of course we have been to the moon..

[mattzadak]

we underestimate true reality

people on the moon is nothing when you realize the power of infinite consiousness

[mattzadak]

now an average civilian, thats another matter

[1776]

now an average civilian, thats another matter

Who's an 'average civilian', anyhow? :rolleyes:

Who's the privileged few allowed to be exploring the moon or abroad in outer-space? The Mystery School adepts? The Illuminated Ones? Who, huh? :cool:


Peace&Love
God bless

[ultima1]

Who's an 'average civilian', anyhow? :rolleyes:
Who's the privileged few allowed to be exploring the moon or abroad in outer-space?

Well several astonauts have been to the moon and outer-space.

[1776]

Well several astonauts have been to the moon and outer-space.

I never said they haven't.

I never said they have.



Peace&Love
God bless

[ultima1]

I never said they haven't.

I never said they have.

Well we have tons of evidence that they have been to the moon.

[david c]

Well we have tons of evidence that they have been to the moon.
I've never seen a bit of evidence that they went to the moon and I've seen a ton of evidence that at least some of the footage was faked. Please post some of the evidence you're referring to so we can analyze it.

[ultima1]

I've never seen a bit of evidence that they went to the moon and I've seen a ton of evidence that at least some of the footage was faked. Please post some of the evidence you're referring to so we can analyze it.

Well we can start with the following facts.

1. Reflectors placed on the moon by manned moon missions.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.

2. Facts of Apollo manned mission taking parts from a unmanned probe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#American_unmanned_hard_landings_.2819 58.E2.80.931965.29
Surveyor 3 was visited two years after its Moon landing by the crew of Apollo 12. They removed parts of it for examination back on Earth to determine the effects of long-term exposure to the lunar environment

3. Facts of probes from other countries taken photos of the manned moon landing sites.

http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html
India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

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. Apollo 15 landed on the Moon in 1971 in a region called Mare Imbrium, and SELENE's Terrain Camera (TC) is continuing to reconstruct a 3D view of the region in unprecedented high-resolution.

[david c]

Reflectors placed on the moon by manned moon missions.
I addressed this on your reflectors thread.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058978640&postcount=8

Robot craft can have adjustable reflectors on thier sides.

Surveyor 3 was visited two years after its Moon landing by the crew of Apollo 12. They removed parts of it for examination back on Earth to determine the effects of long-term exposure to the lunar environment
That's what we read but is it true? We are lied to about so many things that we can't simply believe this because we read it.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

Facts of probes from other countries taken photos of the manned moon landing sites.
All those pictures are fakeable so they're not proof. They also don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

Other countries can make pacts with the US government.

If there are plausible scenarios that can explain "Proof" that they went to the moon, it isn't proof.

[ultima1]

Robot craft can have adjustable reflectors on thier sides.

So sorry but as stated and proven the original set of reflectors had to be set up and pointed to earth.


All those pictures are fakeable so they're not proof. They also don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

Sorry but you cannot prove them fake. So we have to go with the experts who have checked out the photos.

What mountain of haox evidence, almost all hoax evidence has been debunked for decades.

Other countries can make pacts with the US government.

So you believe in soom kind of fantasy, worldwide conspiriacy involving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people?

[truegroup]

I've never seen a bit of evidence that they went to the moon and I've seen a ton of evidence that at least some of the footage was faked. Please post some of the evidence you're referring to so we can analyze it.

You don't look at the evidence, just your little collection of debunked yoochooob vids and links.

[ronisron]

I believe that much of the Apollo footage was faked, but I believe that was done to be able to control what was being seen. It doesn't mean we've never been to the moon.

[ultima1]

I believe that much of the Apollo footage was faked, but I believe that was done to be able to control what was being seen. It doesn't mean we've never been to the moon.

What evidnece do you have that it was faked, and do not repeat what has been dubunked for decades.

[david c]

So sorry but as stated and proven the original set of reflectors had to be set up and pointed to earth.
Humans aren't necessary to put reflectors at the angle necessary to reflect signals. The upper part of a robot lander can be rotational with reflectors attached to its sides that are adjustable in the up-down direction. Tell us why only people could put them at the proper angle.

Sorry but you cannot prove them fake. So we have to go with the experts who have checked out the photos.
Experts can be bought. Go back and look at the info in this link again.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

There's a scientist that says there's a lot of science fraud going on. There's another scientist that says it's impossible to publish anything in science journals if it goes against the official version of things. There's an example of two groups of scientiists who take opposite views on an issue.

What mountain of haox evidence, almost all hoax evidence has been debunked for decades.
Click on the link in my signature where it says, "The Apollo moon missions were faked.". We can start with the way the flag moves without being touched.
Apollo 15 flag waving - YouTube

So you believe in soom kind of fantasy, worldwide conspiriacy involving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people?
Not everyone has to know about what's acutally going on.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but relay on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Go back to this post and check out the info on the media.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

If anyone tried to blow the whistle, we'd never hear about it as the press is under tight control. There's a video in that link in which a scientist tells how she was harassed and her career was ruined because she'd blown the whistle.

Here's some more evidence that talking can get you into trouble.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
Sacrifice On Pad 34. - YouTube

There may have been lots of people in those other countries who wanted to blow the whistle on their governments but were afraid to or they knew it would be futile.

You don't look at the evidence, just your little collection of debunked yoochooob vids and links.
These general statements don't prove anything. Let's talk about specifics. We can start with the flag video that's above.

[ultima1]

Humans aren't necessary to put reflectors at the angle necessary to reflect signals.

Yes they were needed to set up the original set of reflectors.

The upper part of a robot lander can be rotational with reflectors attached to its sides that are adjustable in the up-down direction.

You have ZERO evidence of a robot lander putting the Americen NIST reflectors on the moon. Stop being dishonest.

[ninorc]

david c: What about the 12 men who walked on the moon (and the 12 others who accompanied them)? Are they all liars, or have they been brainwashed?

I ask because all were tough guys who had what Tom Wolfe called The Right Stuff. Several were profoundly affected by their experience and have demonstrated an independence of mind by being critical of NASA and talking about UFO sightings.

I think the more interesting question than, 'did man really walk on the moon' is, 'why haven't we been back'?

[ultima1]

Several were profoundly affected by their experience and have demonstrated an independence of mind by being critical of NASA and talking about UFO sightings.

Yes a lot of airline pilots have been fired for talking about UFO sightings, so poeple put thier careers on the line when talking about UFOs.

[david c]

What about the 12 men who walked on the moon (and the 12 others who accompanied them)? Are they all liars, or have they been brainwashed?
I would say they're liars.
Clip of Apollo 11 press conference - YouTube
(Do a YouTube search on "Clip of Apollo 11 press conference".)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they were needed to set up the original set of reflectors.

Please go into some detail and explain why remote control couldn't do the same thing. All that was necessary was to put them at the proper angle.

[ultima1]

Please go into some detail and explain why remote control couldn't do the same thing. All that was necessary was to put them at the proper angle.

Please read the facts and infomration provided by the several sites including NIST sites about the refelctors.

You will just ignore what i post so look for yourself.

Also the fact that there is no evidence that the NIST reflectors were set up by remote control probes.

[ronisron]

What evidnece do you have that it was faked, and do not repeat what has been dubunked for decades.

I said "I" believe, that's the qualifier. The footage looked staged to me. The lander looked fake. Etc. I believe it was staged so they could control the imagery that people were seeing. I believe they've been to the moon.

[ultima1]

I said "I" believe, that's the qualifier. The footage looked staged to me. The lander looked fake. Etc. I believe it was staged so they could control the imagery that people were seeing. I believe they've been to the moon.

Sorry but the only report of a film by NASA is one made in case the astronauts died on the moon, but thats just a report.

The moon landings have been proven real by tons of evidence.

[david c]

You will just ignore what i post so look for yourself.
No I won't. I'll tell you what I think of it. If I say it's not proof that they had to be set up by humans, you'll say I'm ignoring it.

Also the fact that there is no evidence that the NIST reflectors were set up by remote control probes.
Only people with high security clearances would have access to any evidence.

The stuff you say would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

[quanten mechaniker]

The lander looked fake.

Could you please explain why the LM looks fake to you?

[ultima1]

No I won't.

Why are you afriad to look for the truth ????

The stuff you say would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

Too bad the stuff i say has evidnece to support it that would hold up in court.

Its the hoaxers that would get laughed out of a court room.

[david c]

No I won't.
Why are you afriad to look for the truth ????
I was saying I won't ignore what you post. I wasn't saying I won't look for the info. It sounds kind of hard to find. Please post it.

[ninorc]

I would say they're liars.

(Do a YouTube search on "Clip of Apollo 11 press conference".)
What does that prove? The fact that these guys were nervous and a bit stilted in front of the cameras in 1969 doesn't make them liars. Back then, people were not so media savvy or trained to present themselves on TV.
What about all the numerous interviews, conducted by journalists and writers of books, that have been published? None of those authors thought their interviewees were lying and they had personal access and were able to read indicators like body language. But I guess you - who presumably has never met an astronaut in the flesh - know better?


Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.Buzz Aldrin turned down a scholarship at MIT to become an astronaut and became the second human being to set foot on the moon. His difficulties in reconciling his experience and playing second fiddle to Neil Armstrong led to his becoming a second-hand car salesman for a stretch and to battles with depression and alcoholism, which are recorded in his memoir, Magnificent Desolation. So, however this Rene is, s/he strikes me as rather unsympathetic, to say the least.

My favourite YouTube video of Buzz is the one in which he is confronted by a snotty wanker called Bart Sibrel who calls him a 'coward, a liar and a thief'. Buzz' rather excellent response is to punch him straight in the face. He was 72 at the time. Local police declined to press charges on the grounds that the scuzzy little prick got what he deserved for insulting an American hero and quite right, too.

[ultima1]

I was saying I won't ignore what you post. I wasn't saying I won't look for the info. It sounds kind of hard to find. Please post it.

Sorry but your track record is not that good at accepting and admitting to facts shown.

[david c]

What does that prove? The fact that these guys were nervous and a bit stilted in front of the cameras in 1969 doesn't make them liars. Back then, people were not so media savvy or trained to present themselves on TV.
What about all the numerous interviews, conducted by journalists and writers of books, that have been published? None of those authors thought their interviewees were lying and they had personal access and were able to read indicators like body language. But I guess you - who presumably has never met an astronaut in the flesh - know better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david c View Post
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Buzz Aldrin turned down a scholarship at MIT to become an astronaut and became the second human being to set foot on the moon. His difficulties in reconciling his experience and playing second fiddle to Neil Armstrong led to his becoming a second-hand car salesman for a stretch and to battles with depression and alcoholism, which are recorded in his memoir, Magnificent Desolation. So, however this Rene is, s/he strikes me as rather unsympathetic, to say the least.

My favourite YouTube video of Buzz is the one in which he is confronted by a snotty wanker called Bart Sibrel who calls him a 'coward, a liar and a thief'. Buzz' rather excellent response is to punch him straight in the face. He was 72 at the time. Local police declined to press charges on the grounds that the scuzzy little prick got what he deserved for insulting an American hero and quite right, too.
The astronauts' behavior is only circumstantial evidence. It can't prove or disprove anything. The real evidence is in the video. Click on the link in my signature to see some of the real evidence.

[ultima1]

The real evidence is in the video.

What about the real evidence of several different observatories tracking the manned missons?

What about the real evidence of all the time and money spent on building the boosters, capsules and landers?

What about the real evdience of observatories still using the reflectors placed on the moon by the manned missions?

[david c]

What about the real evidence of several different observatories tracking the manned missons?
There are plausible scenarios that would explain this.

They might simply be lying to us. Go back and look at the info in this link again.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

You're not considering it in any of your assertions.

There might have actually been an unmanned craft that went to the moon, orbited the moon for the length of the missions, and returned to fool people observing.

What about the real evidence of all the time and money spent on building the boosters, capsules and landers?
I don't see what this proves. They would have to actually produce some equipment to carry out a fake moon landing.


What about the real evdience of observatories still using the reflectors placed on the moon by the manned missions?
They could have been attached to unmanned robot landers.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058978640&postcount=8

[ultima1]

There are plausible scenarios that would explain this.

Sorry but thats not facts and evidence.

They might simply be lying to us. Go back and look at the info in this link again.

You have no proof of them lying.

There might have actually been an unmanned craft that went to the moon, orbited the moon for the length of the missions, and returned to fool people observing.

Gee, you do not even know that there were unmanned missions? Shows me how much (or how little) you actually know.

But they did not set up the reflectors.

They could have been attached to unmanned robot landers978640&postcount=8[/url]

You have ZERO evidence to suport this theory.

[macgyver1968]

Question:

If we had the technology to send a remote control robot to set up the retro-reflectors, then what was preventing us from sending a manned mission?

Why didn't the Soviet Union notice a faked landing? They were certainly tracking us. It would have been a propaganda windfall for them.

[david c]

Sorry but thats not facts and evidence.
You seem to need to take a class in logic because it doesn't seem to come naturally to you. If there are plausible scenarios that would explain your "Proof", it isn't proof as one of the plausible scenarios might be the true one.

You have no proof of them lying.
Of course I don't but the fact that it's merely something that we read means it's not proof.

Look at all the ways Americans are lied to by the government.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

In an environment like this, we can't just take something we read as proof. You simply don't seem mentally equipped to deal with this topic. You have a naive willingness to believe.

Gee, you do not even know that there were unmanned missions?
You're playing games here. I know about the Surveyor missions, etc. I meant that an unmanned craft posing as the Apollo craft might have actually gone all the way to the moon, orbited it, and returned to make people think the Apollo craft went to the moon.

But they did not set up the reflectors.
I mean a classified mission. There's also the plausible scenario that one of the Surveyor craft was not the same craft they told us it was; one of the Surveyor craft might have had adjustable reflectors attached to its sides and a transmitter to fake the transmissions between earth and moon.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

You pro-Apollo people are about as impressive as the Black Knight is in this video.
Black Knight Holy Grail - YouTube
(Do a YouTube search on "Black Knight Holy Grail".)

As with the Black Knight, your attitudes do not fit the situation.

[david c]

what was preventing us from sending a manned mission?
It was probably space radiation.

Why didn't the Soviet Union notice a faked landing? They were certainly tracking us. It would have been a propaganda windfall for them.
Click on the link in my signature. There's some stuff about the Soviets and space radiation there.

[apollo_gnomon]

Radio communications with the lunar missions were tracked by non-NASA people on earth, including amateurs with home-brew antennas. If the astronauts were in earth orbit, it would be detectable, both by the radio comms and by visual tracking both with and without optics. The light-speed delay for radio comms is consistent with messages traveling to the moon and back.

[ninorc]

The astronauts' behavior is only circumstantial evidence. It can't prove or disprove anything. The real evidence is in the video. Click on the link in my signature to see some of the real evidence.
I've cast a cursory eye over your source - a basketball team's fan forum - and it seems like the same old tosh that's been repeatedly discredited over the years: the fluttering flag; the unlikely shadows, etc.
It *is* kind of amazing how this conspiracy theory persists despite the lack of real evidence and how believers insist there's a global conspiracy to hide the truth and that everyone is lying, except the armchair fantasists.

[truegroup]

It was probably space radiation.

Probably? Based on what?

Manned missions seem unaffected, with all that electronic gear!

Cite your research on this. Van Allen himself had no problem with Apollo, the actual flights skipped the upper outer regions of the belts on a 30 degree trajectory, and passed through the belts very quickly.

[david c]

Radio communications with the lunar missions were tracked by non-NASA people on earth
We read this but it may not be true. We are constantly lied to by our government. Please read the info in this post and respond in a way that shows you understand the idea.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

If the astronauts were in earth orbit, it would be detectable, both by the radio comms and by visual tracking both with and without optics.
Maybe they weren't in earth orbit. That's just one theory of where the astronauts were during the missions. There are others.

The light-speed delay for radio comms is consistent with messages traveling to the moon and back.
Are you saying it was impossible to simulate that?

it seems like the same old tosh that's been repeatedly discredited over the years: the fluttering flag; the unlikely shadows, etc.
It hasn't been discredited. You pro-Apollo people put forth alternative explanations for anomalies and then just consider them to be debunked. That's not debunking.

One example is the crosshair issue.
http://pseudoastro.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sibrel_crosshair.jpg

This explanation given at Clavius is just an alternative explanation.
http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

It's still possible that the photo was doctored. We just have another possible explanation. It's still plausible that the photo was doctored. They didn't debunk the idea that the photo was doctored.

If some irrefutable evidence comes along such as the flag moving without being touched, all of those explanations for the anomalies put forth by Apollo-believers fall by the wayside.

You people haven't come close to explaining this anomaly.
Apollo 15 flag waving - YouTube
(Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving".)

[david c]

Manned missions seem unaffected, with all that electronic gear!
Manned missions in low earth orbit-not into and beyond the belts.

Cite your research on this. Van Allen himself had no problem with Apollo, the actual flights skipped the upper outer regions of the belts on a 30 degree trajectory, and passed through the belts very quickly.

MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 5 - YouTube
(Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 5")

The theory is that Van Allen started working for NASA and changed his stance on space radiation.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
-------------------------------------

Click on the link in my signature to see more stuff on space radiation.

[apollo_gnomon]

Quote:
The light-speed delay for radio comms is consistent with messages traveling to the moon and back.

Are you saying it was impossible to simulate that?


Yes.

If you can concoct a method by which this could be simulated, please let us know. It must satisfy the conditions of being variable in length to simulate the trip to the moon and back, as well as orbiting the moon.

It must simulate the condion of the orbiter being out of contact while on the backside of the moon relative to earth while the lander is in a fixed spot on the moon.

It must also satisfy the condition of accurately simulating the directionality of the transmissions, which coincided with the telescope-tracked command module both to and from the moon.

It must not have and doppler-shift effects which would reveal the transmissions to be coming from earth orbit, nor have any weather-related signal distortions which would reveal a ground-based transmitter.

Ready to earn your Nobel prize in science? GO!

[truegroup]

Manned missions in low earth orbit-not into and beyond the belts.
And the ones you allege put reflectors on the Moon, and the ones you allege gathered 840lbs of Moon rocks!! Diversion.

The theory is that Van Allen started working for NASA and changed his stance on space radiation.


Nice THEORY. No proof. Van Allen laughed at the Fox TV special when it quoted his 50's research!


"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Exactly. Just what you'd expect from an HB. 1959. 1959 - 10 years before Apollo! Numerous missions later, vast amounts of data later, scientists re-evaluate their contentions - it's called progress.

Please tell me why you disagree with this (avoiding armwaving and damage control allegations that you can't substantiate - perhaps an argument against the content???):
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

and

SHOW ME SOME MORE RECENT RESEARCH to Apollo for the VA belts being impassable.

[david c]

If you can concoct a method by which this could be simulated, please let us know. It must satisfy the conditions of being variable in length to simulate the trip to the moon and back, as well as orbiting the moon.

It must simulate the condion of the orbiter being out of contact while on the backside of the moon relative to earth while the lander is in a fixed spot on the moon.

It must also satisfy the condition of accurately simulating the directionality of the transmissions, which coincided with the telescope-tracked command module both to and from the moon.

It must not have and doppler-shift effects which would reveal the transmissions to be coming from earth orbit, nor have any weather-related signal distortions which would reveal a ground-based transmitter.

Ready to earn your Nobel prize in science? GO!
Maybe there were some governments that weren't fooled but didn't snitch. Maybe they talked about it in their own countries and we never heard about it because of our controlled press.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

I if you say it was possible for amateurs to follow transmissions, I doubt they could have noticed such subtleties. If they could have, the science journals would have ignored their attempts to publish what they thought.

Transmissions aren't proof that the missions were real as there are plausible alternative explanations. They also don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

And the ones you allege put reflectors on the Moon, and the ones you allege gathered 840lbs of Moon rocks!! Diversion.
Maybe they didn't gather nearly that much and just gave some of the real rocks to the scientists they wanted to fool whom they didn't have under their control. Maybe they didn't collect any rocks with unmanned craft and they manufactured moon rocks.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Q: What about Moon rocks brought back by astronauts, it’s proof the landings took place?

A: No it is not, and this is the most common tactic used by NASA and PAN’s, but proves nothing. NASA were manufacturing simulated Moon rock, long before the Apollo missions, this is proven in an abstract published in 1966, 3 years before Apollo 11. This simulated Moon rock is reconstructed from basalt, and meteorite samples discovered in Antarctica. It is simulated Moon rock that is dispatched to universities around the globe as being the real thing. These simulated Moon rocks are, of course, totally different to any rocks found on Earth, and they were meant to be that way. This is why geologists claim they cannot be found elsewhere on Earth. No of course not because they are manufactured by NASA to be totally different to Earth borne rocks. NASA manufacture the simulated Moon rock and Moon dust so cheaply they do not even charge for it, other than transportation costs.
--------------------------------------------------------

There are other plausible explanations for the rocks.
MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 5. - YouTube
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 1. - YouTube

Maybe lots of scientists weren't fooled by the rocks but they don't try to go public.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but relay on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
--------------------------------------------------------

If someone tried to come forward, we'd never hear about it.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks to they're not proof. They also don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

Nice THEORY. No proof. Van Allen laughed at the Fox TV special when it quoted his 50's research!
This may or may not be true. If it turns out to be true, we have the plausible scenario that he was still working for NASA.

Exactly. Just what you'd expect from an HB. 1959. 1959 - 10 years before Apollo! Numerous missions later, vast amounts of data later, scientists re-evaluate their contentions - it's called progress.
That's a plausible scenario for what happened but that's all it is–a plausible scenario. We still have the other plausible scenario that he started working for NASA.

Please tell me why you disagree with this (avoiding armwaving and damage control allegations that you can't substantiate - perhaps an argument against the content???):
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html


First of all the Claius site blindly believes the NASA data on the nature of the radiation.
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.
-----------------------------------------------------

NASA may be lying about the nature of space radiation.
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOW ME SOME MORE RECENT RESEARCH to Apollo for the VA belts being impassable.
As far as I know, the only people in a postition to send up probes that can measure radiation would be governments. I might be wrong about this.

Those governments might have made a deal with NASA not to make the data public. Astronomy students might have one set of data while people who design satellites with high security clearances would know the real data. If anyone else knew the real data, he'd have a hard time getting it published.

Watch the video here about how science journals are controlled.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059014212&postcount=135

[truegroup]

Maybe
Your whole hoax claim is one big string of maybes, and 'it's possible', likely, could have, I doubt, I think. It is just your crap opinion.

This 'mountain' of evidence. Is a little tiny molehill in relation to the vast records that prove it was not a hoax.

Show us more of your mountain, preferably without a dozen vids and links. Try your own words, that would be a real novelty.

[free_thinker]

Your whole hoax claim is one big string of maybes, and 'it's possible', likely, could have, I doubt, I think. It is just your crap opinion.

This 'mountain' of evidence. Is a little tiny molehill in relation to the vast records that prove it was not a hoax.

Show us more of your mountain, preferably without a dozen vids and links. Try your own words, that would be a real novelty.

Well according to Pete's dad's mate at work he knows someone who dated this girl and her dad said it was all made up and faked.You can't argue with that type of solid ,reliable evidence.

FFS---:eek:

[ultima1]

Why didn't the Soviet Union notice a faked landing? They were certainly tracking us. It would have been a propaganda windfall for them.

Forget about getting a straight answer form the hoaxers, i have brought this up several times.

Along with the fact of several other independent observatories that were tracking the manned missions.

[ultima1]

I know about the Surveyor missions, etc. I meant that an unmanned craft posing as the Apollo craft might have actually gone all the way to the moon, orbited it, and returned to make people think the Apollo craft went to the moon.

There were more then just the Surveyor missions, you really do not know much about what happened do you?

I mean a classified mission.

What classified mission? We know all the Russian missions, please explain the need for a classified mission?


Again you have zero proof to support any theories you have.

[ultima1]

It was probably space radiation.

Thats been debunked for decades.

As stated there were unmanned missions to the moon so it would have been possiable for manned missions too.

In fact manned missions would have been easier then unmanned.

[apollo_gnomon]

Maybe there were some

Maybe they talked about it

I doubt they could have noticed

Maybe they didn't gather nearly that much

Maybe they didn't collect any rocks with unmanned craft and they manufactured moon rocks.

Maybe lots of scientists weren't fooled by the rocks but they don't try to go public.

This may or may not be true.

Astronomy students might have one set of data

Maybe Shmaybe.

Maybe they didn't collect any rocks with unmanned craft and they manufactured moon rocks.
Uh, no. There is no way to "manufacture" moon rocks that will convince geologists. Waving another "maybe" around doesn't cut it.

NASA manufacture the simulated Moon rock and Moon dust so cheaply they do not even charge for it, other than transportation costs.
Prove it. Where did you get this information? Please don't post a link to your rectum, I don't want to click that.

Do you actually KNOW anything or are you just speculating about speculating?

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by david c
I know about the Surveyor missions, etc. I meant that an unmanned craft posing as the Apollo craft might have actually gone all the way to the moon, orbited it, and returned to make people think the Apollo craft went to the moon.

You do know that splashdowns and recoveries were broadcast live & uninterrupted? I watched them, live & uninterrupted.

Is your contention that someone flew a fake craft above the clouds and dropped it back to earth? Do you know how ridiculous that is? The twists and turns of the HB mythology are getting more and more tortuous.

And can we please stop citing 'NASA' as if it was the only source of all space related information, it just demonstrates a huge degree of ignorance about how science conducts its business. There are other space organisations, and NASA utilises data from a myriad of independent research sources in Universities, observatories and the like. Space science is much bigger than NASA.

[ultima1]

And can we please stop citing 'NASA' as if it was the only source of all space related information, it just demonstrates a huge degree of ignorance about how science conducts its business. There are other space organisations, and NASA utilises data from a myriad of independent research sources in Universities, observatories and the like. Space science is much bigger than NASA.

Repeated for fact !!!!

[ninorc]

It hasn't been discredited. You pro-Apollo people put forth alternative explanations for anomalies and then just consider them to be debunked. That's not debunking...
If some irrefutable evidence comes along such as the flag moving without being touched, all of those explanations for the anomalies put forth by Apollo-believers fall by the wayside.
Apparently, you are so attached to your illogical opinons that you won't accept any more plausible explanations for the phenomonena you quote as 'evidence' that the moon landings were faked and yet you have the temerity to call me an 'Apollo believer', as if those who won't go along with your absurd fantasies are members of some kind of NASA cult.

[mattzadak]

they let certain initiates do things to humor them (civilians)

or see if they can move up

[theperceivingeye]

I bet shamans have been astrally projecting on the moon since time immemorial, or since it first appeared in our skies.

[camreeno]

You can visit the moon through out-of-body experiences, and I'm sure people already have. So yeah, we've been to the moon. If you mean physically been to the moon, it doesn't make a difference as the dream state is no more "fictional" than the "awake" state, since we're living in a virtual reality universe.

[crisitunity]

I don't think there is any way you can know for sure, but whether or not its possible doesn't add much to the debate.

[ultima1]

You can visit the moon through out-of-body experiences, and I'm sure people already have. So yeah, we've been to the moon. If you mean physically been to the moon, it doesn't make a difference as the dream state is no more "fictional" than the "awake" state, since we're living in a virtual reality universe.

Reallity what a concept !!!!!