesting they use the old blueprints.

This means redesigning the whole shebang, with modern safeguards that have been imposed.


It will happen, and hopefully China will do it as well, before this decade is up.

[skanny]

regarding the moonrocks... it was actually some one that posted before me on the topic that mentioned the 840 (whatever) of moon rocks i was quoting them.

as for the LM ... im always willing to admit if i get something wrong, i havent spent a lot of time on this it was always just a question / query i had regarding that.
as ive never been a moon / space travel buff like yourself. (not taking the piss outta ya).

i have one question though since you seem to know what you are talking about.
it is in regards to the van allen radiation belt, how did the astronauts manage to survive the massive radiation thats said to be trapped in the earths pull, i heard nasa made the radiation many more times more lethal by exploding nukes in the upper atmosphere prior to one of the missions to try and clear a path?

and that one of the apollo missions took place during one of the worse recorded sun storms / solar activity.

keeping in mind there was no radiation shielding on the suits / clothing or the craft itself that im led to believe.

any thoughts about bill kaysings comments about the anomalies he says were evident to him?

one last one ... sorry for the load of questions here ... the film that was used in the hasselbad cameras, ive seen a nasa spokesman talk about special emulsions and so forth that were used to protect the film from the extreme cold and extreme heat yet that is directly contradicted by the guy from kodak who claims the films were nothing special with no extra fancy emulsions on it so im confused how the film managed to survive the damage from the afore mentioned also why do we not see any greying / misting of the film cos of the radiation and the particles that go through anything since the "shielding" on the camera apparently was only painted silver.

and the stars .. you have to film it in uv to see them from the moons surface?

any thoughts on this m8?

[skanny]

They skipped around it lol. Job done!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm


so dr van allen was wrong about the lethal doses of radiation? and i thought the radiation belts were all around our planet but mainly focused around the poles.

[truegroup]

so dr van allen was wrong about the lethal doses of radiation? and i thought the radiation belts were all around our planet but mainly focused around the poles.

Read this:

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

The VAB is a doughnut shaped and is actually clear around the poles.

[skanny]

thank you for the linky reading it now ...

any chance you could tear my questions apart i have asked in a previous post :D

[skanny]

right i have a problem with this shielding question cos it was need to protect from high-energy protons and high-energy electrons right?

well according to that linky (i think if i read it correct ) says i would need about 3-4 feet of concrete for the shield to protect against that wasnt the skin of the module only paper thin aluminium?

anychance of answering my question about bill kaysings comments about the anomalies he states? and about one at least of the apollo missions took place during one of the worse solar storms ever recorded at the time sending out masses of deadly radiation.
still stumped about the radiation on the moons surface though not sure the spacesuits would protect them from radiation

[truegroup]

regarding the moonrocks... it was actually some one that posted before me on the topic that mentioned the 840 (whatever) of moon rocks i was quoting them.

It was a correct weight, but spread over all the missions. They left quite a bit of stuff behind, such as suits, experiments and on the 3 last mssions the Lunar Rover.

it is in regards to the van allen radiation belt, how did the astronauts manage to survive the massive radiation thats said to be trapped in the earths pull, i heard nasa made the radiation many more times more lethal by exploding nukes in the upper atmosphere prior to one of the missions to try and clear a path?

The ISS actually passes through the VAB daily. It is an area that you definitely wouldn't want to sit within. Apollo took trajectories around the outer edges where it is at its weakest. They were travelling at 25000mph and passed through really quickly.

and that one of the apollo missions took place during one of the worse recorded sun storms / solar activity.

They took risks that is for sure. There were no major solar flares during Apollo missions. Sun activity is a concern of course, but the frequency of solar flares that could be life threatening were minimal.

They had contingency. If they were on route to or from the Moon, they would use the thrusters to point the nose towards the Sun. It was felt that the re-entry part of the Command Module would offer protection that would minimise exposure.

For the surface astronauts, they would have to leave at the next CSM orbit, and dock, then follow the same process. It was risky, but that's space travel for you. The astronauts were aware of these risks, yet still went.

keeping in mind there was no radiation shielding on the suits / clothing or the craft itself that im led to believe.

This is incorrect. The bottom of this page shows the hull design:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

The suits were sufficient for normal solar radiation, but obviously a major solar flare would be lethal.

Remember also, that not all solar flares travel in our direction.

any thoughts about bill kaysings comments about the anomalies he says were evident to him?

Bill Kaysing said this:

"What motivated me to spill the beans was a young man from the Vietnam wars by the name of John Grant. He said that he was sent to Vietnam to kill people with no good reason and he also got a heroin habit, and he says, 'Bill,' he says, 'what I want you to do is blow the whistle on this rotten, corrupt government.' He says, 'Why don't you say something outrageous, like, we never went to the moon?' So I attribute my interest in this project to John Grant."

He never had any beans to spill, he wasn't involved in Apollo, just worked at Rocketdyne who built the rocket.

http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

one last one ... sorry for the load of questions here ... the film that was used in the hasselbad cameras, ive seen a nasa spokesman talk about special emulsions and so forth that were used to protect the film from the extreme cold and extreme heat yet that is directly contradicted by the guy from kodak who claims the films were nothing special with no extra fancy emulsions on it so im confused how the film managed to survive the damage from the afore mentioned also why do we not see any greying / misting of the film cos of the radiation and the particles that go through anything since the "shielding" on the camera apparently was only painted silver.

The heat and cold are terms we use when we have an atmosphere. In a vacuum, temperature does not become a factor.

http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

As for the film itself:

http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

and the stars .. you have to film it in uv to see them from the moons surface?

Stars are visible from the Moon in certain circumstances. Firstly it is Lunar day, so the surface is very bright and will cause glare and light pollution.
Secondly they predominantly are looking through a visor with filters. Thirdly there is the Sun shining off of numerous objects.

To see stars, they would have to stand in shadow, block the peripheral section of their visor, tilt their head back so that there was no surface reflected in their vision then wait for their eyes to accustom. All very well, but they had other things to do than stargazing.

Photography and videos would need a long exposure to capture stars.

They did show up, but very faint:
Moon Dehoax: The Lost Stars - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=76gn3Z2CCU4

UV photography:
The Truth Illuminated - Stars from the Lunar Surface - Mirror - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059730420&postcount=8783

[truegroup]

still stumped about the radiation on the moons surface though not sure the spacesuits would protect them from radiation

The same suits were used in numerous space walks lasting hours. We had a several hundred page discussion on this in the main hoax thread that was ranted. Forgive me if I decline going through this again. The design is available online, and the sites I directed you to, discuss this in detail.

[skanny]

thanks for taking the time to reply.

The heat and cold are terms we use when we have an atmosphere. In a vacuum, temperature does not become a factor.

this i have a huge problem with .... maybe i dont understand something really basic here but that doesnt make any sense to me at all.

http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/

"since the temperature of the Moon can dip down to -153°C during the night. Oh, but you’re going to want to keep some cool weather clothes too, since the temperature of the Moon in the day can rise to 107°C."

????

[truegroup]

thanks for taking the time to reply.

The heat and cold are terms we use when we have an atmosphere. In a vacuum, temperature does not become a factor.

this i have a huge problem with .... maybe i dont understand something really basic here but that doesnt make any sense to me at all.

http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/

"since the temperature of the Moon can dip down to -153°C during the night. Oh, but you’re going to want to keep some cool weather clothes too, since the temperature of the Moon in the day can rise to 107°C."

????

They are referring to the surface temperature. There is no air, so there is no conducted heat. The boots are more than enough insulation for this.

Ever been on a very hot sandy beach? I mean so hot that you can't walk barefoot. Put some flip flops on and the problem is solved. The astronauts had a little bit more than flip flops.

They arrived on the Moon in the Early Lunar morning (from sunrise to midday on the Moon is 7 days), so the surface temperature was way lower than maximum. We had another huge discussion about this in the same thread.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=119328&page=1020

[tsaritsin]

If you use Frau Im Mond to jump off the fence I feel sorry for your powers of discernment.:D

I didnt use Frau im Mond to jump of the fence, I used the names - Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun and Walter Dornberger, and what they did to obtain Funding for their Rocket program.

See, everything has a bad habbit of comming back to money, more specifically taking public money (tax payers money) and transfering it into the private sector.

And even more specifically, using the cover of scientific research and space exploration (easily acceptable for a tax paying public) for Military expenditure (not so easy to sell to the tax payer)

You can go round and round argueing about Radiation, Saturn rocket size, video footage, photo's (fake or otherwise), lunar modules, dust, footprints, stars, flags, blah blah blah, round n round.

But it comes down to Money, as everything always does.

You can sum up this whole sorry mess with one word and one name,

Funding

Thomas Ronald Baron

Everything after this point in time is simply a Movie script being played out before the public's eyes.

Thankyou for showing concern over my powers of discernment :rolleyes:

Your entitled to your opinions,

And I am entitled to mine.

[truegroup]

I didnt use Frau im Mond to jump of the fence, I used the names - Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun and Walter Dornberger, and what they did to obtain Funding for their Rocket program.

See, everything has a bad habbit of comming back to money, more specifically taking public money (tax payers money) and transfering it into the private sector.

And even more specifically, using the cover of scientific research and space exploration (easily acceptable for a tax paying public) for Military expenditure (not so easy to sell to the tax payer)


You can sum up this whole sorry mess with one word and one name,

Funding



The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.
House, Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1974 NASA Authorization, Hearings on H.R. 4567, 93/2, Part 2, Page 1271.

About 55% of that was the costs associated with 12 Saturn V rockets and 6 Saturn IB rockets. Does anybody want to dispute that they took off?

That leaves 11.4 billion for the development, testing and build of all the Suits/Lunar Rovers/Lunar Modules, Mission Control/Ancilliaries/Staff payments from Apollo 1 up to the aborted Apollo 18 - estimated at 400,000 in total.

So the money was spent on the Apollo space program. Odd that.

[tsaritsin]

The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.
House, Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1974 NASA Authorization, Hearings on H.R. 4567, 93/2, Part 2, Page 1271.

About 55% of that was the costs associated with 12 Saturn V rockets and 6 Saturn IB rockets. Does anybody want to dispute that they took off?

That leaves 11.4 billion for the development, testing and build of all the Suits/Lunar Rovers/Lunar Modules, Mission Control/Ancilliaries/Staff payments from Apollo 1 up to the aborted Apollo 18 - estimated at 400,000 in total.

So the money was spent on the Apollo space program. Odd that.

Your getting there :)

Q, What did the Wright brothers do when they perfected manned flight here on earth ?

A, They effectively introduced the concept of "Air Superiority" into Warfare

Q, What did the Russians do when they put Sputnik 1 into near Earth orbit ?

A, They introduced the concept of "Near Earth Orbit Superiority" into Warfare.

The Apollo space program was a front for Military Expenditure, the Russians had just opened a new battlefield, and there was not a chance in hell that the Americans were going to let the Russians play on that new battlefield alone.

So they sold the American Public a pipe dream, the very same pipe dream that was used by the German Rocket Scientists to gain funding, and guess who ended up working for NASA, in a way "created" NASA" ?, yep, those very same German Rocket guys, :)

Money, Money, Money.

Always the Money.......

Just my opinion :)

[truegroup]

Just my opinion :)

Fair enough:)

Personally I prefer evidence.;)

[skanny]

im still not convinced tbh.
dont think i ever will believe that we went to the moon with the apollo programme.
i still have lots of unanswered questions some of the explanations of proof seem to rely too much on trusting nasa as a valid independant source of information.

didnt want to just keep posting my questions cos id prolly be branded as a maniac for having remaining questions.

[truegroup]

im still not convinced tbh.
dont think i ever will believe that we went to the moon with the apollo programme.
i still have lots of unanswered questions some of the explanations of proof seem to rely too much on trusting nasa as a valid independant source of information.

didnt want to just keep posting my questions cos id prolly be branded as a maniac for having remaining questions.

Fire away. Nothing wrong with questions.

[philthy53]

the earth is how old would you say...6 million...5 billion years old ??..

The age of the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. What does this fact have to with the fact of men landing on the moon?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

has anyone claim to play golf
on the moon beside nasa ?..since nasa has anyone else step forward and claim to have also walked
on the moon ?..

i believe nasa is the only one. :eek:

Again, this has nothing to do with the fact of men landing on the moon. So ALan Shepard taped a golf club head to a sample return pole, and took a couple whacks at a couple balls, BFD. How come no one ever whines about Edgar Mitchell tossing a javelin? Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't have been done, doesn't make the landings any less real.

apollo moonlanding does constitute an EXTRAordinary claim indeed...thus, i fully agree with you!!!
and-so i will revert the above red-highlighted comments back to you for any proof you may hold
that could perhaps validate nasa's claim.... :D

Since the truth of the Apollo landing are accepted as factual by the world's leading scientists, geologists, historians, and, well frankly anyone with an eduaction, makes any claim that the landings didn't happen, extraordiary. So, your extraordinary claim is just that, a claim based on opinion, an ill-formed opinion, but still only an opinion.

Some proof, not that you'll read them:

840 pounds of rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts. Rocks that could have only come from the moon. The is no way possilble to fake them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717150254.htm

The retroreflectors placed on the moon by the astronauts from Apollo 11, 14 and 15. These reflectors are stil in use today.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Q49AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=lunar%20sourcebook&hl=pl&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is much, much more proof, just look for it.

Phil

[skanny]

Since the truth of the Apollo landing are accepted as factual by the world's leading scientists, geologists, historians, and, well frankly anyone with an eduaction, makes any claim that the landings didn't happen, extraordiary. So, your extraordinary claim is just that, a claim based on opinion, an ill-formed opinion, but still only an opinion.



this is why i dont want to post anymore questions cos you are branded with namecalling saying your un-educated or worse if you have questions.

[tsaritsin]

Since the truth of the Apollo landing are accepted as factual by the world's leading scientists, geologists, historians, and, well frankly anyone with an eduaction, makes any claim that the landings didn't happen, extraordiary. So, your extraordinary claim is just that, a claim based on opinion, an ill-formed opinion, but still only an opinion.



this is why i dont want to post anymore questions cos you are branded with namecalling saying your un-educated or worse if you have questions.

Truegroup has done a fantastic job of answering questions, and will I am sure continue to do so.

No one with any form of intelligence will brand you with anything for just asking questions, its healthy to ask questions.

Its a fantastic subject, and if you have questions, ask them, in a way, thats the basis of science.

And remember, it is not all that long ago that everyone thought the world was flat, and some very clever people were getting in big trouble for saying it was in fact round :)

[skanny]

Truegroup has done a fantastic job of answering questions, and will I am sure continue to do so.

No one with any form of intelligence will brand you with anything for just asking questions, its healthy to ask questions.

Its a fantastic subject, and if you have questions, ask them, in a way, thats the basis of science.

And remember, it is not all that long ago that everyone thought the world was flat, and some very clever people were getting in big trouble for saying it was in fact round :)


good point ... ill do it later on. :)

[philthy53]

this is why i dont want to post anymore questions cos you are branded with namecalling saying your un-educated or worse if you have questions.

This is how you learn about things, by asking questions. The ones I refer too aren't asking questions, they think they already know, they don't, and they have zero desire to learn.

Ask away, no one has been called anyone else uneducated for asking questions.

Phil

[brucel]

Some proof, [...]
840 pounds of rocks

The retroreflectors

There is much, much more proof, just look for it.

Phil

fair to say, out of ALL THE MUCH MUCH MORE proof you claim there is to confirm moonlanding
you picked out the "best ones"...right ??

840 pounds of rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts [...] The is no way possilble to fake them.

then explain this, video..
Fake Moon Rock Confirmed - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY
.
.
or, this bbc report...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm
.
.
.
or, explain why nasa still to this day has antarctica missions to collect fallen spacerocks/meteorites
below is a pic taken in 1967 in it is former nazi wernher von braun with his buddies on sucha mission

http://www.erichufschmid.net/img/Antarctica-Project-Deep-Freeze-von-Braun.jpg
Left to right: Maxime A. Faget (NASA Space Task Group), Dr. Robert Gilruth (director, NASA Manned
Spacecraft Center), Werner von Braun (the Nazi rocket scientist), two un-named scientists from the
mysterious "Project Deep Freeze", and Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger (another of the Nazi scientists who worked
with von Braun and was brought to the USA after the war).

http://img.youtube.com/vi/YVe2LqgOn_U/0.jpg

same as today nasa' moonrock/fallen meteorite collection team^^

The retroreflectors placed on the moon by the astronauts from Apollo 11, 14 and 15.

laser reflectors do not prove anything!!! for the same reason spacerocks can reach earth's surface
without some green extraterrestrial being physically flying to earth to place them here.. the moon
gravitational pull can bring down any unmanned drone reflector down to its surface....

[philthy53]

fair to say, out of ALL THE MUCH MUCH MORE proof you claim there is to confirm moonlanding
you picked out the "best ones"...right ??

Naw, just the ones thought I thought you might understand. Guess not.

then explain this, video..

No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees. A US ambassador did gave the petrified wood to him.

"A US ambassador gave Drees the rock on Oct. 9, 1969 during visit to the Netherlands by the Apollo 11 astronauts. The plaque attached to the stone does not state that it is a Moon rock. However, the rock, which weighs approximately 89 grams, was confused a with moon rock which the Dutch were given at the same time and which, after investigation, was found on display elsewhere in a natural history museum. It seems that Willem Drees formed a mistaken opinion that the rock which he had been given was the moon rock, a belief which the family never questioned. After his death they donated the rock to the museum in good faith. "

More here:

http://www.rockcollector.co.uk/editorial0909.htm

or, this bbc report...

The report is wrong, see above.

or, explain why nasa still to this day has antarctica missions to collect fallen spacerocks/meteorites
below is a pic taken in 1967 in it is former nazi wernher von braun with his buddies on sucha mission

Because they are easy to see against the whiteness of the snow. Meteorite hunting in deserts is fruitful as well. As brilliant as von Braun was, he wasn't a geologist. He'd be one of the last people to send to gather meteorites.

"Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982. The three Yamato 79xxx meteorites were collected earlier, but not recognized to be of lunar origin until after 1982. The first lunar meteorite to be found appears to be Yamato 791197, on 20 November 1979. However, it is not known when Calcalong Creek was found. The Meteoritical Bulletin says "after 1960," but it was not recognized to be of lunar origin until 1990, so it may well have been collected earlier than Yamato 791197."

Oh, by the by, the Apollo landings had all been completed well before 1982, before any meteorite had been identified as coming from the moon.

More here:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm


same as today nasa' moonrock/fallen meteorite collection team^^

See above.

laser reflectors do not prove anything!!! for the same reason spacerocks can reach earth's surface
without some green extraterrestrial being physically flying to earth to place them here.. the moon
gravitational pull can bring down any unmanned drone reflector down to its surface....

Here, you are a tiny bit right. The Russians did place reflectors on the moon, robotically, unfortunately, Lunokhod 1, had been lost for 40 years, until the LRO found it. NONE of the Apollo reflectors have ever been lost, because NASA knew exactly where the astronauts put them. So, yes, the NASA reflectors can be deployed this way, the problem here is, the ONLY spacecraft that could have deployed them, was Apollo.

More here:

http://spaceplex.com/2010/04/27/lost-soviet-laser-reflector-found-on-moon/

Phil

[johnthejedi24]

I only read a few pages of his new book but when he said that the moon footage was staged and we did not go to the moon in 69, I lost a lot of confidence in him. I believe that WE DID go the moon, the footage and rockets and so on are/were real but that that was just the public tech/publicity part. We have secret tech to go back any time that we want...and we probably do.

I think with his moon is a matrix generator and his we faked the moon landings he has lost a lot of credibility. I still believe in Reptilians, be they alien or interdimemsional and I believe in a bit of the ancient astronaut and elitist stuff. You ca not fake a ******* rocket launch. The astronauts are sincere they just have maybe 5% of the whole picture.

And thank you truegroup for bringing sanity and facts(or trying to) to this thread and the poor poor deluded fools who believe we never went to the moon.

[211200]

I find it hard to believe that after 40+ years we are still debating this one :)

[graflok]

No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees.

Not true. Here are 2 links to statements that say the Apollo 11 astronauts gave
Drees the bogus "moon rock."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100315140520AAqkSd7

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Astronauts%27+moon+rock+gift+%27a+fake%27+MUSEUMS-a0206812893

And, there are other references on the web that say the same thing available by search.

[philthy53]

Not true. Here are 2 links to statements that say the Apollo 11 astronauts gave
Drees the bogus "moon rock."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100315140520AAqkSd7

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Astronauts%27+moon+rock+gift+%27a+fake%27+MUSEUMS-a0206812893

And, there are other references on the web that say the same thing available by search.

You are correct, there are claims, that the astronauts gave Drees a moon rock, they just aren't true claims.

Phil

[truegroup]

Not true. Here are 2 links to statements that say the Apollo 11 astronauts gave
Drees the bogus "moon rock."
And, there are other references on the web that say the same thing available by search.

And here are two videos, that you could watch if you were inclined, that explain exactly why this is complete nonsense.

Even the Queen of the Netherlands wasn't given a rock, they had just returned and were definitely not handing rocks out as freebies. The gift card is just a random one given out, and is nothing like the engraved plaques normally associated with the GRAINS of rock that were given out.

The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 1 - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ

The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 2 - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM

[graflok]

And here are two videos, that you could watch if you were inclined, that explain exactly why this is complete nonsense.

Doesn't change the fact that philthy53's statement is false when he said:

"No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees."

... because, as I pointed out and gave proof, someone has said it, repeatedly in fact.

When it is correctly pointed out that something is untrue it is best to acknowledge it
rather than try to make excuses as it only puts you in a worse light than you
were before with your legions (cough) of admirers. :)

[truegroup]

Doesn't change the fact that philthy53's statement is false when he said:

"No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees."

... because, as I pointed out and gave proof, someone has said it, repeatedly in fact.

When it is correctly pointed out that something is untrue it is best to acknowledge it
rather than try to make excuses as it only puts you in a worse light than you
were before with your legions (cough) of admirers. :)

You did not prove that an astronaut gave anybody anything. You cited reports that allege that. The 2 videos show quite clearly that the astronauts didn't have time to meet an ex prime minister. Had you watched them, you would not be trying to defend your inaccurate statement.

The gift was given by the former American ambassador. I suspect that the old ex prime minister assumed it was a rock, even though the idea they would give him a chunk of rock is ludicrous.

Try not to link to news articles as sources of accurate data.;)

p.s. His statement was inaccurate in that somebody has claimed it, but the claim itself was inaccurate.

[philthy53]

Doesn't change the fact that philthy53's statement is false when he said:

"No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees."

... because, as I pointed out and gave proof, someone has said it, repeatedly in fact.

When it is correctly pointed out that something is untrue it is best to acknowledge it
rather than try to make excuses as it only puts you in a worse light than you
were before with your legions (cough) of admirers. :)

And I responded in post #200 that those reports were, and are false reports.

Phil

[graflok]

And I responded in post #200 that those reports were, and are false reports.

Phil

That may or may not be true but the statement of yours which I quoted is still
a falsehood. You falsely stated that no one said astronauts gave Drees
the bogus rock. I don't really care if you admit it or not nor if you add further
falsehoods or evasions -- that's your business. But, you lied and I proved it
by showing that others have indeed said this.

Your refusal to admit when you've been caught in a lie does demonstrate to me
your level of integrity (or lack of it).

[graflok]

You did not prove that an astronaut gave anybody anything.

Nor did I set out to. You have misread my posts on this.

philthy53's comment which I quoted is a lie and I proved it.

[truegroup]

Nor did I set out to. You have misread my posts on this.

philthy53's comment which I quoted is a lie and I proved it.

All your many supporters collectively applaud you as you rake out this miniscule point scoring exercise.;)

Huzzzah. It wasn't actually a lie was it...really? It is just semantics. It was cobblers, and that was what he meant.

So we can bury this, in an excercise on how not to assume that there are people who know diddily Mc squat on what was and what was not given to an old git who happened to be an EX prime minister of the Netherlands.

Nobody who set foot on the Moon, gave the old boy a Moon rock, and graffy, I KNOW you will acknowledge that one:D

[graflok]

All your many supporters collectively applaud you as you rake out this miniscule point scoring exercise.;)

Huzzzah. It wasn't actually a lie was it...really?

Yes, it was a lie. That is exactly and precisely what it was. He said something
didn't happen which did happen. Pretty simple really.


It is just semantics.

Ahh, when NASA huggers lie it is merely "semantics." I see. :rolleyes:

It's "important" when you say it but when it's shown to be erroneous
it suddenly becomes unimportant. :D


So we can bury this ...

I'm sure you wish to bury this but it's right here in this thread for all to see.


... in an excercise on how not to assume that there are people who know diddily Mc squat on what was and what was not given to an old git who happened to be an EX prime minister of the Netherlands.

Nobody who set foot on the Moon, gave the old boy a Moon rock, and graffy, I KNOW you will acknowledge that one:D

I love how you're both still back-pedaling and avoiding the admission that
old philty53 told an untruth.

If he'd have simply admitted it and moved on it wouldn't have been a big
deal but you've now made it into quite a cow patty. It shows where your
integrity is (or rather where it went).

In the USA we have a saying -- the more you stir shit, the worse it smells. :D

[truegroup]

You are correct, there are claims, that the astronauts gave Drees a moon rock, they just aren't true claims.

Phil

For all to see. It wasn't a lie. Post #200 well before you started your daft rant.

You are using it as a diversion to avoid the simple truth that the assertions in the first place about this lump of wood were hopelessly wrong.

Plain and simple.

[truegroup]

Yes, it was a lie. That is exactly and precisely what it was. He said something
didn't happen which did happen. Pretty simple really.

You say no planes hit the WTC. You are lying then.:rolleyes:

Ahh, when NASA huggers lie it is merely "semantics." I see. :rolleyes:

It's "important" when you say it but when it's shown to be erroneous
it suddenly becomes unimportant. :D

NASA huggers? I prefer space travel enthusiast. As can clearly be seen (post above), there is a vast difference between a lie and an inaccurate statement.

In the USA we have a saying -- the more you stir shit, the worse it smells. :D

Then I suggest you stop stirring it.

[philthy53]

Doesn't change the fact that philthy53's statement is false when he said:

"No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees."

... because, as I pointed out and gave proof, someone has said it, repeatedly in fact.

When it is correctly pointed out that something is untrue it is best to acknowledge it
rather than try to make excuses as it only puts you in a worse light than you
were before with your legions (cough) of admirers. :)

I think you need to go back and read post #200, again. Where I clearly stated that you were correct.

Hair splitting still doesn't change the fact that no one with the authority to say, said that Drees was given a moon rock. Why wont you accept that I did acknowledge that I mis-typed, and admitted it?

Phil

Phil

[graflok]

I think you need to go back and read post #200, again. Where I clearly stated that you were correct.

I saw that you partially acknowledged somewhat that I was
correct. What you said in post #200 was:

"there are claims, that the astronauts gave Drees a moon rock,"

This is actually a half truth as it was reported by mainstream media such as
BBC and other sources having an audience of many millions and this you refer
to as "there were claims" as if it were a few whispers behind saloon doors. This
is called twisting or slanting the truth. A true statement would be that it
was announced to a great many people via mainstream news sources that
the Apollo astronauts gave Drees the bogus rock.

[graflok]

You say no planes hit the WTC. You are lying then.:rolleyes:

That is another argument. Try to deal with this without changing the
subject. It only makes you look bad and we wouldn't want that. :)



NASA huggers? I prefer space travel enthusiast. As can clearly be seen (post above), there is a vast difference between a lie and an inaccurate statement.

All right, you're a space travel enthusiast. When's your next trip?

[bertl]

I saw that you partially acknowledged somewhat that I was
correct. What you said in post #200 was:

"there are claims, that the astronauts gave Drees a moon rock,"

This is actually a half truth as it was reported by mainstream media such as
BBC and other sources having an audience of many millions and this you refer
to as "there were claims" as if it were a few whispers behind saloon doors. This
is called twisting or slanting the truth. A true statement would be that it
was announced to a great many people via mainstream news sources that
the Apollo astronauts gave Drees the bogus rock.
So when a mainstream news source makes a claim, saying "there are claims" is twisting the truth. Right. Desperate much?

[truegroup]

I saw that you partially acknowledged somewhat that I was
correct.

To put this in perspective. You correctly highlighted a statement referring to the misreporting of an incident as being inaccurate.

WHOOPEEDOOO.

Nothing at all to do with anything, and here you are trying to make out that it matters a frickin' jott as to the substance it related to.

Basically your 'team' allege that a highly valuable Moon rock was given to some unimportant old git, with a cardboard complimentary slip, and the absence of reams of newspaper coverage, or even a single photograph of said event, when the 3 men supposedly who presented it, were the most famous people on the planet at that point in time - YET - not one other single person on that tour (including the Queen!) was given anything other than small fragments encased in plastic, with a proper engraved plaque.

'Tis pish.

[graflok]

So when a mainstream news source makes a claim, saying "there are claims" is twisting the truth. Right. Desperate much?

A point taken out of context. try again.

[graflok]

To put this in perspective. You correctly highlighted a statement referring to the misreporting of an incident as being inaccurate.

Why, thank you for saying something true. It took a while but it was worth
the wait. :)



WHOOPEEDOOO.

and woopie kayay as well. :)


Nothing at all to do with anything

Then why have you and your friends spent so much time defending it?

Still don't get the logic bit, do you? :D


Basically your 'team' allege that a highly valuable Moon rock was given to some unimportant old git, with a cardboard complimentary slip, and the absence of reams of newspaper coverage, or even a single photograph of said event, when the 3 men supposedly who presented it, were the most famous people on the planet at that point in time - YET - not one other single person on that tour (including the Queen!) was given anything other than small fragments encased in plastic, with a proper engraved plaque.

'Tis pish.

That is another argument which you are (again) trying to change the subject
to. Let's tackle one thing at a time, shall we?

[truegroup]

That is another argument which you are (again) trying to change the subject to. Let's tackle one thing at a time, shall we?

Skillfully avoiding answering the whole point. You know, the point that was raised in the first place.:rolleyes:

[graflok]

Skillfully avoiding answering the whole point. You know, the point that was raised in the first place.:rolleyes:

Non sequitur gibberish, as usual.


For those just joining us ...

Philty53 made a statement earlier on this thread:
"No one has ever claimed or said any astronaut gave anything to Prime Minister Drees."

I pointed out that this was false as the giving of the fake moon rock to PM
Drees was in fact reported by major news media I gave some example links.
Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm) is one from the BBC which makes this statement:

It [the fake moon rock] was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.

And, though I have proven that Philthy53's statement is false, she and
several of her buddies have hammered on in a bogus defense of this
statement to the point of ridiculousness and beyond and still continue to do
so. Even beyond Philthy53's almost/partial admission that she did in fact
tell a lie.

[truegroup]

Non sequitur gibberish, as usual.

Non sequitur? Really?

Here is the post that prompted it, where some buffoon says the piece of wood in some way invalidates the Moon rocks:rolleyes:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059938137&postcount=195


For those just joining us ... snipped more misdirection


And, though I have proven that Philthy53's statement is false, she and several of her buddies have hammered on in a bogus defense of this
statement to the point of ridiculousness and beyond and still continue to do
so. Even beyond Philthy53's almost/partial admission that she did in fact
tell a lie.

The idea that it was a lie was your pathetic contention. He immediately conceded that you were correct in your pissy little irrelevant divertion, that 2 pages later you are still banging on about:rolleyes:

[truegroup]

And here are two videos, that you could watch if you were inclined, that explain exactly why this is complete nonsense.

Even the Queen of the Netherlands wasn't given a rock, they had just returned and were definitely not handing rocks out as freebies. The gift card is just a random one given out, and is nothing like the engraved plaques normally associated with the GRAINS of rock that were given out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM

For those just joining us, here again is the actual substance of the debate rebutted.

[philthy53]

Additionally, I'm not a female.

Phil

[graflok]

The idea that it was a lie was your pathetic contention.

I don't think you have your thinking cap on.

Philthy said nobody claimed anyone was told Apollo astronauts gave Drees
the rock yet I showed how millions of people were in fact told this.
Philthy's statement couldn't have been more untrue and he's even partially
admitted that.


He immediately conceded that you were correct

I wouldn't say "immediately" was an accurate description but I have
acknowledged his partial admission about lying. It's probably as close to
the truth as we're ever going to get.


in your pissy little irrelevant divertion, that 2 pages later you are still banging on about:rolleyes:

Now, don't get pouty on me. I still like you. :)

So, to recap, we have established that -

- Philthy53 erroneously said that "no one said astronauts gave PM Drees the fake rock"
when in truth millions were told this by mainstream media outlets

- Philthy53 has reluctantly and partially admitted this which is about
as much integrity as we're likely to get from him

Now, the big question: How many space cadets does it take to handle one
little lie that one little space cadet has been caught telling? Time will tell. :)

[truegroup]

I don't think you have your thinking cap on.

http://eighthgradeenglishnarratives.wikispaces.com/file/view/thinking_cap.gif/187192935/thinking_cap.gif


I think you have made as much mileage out of this as can possibly be made.

Still avoiding the rebuttals to the actual point of this whole discussion. It seems to escape you. The point.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059952075&postcount=221

[graflok]

I think you have made as much mileage out of this as can possibly be made.

Translation: the space cadets give up. :D


Still avoiding the rebuttals to the actual point of this whole discussion. It seems to escape you. The point.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059952075&postcount=221

Still desperately trying to change the subject I see. Poor guy.

OK, if you want to change the subject why not pick something really good
like Dave McGowan's new addition to his Wagging the Moondoggie series
of articles exposing the Apollo hoax? Surely you must have been alerted
to this? It was posted a couple weeks ago. I don't think anyone's mentioned
it here and I'm surprised that the space cadets haven't mounted a debunking
campaign as yet. You're not shirking your responsibilities I hope. What would
Werner Von Braun think?


The new chapter can be found here:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo14.html

And, for those who missed this series of articles, they begin here:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

[truegroup]

Still desperately trying to change the subject I see. Poor guy.


The actual subject that was being discussed you mean?

Moon doggie? Dogpoo more like.

Pick anything in that article, not his opinion, with anything remotely resembling proof.

[graflok]

The actual subject that was being discussed you mean?

Moon doggie? Dogpoo more like.

Pick anything in that article, not his opinion, with anything remotely resembling proof.

Atta boy! :D

[truegroup]

Atta boy! :D

I don't think anybody noticed by the way.

You ignoring the actual topic of discussion, telling me off for 'changing subject' back to it, then changing the subject yourself to Wagging the Moonpoo.

Atta boy!

[ianw]

Atta boy! :D

:D throw him the ball again.

[gort]

:D throw him the ball again.Yep....and it will be fetched by the true:Dgroup:D of Believers.The thread is dead,but the horse will be beaten over and over even though it is dead.Anew thread is in order,but I'll leave it to others to start as the zealots will derail it anyway.

[bertl]

Called in the others to derail the thread further eh, graflok? How about answering truegroup's question, something that is relevant to the actual discussion at hand?

Pick anything in that article, not his opinion, with anything remotely resembling proof.

[dr steam]

Complete Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference. Did They Go? Watch the unconvincing News Conference and decide for yourself…
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=276

[truegroup]

Complete Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference. Did They Go? Watch the unconvincing News Conference and decide for yourself…
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=276


They look guilty m'lud:rolleyes:, they haven't just come out of quarantine, after a hard mission, by any chance? They are astronauts and flyboys, not media personnel.

Whack a mole. How many more times, the same shit, over and over?

[truegroup]

:D throw him the ball again.

Or answer the frickin' rebuttal?

[phrased eyebrow]

Complete Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference. Did They Go? Watch the unconvincing News Conference and decide for yourself…
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=276 Looks like they pulled it off to me.

And we can ALL agree that it strengthens our case. Even the wenters.

Why wasn't there any exhaust plume when the LM launched from the moon? There is on the Nasa artwork, and we know that they never unintentionally lie to us.

[dr steam]

They do behave a little odd

The very tense uncertainty, and body language is perhaps a little mysterious

but there may of course be many reasons for this;)

[truegroup]

Why wasn't there any exhaust plume when the LM launched from the moon? There is on the Nasa artwork, and we know that they never unintentionally lie to us.

So artwork should always represent reality should it? Please show the picture you refer to.

The LM ascent engine burned within the exhaust housing, it is visible as it ignites, and when the craft is vertically above, when we can see within the housing itself.

What you are saying is that they supposedly went to the trouble of synchronising weather patterns with photography and video, but 'forgot' to put a Thunderbirds stylee big flame on the supposed 'model':rolleyes:

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

[tsaritsin]

They do behave a little odd

The very tense uncertainty, and body language is perhaps a little mysterious

but there may of course be many reasons for this;)

;)

[tsaritsin]

So artwork should always represent reality should it? Please show the picture you refer to.

The LM ascent engine burned within the exhaust housing, it is visible as it ignites, and when the craft is vertically above, when we can see within the housing itself.

What you are saying is that they supposedly went to the trouble of synchronising weather patterns with photography and video, but 'forgot' to put a Thunderbirds stylee big flame on the supposed 'model':rolleyes:

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

err, hang on there a mo,

NASA themselfs say that the Moon is covered in a very very fine layer of dust, almost like talcum powder,

Now, im fully aware that they needed less thrust on the Moon, due to the gravity being lower,

But thrust is thrust, so where's all the dust ?

Do NASA expect us to believe that they launched from the Moons surface, with thrusters, and did not kick up a huge cloud of dust,

Let me guess, the Moon has special dust, dust that kicks up from wheel rotation alone (Moon buggies), but when thrust is applied to it, it just sticks to the ground and doesnt move,

It was a show, huge clouds of dust on take off would of spoilt the show, huge clouds of dust on take off would spoil all those nice images for the veiwers back home,

There was no thrust, because there was not dust.

Again, just my opinion.

I very nearly went back on the fence, but then I watched that news conference video again, lol, its a killer :D

[truegroup]

;)

Other reasons, being bored shitless in quarantine, and all the euphoria evaporated?

Straight off the helicopter into mobile quarantine facility:

http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/8/D/1/apollo56.jpg

http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/osm_carpentier.asp
Prior to the mission, Carpentier and the engineer who was also going into quarantine evaluated the medical procedures and equipment in the MQF. Precautions were taken to ensure that nothing could escape, even though no one really believed the astronauts would bring back any moon bugs. Conditions on the moon seemed to preclude any conceivable life form, but no one could say the odds were zero and "we just couldn’t take the risk," said Carpentier.

They were forced to take one risk, however—they had to open the hatch of the command module and extract the astronauts while it was bobbing in the ocean. The alternative was to lift the command module out of the water with the crew still inside, but the winch on the carrier was not "man-rated"—that is, it could not be used for an operation that could put the astronauts’ lives at risk. "It was elected to bring them out of the spacecraft because the winches were not felt to be reliable or safe enough to bring them up in the spacecraft," Carpentier said. "If they lost the capsule, they lost the capsule, but they were not about to lose the crew."

This was a calculated choice made by NASA officials, in consultation with science advisors appointed by the President and based on the belief that the probability of organisms coming back in the spacecraft was so remote that it did not justify jeopardizing the crew. Nevertheless, extra precautions were taken. The astronauts donned biological isolation garments and respirators inside the spacecraft and when they got out into the raft, the divers, who were also in isolation garments, washed their suits and everything else down with chemicals.

Looking very much like visiting aliens in their grey garments and respirators, the astronauts emerged from the recovery helicopter on the carrier deck and marched straight into the MQF. Carpentier was right on their heels. He’d set an ambitious testing schedule for the first hours of the quarantine and found he didn’t really have time to ponder the fact that he had, virtually to himself, three men whom the entire planet wanted to get their hands on. "I knew this was an incredible, momentous occasion, that I was very close to history, but I didn’t think about it too much. I had 15 things I had to do per hour if I was going to get all this medical testing done, because I had to do it in series on each person. I was never so busy in my entire life."

Although the crew was very co-operative, they were anxious to get out of jail. When asked about operations in the quarantine facility less than a week after returning, Mike Collins said bluntly: "I want out."


Start of 21 day quarantine:

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9333/quarantine.jpg

Seeing family:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/090708/GAL-09Jul08-2282/media/PHO-09Jul08-169101.jpg

During quarantine:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_g4jfQ9COILQ/R0ZScli2HGI/AAAAAAAACqw/tENiKqYD9J8/s400/moon%2Bmission4.jpg

Finally they are let out (turn sound down)

Apollo 11 post-mission crew quarantine ends - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEZZ_mUMWM

Two days later into a full auditorium packed with people to present the mission summary and answer a few questions.

The FULL press conference:

Apollo 11 Press Conference - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtE8EewIjpU

HBs always concentrate on the daft stars nonsense or the 'guilty' look on their faces. If you watch this whole thing, they are just doing their jobs as astronauts, with the whole auditorium watching them answer questions.
Armstrong is very natural in his answers. The idea that they have been briefed on their answers is disproven quite easily by just watching this. The idea that they weren't briefed, when they had supposedly just carried out a hoax is, ridiculous.

Just scroll to 47 minutes and watch the next couple of minutes.


NEXT.:D

[bertl]

err, hang on there a mo,

NASA themselfs say that the Moon is covered in a very very fine layer of dust, almost like talcum powder,

Now, im fully aware that they needed less thrust on the Moon, due to the gravity being lower,

But thrust is thrust, so where's all the dust ?

Do NASA expect us to believe that they launched from the Moons surface, with thrusters, and did not kick up a huge cloud of dust,

Let me guess, the Moon has special dust, dust that kicks up from wheel rotation alone (Moon buggies), but when thrust is applied to it, it just sticks to the ground and doesnt move,

It was a show, huge clouds of dust on take off would of spoilt the show, huge clouds of dust on take off would spoil all those nice images for the veiwers back home,

There was no thrust, because there was not dust.

Again, just my opinion.

I very nearly went back on the fence, but then I watched that news conference video again, lol, its a killer :D

Let's take a look at some video of Apollo 11's LM landing on the Moon then...

First Moon Landing, One Shot, 1969, Apollo 11 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc

From 8 minutes onwards: wait, is that dust? I think it is. 8:30, "picking up some dust".

So much for "no dust".

[truegroup]

Do NASA expect us to believe that they launched from the Moons surface, with thrusters, and did not kick up a huge cloud of dust,

Let me guess.....

Again, just my opinion.....

Thanks for your guesses and opinions.

The Ascent section of the Lunar Module was seated on the Descent portion. It pushed loads of pieces of insulation mylar and kapton out as the rocket was ignited. Plus plenty of dust!

Apollo 15 lifts-off from the Moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA

p.s. Just look at how quick the dust settled. Impossible in air.



In this footage, you can pieces flying off across the Moon's surface.

Apollo 15 Lunar Liftoff - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOq-fRp5YI

I very nearly went back on the fence, but then I watched that news conference video again, lol, its a killer :D

You mean you watched the little bit where 'they look guilty'. See my post above.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059953635&postcount=240

[elton]

err, hang on there a mo,

NASA themselfs say that the Moon is covered in a very very fine layer of dust, almost like talcum powder,

Now, im fully aware that they needed less thrust on the Moon, due to the gravity being lower,

But thrust is thrust, so where's all the dust ?

Do NASA expect us to believe that they launched from the Moons surface, with thrusters, and did not kick up a huge cloud of dust,

Let me guess, the Moon has special dust, dust that kicks up from wheel rotation alone (Moon buggies), but when thrust is applied to it, it just sticks to the ground and doesnt move,

It was a show, huge clouds of dust on take off would of spoilt the show, huge clouds of dust on take off would spoil all those nice images for the veiwers back home,

There was no thrust, because there was not dust.

Again, just my opinion.

I very nearly went back on the fence, but then I watched that news conference video again, lol, its a killer :D

The ascent module used the descent module as the launch pad so the thrust was not directed onto the lunar surface.

[phrased eyebrow]

They were boozed out of their skulls and had female "stowaways", according to Buzz Aldrin's tome, Return to Earth.

[graflok]

How about answering truegroup's question, something that is relevant to the actual discussion at hand?

Nope, I've stated many times that Philthy53 lied. Proved it too. :)

[truegroup]

Nope, I've stated many times that Philthy53 lied. Proved it too. :)

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/27842-beating_dead_horse_what.jpg

Carefully avoiding the point once again. Carefully avoiding actually answering to one of your posts.

[graflok]

You ignoring the actual topic of discussion ...


On the contrary -- my topic of discussion on this thread has always been
philthy53's false statement which I have proven to be false. Care to discuss
it some more? That's fine.

While you collect your thoughts here is that link to the Wagging the
Moondoggie article on the Apollo scam written by Dave Mcgowan:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

[graflok]

Carefully avoiding the point once again. Carefully avoiding actually answering to one of your posts.

Not at all. As can be seen from reading this thread my point has always been
philthy53's false statement about the bogus moon rock which I have proven to
be false. But, if you wish to discuss it some more I'll be happy to accommodate
you.

[truegroup]

They were boozed out of their skulls and had female "stowaways", according to Buzz Aldrin's tome, Return to Earth.

I'm sure you jest. But just on the off chance you are serious, which passage in the book says that?

I bet you would relish 8 days in space without having a decent crap, or meal, followed by 21 days cooped up in a small area. :rolleyes:

[phrased eyebrow]

and I read stacks of books on nasa like you did. Knew where every library in the state's location was for 641.3 or was it .4?

Cite the passage? Do your own homework. As for my av's basis- run an image search for "LM on moon". Note: I added the crusader- not in the original pic.