Neil Armstrong's Speech About Nothing.

[runciter]

Why should I believe you're a "free soul"? That's assuming that the very concept of "being a free soul" isn't itself an illusion, of course.

you're going in circles, no one can tell you what you should believe.

[dreamweaver]

you're going in circles, no one can tell you what you should believe.

So why have you and your chums tried to do exactly that throughout this thread?

Anyway, how do you know you're a "free soul"? And how can I tell you're one of these "free souls"? How can you prove that the very concept of "being a free soul" isn't itself an illusion?

[runciter]

why is it so important for you to defend the reality of the moon landing?

[jiffy]

Jiffy, perhaps you didn't read those links I posted earlier. If you did, you would have learned that the Van Allen belt radiation is particle radiation, and not electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays or gamma rays. Therefore, talking about dental or chest X-rays and what they might do to film is completely irrelevent.

And yes, the Apollo CM had adequate shielding against particle radiation.

For answers to your other questions, I once again recommend doing some research of your own at clavius.org. (http://www.clavius.org/index.html) All of the concerns I've seen brought up in this thread are dealt with there. Including the "no rover tracks" claim.

I thank you for that (I did miss it), I only used the example of chest X-Ray as this was used to debunk my question. As I said I don't have enough knowledge of Particle Physic's to comment.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the temperature problem has not been addressed in your link.

Now what I do know about is photography (albeit not on the moon) the explanations for having being able to have detail in full shadow is utter nonsense.
I have done overexposure photography (ie longer shutter speed and changing f-stop), without a remote trigger and a tripod it is impossible to not blur the image.
Then there is the problem with overexposure of the picture that IS in light.

Jesus if it was as easy just to open the shutter longer change the f-stop and use a slower film, why would studio spend tens of thousands on lighting.

I'm sorry absolute nonsense!!!!!!!!

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time;)

[endlessvista]

What a dishonest little man you are. As you know perfectly well, Metacomet advised several posts back that I might as well let go as there was nothing left to achieve and I thought it a good idea to follow his advice. Every substantive point you have made has already been rebutted, you have lied out of your teeth about your credentials and about posts you claim not to have been answered but were. You have continually refused to reveal this thread on bautforum where you claim someone (probably you) was hounded off it for mentioning LM manuals. You are obviously trying to hide something there, so again I have no more respect for you.

The fact that, since you realised I had stopped responding, you have been sneakily adding posts as a Gollum-style "victory dance" only serves to reinforce what a liar you are. You even tried to suck up to me in the Penn & Teller thread while sneakily adding more false claims here.

And as for the LM tyre marks, you have never indicated why you think there should be tyre marks in the photos in question, so the question is meaningless. That is your answer. I could very, very easily have just posted a standard rebuttal of this non-issue - it's one of the standing jokes in the pro-Apollo community. The reason is quite simple - you show no understanding of why you think there should be tracks in these particular instances and the claims made by the Hoax Believers on this, as with just about every other claim they make, is laughable.

So you are playing the man instead of the ball.

[drakul]

Sorry if this question has been asked, but it seemed strange to me that when Armstrong made his comment that `Everyone knows parrots don't fly very well' - the audience broke into spontaneous laughter - Why? As if the audience/press was in on an inside joke. First of all because there is nothing funny about that statement. Secondly because Neil Armstrong `flew' to the MOON so he had to fly VERY WELL, better than anyone in the history of the world.

So Armstrong's comment doesn't even make sense. The audience should have been sitting there in silence, wondering what he was talking about - `everyone knows parrots don't fly very well'???

Unless of course Armstrong was speaking in CODE that the White House press corps (`EVERYONE - who is anyone - KNOWS') has long been in on but that we were once too ignorant to understand and it just flew right over most people's heads.

[endlessvista]

metacomet, any "heat" and "defensiveness" is in your imagination. I dislike dishonesty and my actual feeling towards endlessliar is disgust.


Nope. It is your insecurity. You smugly jumped into water which was way out of your debt.

Look, I am not trying to win any internet Alpha-male battle, I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter and contrary to how you feel I am perfectly willing to accept the answers given to me if they are credible and delivered from non NASA or NASA moles/dependent sources.

This didn't happen. So my belief in the Apollo Moon Landings being a big faked piece of propaganda stagecraft remains until other evidence to the contrary are presented.

This is all this thread ever was to me. I am not interested in starting rows or one-upmanship with internet strangers. Honest.

[dreamweaver]

why is it so important for you to defend the reality of the moon landing?

Why is it so important for you to make me conform to your beliefs?

[runciter]

Why is it so important for you to make me conform to your beliefs?

mh? what are you doing in this thread?

[jiffy]

Why is it so important for you to make me conform to your beliefs?

I shall interject here if a maybe so bold........Was it not you that proclaimed that you could debunk all known arguments:confused:

Making such statements had lead you to the path you are now on!!!!!

Points are being placed before you, all we ask is you "Debunk" those points with hard evidence, as per your proclamation;)

[steevo]

There is simply no reliable evidence that the moon landings ever occured.

[dreamweaver]

Nope. It is your insecurity. You smugly jumped into water which was way out of your debt.
You meant depth. You're wrong. My understanding of the subject is at least as great, if not greater, than yours.

Look, I am not trying to win any internet Alpha-male battle,
Stop acting like it then.

I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter and contrary to how you feel I am perfectly willing to accept the answers given to me if they are credible and delivered from non NASA or NASA moles/dependent sources.
Well, that's a fundamental problem since only NASA were there. It's like being present at your own murder trial and being told neither you or anyone connected to you is allowed to present any evidence in your defence.

It's also a bit like saying prove the Holocaust did or didn't happen wiothout reference to the Jews or the Nazis.

This didn't happen.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

So my belief in the Apollo Moon Landings being a big faked piece of propaganda stagecraft remains until other evidence to the contrary are presented.
You are entitled to your opinion. But I am entitled to mine too and I have every right to challenge your version of events, as you have mine.

This is all this thread ever was to me. I am not interested in starting rows or one-upmanship with internet strangers. Honest.
Your dishonest antics and resorting to downright lies in the interests of oneupmanship appalled me. If you're prepared to turn over a new leaf, great, let's start afresh - I bear no grudges. But don't expect me to conform to your beliefs and I won't expect you to conform to mine. Either we debate civilly or there is no debate - agreed?

[endlessvista]

It's also a bit like saying prove the Holocaust did or didn't happen wiothout reference to the Jews or the Nazis.


I was wondering when this one was going to be whipped out...:rolleyes:

I'd stop now if I were you as it's just getting sad at this stage.

[dreamweaver]

I shall interject here if a maybe so bold........Was it not you that proclaimed that you could debunk all known arguments:confused:

Making such statements had lead you to the path you are now on!!!!!

Points are being placed before you, all we ask is you "Debunk" those points with hard evidence, as per your proclamation;)

Jiffy, read it again. Endlessvista presented himself as having freshly arrived at the conclusion that the moon landings were hoaxed. Having viewed the evidence over many years and reached the opposite conclusion, I asked him what he thought the strongest evidence was, expecting him to put forward a few valid points that could be discussed reasonably.

I did not invite a barrage of the same old material which has been copied and pasted from moonhoax sites and been debunked to death hundreds of times. It would have been fine for him to present a couple of such posts - but I never agreed to debunk hundreds of pieces of propaganda. Nor did I ever make this offer to other parties. So, with the greatest of respect, keep your nose out of it.

As it turns out, endlessvista is a hardened moonhoax believer who reached that conclusion years ago (and so I feel the offer was made under false pretences and is void). I believe that is why he is so reluctant to link to the Bad Astronomy forum threads where someone (I strongly believe it was him) allegedly got hounded out for asking about lunar module documents. He gave the game away with that slip and he knows it. All the "swamping" of the thread he did after that was to cover his tracks. This tactic didn't fool me but it seems it fooled a lot of others.

But it doesn't matter any more. He says he doesn't want to get into any alpha-male contest, so let's take him at face value and wipe the slate clean.

[dreamweaver]

I was wondering when this one was going to be whipped out...:rolleyes:

I'd stop now if I were you as it's just getting sad at this stage.

So much for "not wanting to get into any alpha-male contest".

What is sad is expecting people to defend the Apollo mission without reference to the evidence of the people who carried it out.

You're just trying to run away from the argument without admitting it now.

You're not shutting the debate down like that. You have your beliefs, which have been formed and packaged for you by moonhoax sites. You haven't presented one single argument that has not originated from those places.

I,for my part, have sometimes used sources like Nasa themselves, clavius.org and bautforum. I make no secret of that. But that makes us level.

[runciter]

i must admit that you aren't a bad hypnotist, but i doubt that you can affect anyone here.

[dreamweaver]

i must admit that you aren't a bad hypnotist, but i doubt that you can affect anyone here.

Are you on meds?

[jiffy]

Nor did I ever make this offer to other parties. So, with the greatest of respect, keep your nose out of it.


Sorry if you wanted a private conversation then there is other methods other than a public forums.

I have no real opinions on the landings either way, it isn't something I have studied. I DO know photography and the link that has been provided as "PROOF" is nonsense.

I also know Electronic and IT, like I said I find it rather difficult (not impossible) to believe that a commador 64 got us not only to the moon, but back again.

It is rather odd that you go to the moon a few times then just think oh "fuck it" we done that now, lets just build a rocket to float around the earth in orbit.
Not only that, but to build a space station not on a moon but in space.

Now I know you gave "The Official" reasons for the above point, but none of it makes logical sense.
The American have wanted to militarize space for at least 40 years, that has never changed with administrations. So is not the moon the perfect "STATION" to do that from? is that not the real reason why they wish to go there (AGAIN HMM)

[dreamweaver]

Sorry if you wanted a private conversation then there is other methods other than a public forums.

I have no real opinions on the landings either way, it isn't something I have studied. I DO know photography and the link that has been provided as "PROOF" is nonsense.
I don't know which particular link you're talking about. I know photography and a little bit of optics too, but I'm no David Bailey.

I also know Electronic and IT, like I said I find it rather difficult (not impossible) to believe that a commador 64 got us not only to the moon, but back again.
It's not a computing issue, it's an engineering and piloting issue and a task that was well capable of being carried out with little or no computing power, just as planes were flown until quite recently without computer power and just as cars ran until the 1980s without computerised engine management.

The computers that were onboard the Apollo craft were well advanced for their time and perfectly capable of the tasks they were built for. They didn't have fancy graphic operating systems (which, as an IT person, you know perfectly well use up most of the power of today's devices). For more on this, see http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html

It is rather odd that you go to the moon a few times then just think oh "fuck it" we done that now, lets just build a rocket to float around the earth in orbit.
They did it successfully six times. How many more times should they have done it? The US public were bored stiff of them by the last ones, so the funding was stopped.

As for the ISS, it makes far more sense to do it in earth orbit than to do it on the moon. Think of the logistics involved.

Now I know you gave "The Official" reasons for the above point, but none of it makes logical sense.
The American have wanted to militarize space for at least 40 years, that has never changed with administrations. So is not the moon the perfect "STATION" to do that from? is that not the real reason why they wish to go there (AGAIN HMM)
Who knows? I don't claim to have access to "hidden" knowledge, so have no idea on the military front. There is talk that significant amounts of He3 make it worthwhile going back on a serious basis. China and India are said to be attracted by this. But this is just gossip really. America has started talking about using the moon as a staging post for a Mars mission, which is their stated reason for going back.

[runciter]

Are you on meds?

do you think there is someone here who does not understand your role?

[dreamweaver]

do you think there is someone here who does not understand your role?

There are plenty of people on these boards who I have met in real life and who I am proud to count among my friends. The resident paranoids like yourself never turn up to anything, never do anything. You are of no relevance to me. Have a great life.

[runciter]

There are plenty of people on these boards who I have met in real life and who I am proud to count among my friends. The resident paranoids like yourself never turn up to anything, never do anything. You are of no relevance to me. Have a great life.

this post is an excellent example of (attempted) neuro-linguistic programming.

all your posts here are in a similare vein, every time i met you on this forum i got the same feeling.

and you didn't answer the fundamental question:

why is it so important for you to defend the reality of the moon landing?

[dreamweaver]

and you didn't answer the fundamental question:

why is it so important for you to defend the reality of the moon landing?

I answered your question with a question: why is it so important for you that I should conform to your beliefs?

Well?

And if you think I'm some kind of "agent" because I disagree with you (classic paranoid fantasy), why do you keep harassing me? You are of no interest to me. If you stop addressing me, I'll stop responding to you.

[jiffy]

well if anything, this thread has sparked a interest for me to research more:D
so much to learn so little time to learn it;)

[dreamweaver]

well if anything, this thread has sparked a interest for me to research more:D
so much to learn so little time to learn it;)

Fair enough, jiffy. You can never do too much research. :)

[runciter]

You didn't answer mine: why is it so important for you that I should conform to your beliefs?

And if you think I'm some kind of "agent" because I disagree with you (classic paranoid fantasy), why do you keep harassing me? You are of no interest to me. If you stop addressing me, I'll stop responding to you.

i have no particular beliefs on this subject, i'm unsure but i'm more inclined to think it was a hoax.

now answer my question with an answer, answering with a question is trickery.

[runciter]

Fair enough, jiffy. You can never do too much research. :)

keep in mind, jiffy, that nasa is a masonic agency, they are fabulous liars.

[dreamweaver]

i have no particular beliefs on this subject, i'm unsure but i'm more inclined to think it was a hoax.

now answer my question with an answer, answering with a question is trickery.

I have no interest in "defending NASA". If anyone came up with reliable evidence that the moon landings were staged, I would be shouting it from the rooftops. Just as I resist the ID card with every fibre of my being and do everything I can to expose Common Purpose.

It is my genuine opinion that none of the "evidence" presented against the moon landings stands up. I believe in free speech and haven't prevented anyone from saying they believe the landings were hoaxed. I will likewise exercise my right to disagree.

[jiffy]

keep in mind, jiffy, that nasa is a masonic agency, they are fabulous liars.


I always use the best piece of advice my grandmother gave me (wise old owl she was)

Believe half of what you see, nothing of what you hear:D

[runciter]

If anyone came up with reliable evidence that the moon landings were staged


is there evidence that they occurred?

[runciter]

I always use the best piece of advice my grandmother gave me (wise old owl she was)

Believe half of what you see, nothing of what you hear:D

wise advice indeed :)

edit:

i would only change "believe nothing" with "doubt everything".

[hagbard_celine]

It's actually the one conspiracy theory that is the most easily debunked. All you need is some knowledge of science.

I challenge that. But there's so much material on this subject already posted that it's hard to know what to say without repeating myself.:D

[hagbard_celine]

Keep going guys. I can't get a fix on this whole issue, so an informed discussion will be of much value.


If you put "Apollo moon landing hoax" into search you'll come up with 1000's of posts about this. I'm really interested in the moon landings, in fact that's what got me into the whole conspiracy world. i would join in here, but I've been over it all so many times.

[dreamweaver]

I challenge that. But there's so much material on this subject already posted that it's hard to know what to say without repeating myself.:D
Welcome hagbard, it's not a moon hoax thread without you in it. :cool::D

I should really have qualified what I originally wrote by saying it has so much verifiable information in the public domain and in that sense isn't a classic conspiracy theory. I never meant to imply that it can be proven beyond doubt, in the way that people have interpreted it, that's impossible. There are people who still believe the earth is flat, that it is hollow and so on. You can't stop people having opinions, regardless of the evidence. What you can do, however, is point to the existence of verifiable evidence and invite them to do their own research.

The classic conspiracy theories in my view are the ones that are unverifiable either way - with perhaps the existence of Yahweh being the ultimate. ;)

[hagbard_celine]

Welcome hagbard, it's not a moon hoax thread without you in it. :cool::D

I should really have qualified what I originally wrote by saying it has so much verifiable information in the public domain and in that sense isn't a classic conspiracy theory. I never meant to imply that it can be proven beyond doubt, in the way that people have interpreted it, that's impossible. There are people who still believe the earth is flat, that it is hollow and so on. You can't stop people having opinions, regardless of the evidence. What you can do, however, is point to the existence of verifiable evidence and invite them to do their own research.

The classic conspiracy theories in my view are the ones that are unverifiable either way - with perhaps the existence of Yahweh being the ultimate. ;)


I personally think it's unlikely that nobody has ever been to the moon. All I claim is that this achievement did not happen at the time and using the methods and personnel history tells us it did. I think it’s likely, even probable, that people from the Earth have traveled to the moon and probably other planets too:eek:. There may even be permanent human settlements all over the solar system and beyond:eek:; in fact its possible that the Apollo footage was indeed filmed in an outdoor studio on the moon or a similar airless heavenly body. With the secret technology developed by experts in anti-gravity, along with that back-engineered from salvaged alien spacecraft crashes, it seems unlikely that initiated members of the human race have not used this technology to build craft with capabilities way beyond anything of those publicly-available. Humanity will never travel around the solar system in the crude, Stone Age chemical rockets we see chugging their way labouriously into low Earth orbit on TV:rolleyes::D.

[dreamweaver]

I personally think it's unlikely that nobody has ever been to the moon. All I claim is that this achievement did not happen at the time and using the methods and personnel history tells us it did. I think it’s likely, even probable, that people from the Earth have traveled to the moon and probably other planets too:eek:. There may even be permanent human settlements all over the solar system and beyond:eek:; in fact its possible that the Apollo footage was indeed filmed in an outdoor studio on the moon or a similar airless heavenly body. With the secret technology developed by experts in anti-gravity, along with that back-engineered from salvaged alien spacecraft crashes, it seems unlikely that initiated members of the human race have not used this technology to build craft with capabilities way beyond anything of those publicly-available. Humanity will never travel around the solar system in the crude, Stone Age chemical rockets we see chugging their way labouriously into low Earth orbit on TV:rolleyes::D.
The trouble with much of this is that it's in the realm of the unknowable. All of it could be true, but we have no way of confirming or refuting it.

The objections to the Apollo landings just don't cut it, in my view. I've read the hoax forums and the likes of Clavius, BA etc and Nasa's own sites and I prefer the evidence of the latter.

I know others draw radically different conclusions, having viewed the same evidence. In some cases I've seen here, it seems to be very closely tied in to their belief in the Illuminati and NWO, as if saying the moon landings were real would somehow imply that the NWO wasn't real. I just don't see it as an either/or thing at all.

There quite clearly are conspiracies in the world, we are frequently lied to by governments and their agencies. But I don't see a belief in the landings as a threat to the truth of that, just as evolution isn't actually a threat to Christianity (there are some very strong believers in God who have no trouble reconciling evolution with their faith).

[jiffy]

I personally think it's unlikely that nobody has ever been to the moon. All I claim is that this achievement did not happen at the time and using the methods and personnel history tells us it did. I think it’s likely, even probable, that people from the Earth have traveled to the moon and probably other planets too:eek:. There may even be permanent human settlements all over the solar system and beyond:eek:; in fact its possible that the Apollo footage was indeed filmed in an outdoor studio on the moon or a similar airless heavenly body. With the secret technology developed by experts in anti-gravity, along with that back-engineered from salvaged alien spacecraft crashes, it seems unlikely that initiated members of the human race have not used this technology to build craft with capabilities way beyond anything of those publicly-available. Humanity will never travel around the solar system in the crude, Stone Age chemical rockets we see chugging their way labouriously into low Earth orbit on TV:rolleyes::D.

Now that's open up a bloody great can of worms for me:D

[hugolast]

vehicles leave tyre tracks if boots leave footprints. They should both be there or not at all - not sometimes

[endlessvista]

vehicles leave tyre tracks if boots leave footprints. They should both be there or not at all - not sometimes

the tire tracks should be there in all photos. there is no way to move the LR without the wheels turning. Even the initial removal from the LM involves the front wheel moving along the soil in order to allow the back wheels to touch down.

There should not be a single photo of any LR on the moon without wheel marks in the soil. There are 14 at current count. Most taken hundreds of meters form the LM.

Busted.

[dreamweaver]

vehicles leave tyre tracks if boots leave footprints. They should both be there or not at all - not sometimes

This is Jay Windley's take on that issue:

Are not these arguments mutually exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive as stated. If they were phrased simply as an observation of inconsistency they might be valid -- i.e., if you note that astronaut footprints are visible yet rover tracks are not. In this case impressibility would have been inferred from the observation.

However, the author states a premise regarding impressibility, and if it is to be considered valid in the first argument it must also apply and be valid in the second argument. Otherwise one or the other argument must be dismissed. The fact that we know the premise to be faulty is immaterial. The pair of arguments fails syllogistically.

But even mere inconsistency, such as explained above, has an answer. If someone wished to argue that it's inconsistent for there to be visible footprints yet no visible rover tracks, we would be able to solve the dilemma.

The key is in the expectation of evidence. We can propose that a rover in any photograph ought to have tracks leading up to it. This creates the expectation of rover tracks in certain places in certain photos.

When those tracks are not visible, we can provide several alternatives for why they might not be visible: phase angle, later obliteration, surface hardness, etc. That is not necessarily the point. The important point is that rover tracks are sometimes seen and sometimes invisible, for whatever reason. The reason we know they're invisible is that the presence of the rover creates the expectation which fails to be satisfied.

There is no such expectation with footprints. Except for a small handful of photographs, there is no means by which we can infer where footprints in a photograph ought to be. They are simply there. We see the footprints that are visible, but there is little we can do to satisfy the implied premise, "If a footprint was made, it will be visible in the photograph." Thus we cannot substantiate the expectation of a footprint where none is seen in a photograph, and therefore that all footprints are accounted for.

This conveys the wrong impression that the observations are dissimilar: that footprints and rover tracks seem to obey different rules of visibility. In fact, no such distinction can be established. Thus it is supportable to say, "Both rover tracks and footprints are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible."

It's a non-issue to those who have investigated it. Just because some Hoax Believers carry on spouting it long after it's been refuted does not make it true.

If you're one of these people who only believes moving pictures rather than the printed word, here's a video:

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint - YouTube

There should not be a single photo of any LR on the moon without wheel marks in the soil.
False premise.

Busted.

[endlessvista]

I would suggest watching all these guys videos. The research and work he has done on the Apollo programme is incredible. He has a vast archive of source materials and not only does he prove that the moon landings are fake beyond a shadow of a doubt but shows that the Moon Hoak Debunking Industry and site like Bad Astronomy are made up of liars and bullshiters who will do whatever it takes to protect their beloved NASA.

It is such an airtight case against the moon landings you are left in no doubt if you watch it objectively.

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

The only comeback he gets from NASA Apollogists are "you're an asshole" and so on.

[endlessvista]

When those tracks are not visible, we can provide several alternatives for why they might not be visible: phase angle, later obliteration, surface hardness, etc. That is not necessarily the point. The important point is that rover tracks are sometimes seen and sometimes invisible, for whatever reason. The reason we know they're invisible is that the presence of the rover creates the expectation which fails to be satisfied.

Correct because the "evidence" you lot present is insulting to any with a IQ greater than a Woodlice. People are tech smarter and less gullible than they were in the 1960's.

Deal with it.

[endlessvista]

The professional Apollogists are also a shower of sleazy scumbags creeps when you see what they get up to. If a moon hoaxer uses footage to prove the hoax the "men of science" then bombard YOUTube with copyright infringment claims, however if the same clips are used by the Apollogists without permission they do no file infringement claims aaginst them.

This alone should tell you all you need to know that the Apollo Landings were faked and the cat is well and truly out of the bag. Even the debunkers know it and their entire tactics these days are not to expose "conspiricy nuts" anymore, but to suppress the evidence that the landings were faked and hoping nobody sees it or is brought to their attention.

[dreamweaver]

Correct because the "evidence" you lot present is insulting to any with a IQ greater than a Woodlice. People are smarter and less gullible than they were in the 1960's.

Deal with it.
My IQ is 157 on the Stanford-Binet scale, putting me on the top 0.1%.

I would strongly dispute that "people are smarter and less gullible than they were in the 1960s". Quite the reverse, in fact.

You still don't want to link to the bautforum thread in which you were repeatedly owned, do you?

Oh yes, and so much for "I don't want to get into any alpha-male contests".

[dreamweaver]

I would suggest viewing the videos of LunarTuner, a very intelligent engineer who knows his subject:

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

[runciter]

My IQ is 157 on the Stanford-Binet scale, putting me on the top 0.1%.


the perfect gatekeeper, given that all this reality is a kabbalistic spell.


I would strongly dispute that "people are smarter and less gullible than they were in the 1960s". Quite the reverse, in fact.


now we have much more information and we can easily fuck the rothschilds.

oh and you're always using nlp, you are a nlp addict.

[dreamweaver]

the perfect gatekeeper, given that all this reality is a kabbalistic spell.

This "gatekeeper", as you like to put it, is among a number of board members who are getting together and trying to do something to get the message out about what is to come.

I doubt very much that we'll be seeing you, you're just happy to wrap yourself up in your own little paranoid fantasy world, so who cares what you think?

[runciter]

This "gatekeeper", as you like to put it, is among a number of board members who are getting together and trying to do something to get the message out about what is to come.

I doubt very much that we'll be seeing you, you're just happy to wrap yourself up in your own little paranoid fantasy world, so who cares what you think?

who is behind the 9/11 attacks? who controls most western governments?

[jiffy]

I shall watch both:D

Two point's if I may, not aimed at anyone;)
Intellect, logic, wisdom, and common sense can't not be measured least of all by an IQ test, especially given that the test is "Engineered" to flatter the male brain.:p

Last point I can't seem to find any evidence of how they overcome the Temperature affecting the films.

I have to say the overexposure "theory" on how they got detail in full shadow is a joke. Which is why on the debunk link given (www.clavius.org), they/he doesn't try and replicate this.

[dreamweaver]

who is behind the 9/11 attacks? who controls most western governments?

TPTB. I don't dispute it. However, it's irrelevant to a discussion of the moon landings in my view.

You clearly believe that if you concede the possibility that the moon landings may actually have happened, then your belief in Illuminati/NWO etc falls apart.

That says more about the fragility of your beliefs than it does about the Apollo mission.

Apollo is no threat to a belief in the Illuminati/NWO, any more than evolution is a threat to those who believe in God. There are many people who have no trouble reconciling their strong belief in God with evolution. The only ones who have trouble with it are those whose faith is rather weak in the first place.

Intellect, logic, wisdom, and common sense can't not be measured least of all by an IQ test, especially given that the test is "Engineered" to flatter the male brain.:p
Couldn't agree more, jiffy, I only mentioned it because Mr "I don't want to get involved in any alpha-male contests" raised it. IQ tests only measure the ability to do IQ tests. They probably do measure "something" because people very successful in certain fields, such as IT, tend to score well on them, but they are far too narrow in their scope to give any meaningful prediction of "intelligence".

[runciter]

TPTB. I don't dispute it. However, it's irrelevant to a discussion of the moon landings in my view.

You clearly believe that if you concede the possibility that the moon landings may actually have happened, then your belief in Illuminati/NWO etc falls apart.

That says more about the fragility of your beliefs than it does about the Apollo mission.

Apollo is no threat to a belief in the Illuminati/NWO, any more than evolution is a threat to those who believe in God. There are many people who have no trouble reconciling their strong belief in God with evolution. The only ones who have trouble with it are those whose faith is rather weak in the first place.


you have a strong faith in nasa, but would you spell "zionists" instead of "tptb"?

[dreamweaver]

you have a strong faith in nasa, but would you spell "zionists" instead of "tptb"?

Zionists are only a part of it, actually.

I have greater confidence in the evidence in favour of Apollo than in the childish arguments of the Hoax Believers. I surmise that is because I am more capable of distinguishing between good arguments and bad than you are.

[runciter]

Zionists are only a part of it, actually.

I have greater confidence in the evidence in favour of Apollo than in the childish arguments of the Hoax Believers. I surmise that is because I am more capable of distinguishing between good arguments and bad than you are.

all the evidence you have comes from masonic nasa, and zionist bankers control everything.

[dreamweaver]

all the evidence you have comes from masonic nasa, and zionist bankers control everything.

Yes, you finally admit what your interest in all this is: it's all about the Jooooos.

Thank you for proving my point. :)

[runciter]

Yes, you finally admit what your interest in all this is: it's all about the Jooooos.

Thank you for proving my point. :)

what was your point? that a good gatekeeper must divert attention from central bankers?

even a child can understand that who controls money controls everything.. where's your 157?

[dreamweaver]

what was your point?

That your obsession with Jooooooos is your single, over-riding motivating force.

You have no interest whatsoever in finding the truth on any subject, all you are interested in is validating your belief system through cognitive bias.

Have a good life. :)

[runciter]

That your obsession with Jooooooos is your single, over-riding motivating force.

You have no interest whatsoever in finding the truth on any subject, all you are interested in is validating your belief system through cognitive bias.

Have a good life. :)

thanks for the nlp, but i can tell the difference bewteen a jew and a rothschild.

btw kabbalah is the link between masonry and the bankers, and it's a form of mind control.

you're good at hypnotizing people (i appreciate your attempts), maybe you know something about it.

[dreamweaver]

you're good at hypnotizing people (i appreciate your attempts), maybe you know something about it.

Actually, I know nothing about hypnosis, which is why I asked arten for more information about it the other day.

You see, this is the problem with people like you. Everything is so black and white for you, you are so sure of everything even on areas where intelligent people see only greyness and uncertainty.

The fact that you are so certain that I know something about hypnosis, when I know for a fact that I know next to nothing about it, shows me exactly how seriously I should take anything else which you come out with.

Now, as I told you before, I have no interest in you. If you stop directing messages to me, then I'll stop responding to you. Simple enough to work out, I'm sure you'll manage it.

Your posts add no value to my life and my time is valuable to me. Frankly, you are a "useless eater" of my time. Therefore, if you want any more responses from me, I will bill you at £50 per response. By seeking any further responses from me, you are contracting to incurring these payments.

[runciter]

You see, this is the problem with people like you. Everything is so black and white for you, you are so sure of everything even on areas where intelligent people see only greyness and uncertainty.


i have some doubts about the reality of the moon landings, while you seem absolutely sure.

it's the opposite of what you're saying, and if you're 157 you certainly know what you're doing.

[dreamweaver]

i have some doubts about the reality of the moon landings, while you seem absolutely sure.
I'm not absolutely sure, I just think the evidence for is better than the evidence against on the strength of what I've seen to date.

Thanks for contracting to paying me for my time. That'll be £50.

[hugolast]

discussion forums where people can't discuss - ace. :)

[runciter]

I'm not absolutely sure, I just think the evidence for is better than the evidence against on the strength of what I've seen to date.

Thanks for contracting to paying me for my time. That'll be £50.

all the evidence you have is presented by some weird cultists disguised as scientists.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo1.jpg

^ mission apollo 1, occult ritual sacrifice

http://www.raimondo.it/img/ad-astra-per-aspera.jpg

[dreamweaver]

all the evidence you have is presented by some weird cultists disguised as scientists.


Dearie me, mate, do you really consider a photograph of three astronauts praying in the Christian manner for a publicity shot is a smoking gun? They weren't the scientists anyway, they were more like passengers. The science was done mostly by those in Houston.

War memorials up and down the country also pay tribute to those who made "the ultimate sacrifice". OK, you'll see war memorials as proof of an "Illuminati death cult", I suppose, but again that's your black-and-white belief, not the shades of grey world I occupy.

Thanks for the easy £100.

[runciter]

july 16

Trinity (nuclear test) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

july 16

Apollo 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

july 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy,_Jr.#Death

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/apollo11.gif

[dreamweaver]

And these must all be connected because they happened on 16 July, right? :rolleyes:

You're getting more desperate by the minute. :D

£150.

[runciter]

three astronauts praying in the Christian manner


what's that christian artifact in the center? reminds me of a benben.

1967 was the year israel occupied gaza and the west bank... west bank!

[runciter]

And these must all be connected because they happened on 16 July, right? :rolleyes:

You're getting more desperate by the minute. :D

£150.

natural events that coincidentally happened on july 16.

[dreamweaver]

what's that christian artifact in the center? reminds me of a benben.

It was a cheesy publicity stunt for a nation that has a lot of Bible-bashers. And obviously the LCM was there because the stunt was a prayer to God to protect them when they travel in it.

1967 was the year israel occupied gaza and the west bank... west bank!

It was also the year Sgt Pepper was released. And?

natural events that coincidentally happened on july 16.

So everything that happens on the same date, even in different years, must necessarily have a causal connection with each other? Do you really believe that? So for example the Great Train Robbery happening on 8 August in one year must have some connection with the birth of Princess Beatrice on 8 August in another year and my birthday on 8 August in another year? Seriously?

Awwww, I've told you my birthday now. Will you send me a present next year? Thank you, that's most kind, I'll even cancel your contract now, since you obviously won't pay and I have no intention of sending the bailiffs, it was just a bit of fun. :)

But you are getting pretty silly now. This stuff doesn't really merit a response, funny though it is.

[runciter]

It was a cheesy publicity stunt for a nation that has a lot of Bible-bashers. And obviously the LCM was there because the stunt was a prayer to God to protect them when they travel in it.


it looks like masonic pyramid worship, they were probably laughing at christians.


It was also the year Sgt Pepper was released. And?


i'm not sure kabbalah is involved in that, even if there's crowley's face on the cover.


So everything that happens on the same date, even in different years, must necessarily have a causal connection with each other? Do you really believe that? So for example the Great Train Robbery happening on 8 August in one year must have some connection with the birth of Princess Beatrice on 8 August in another year and my birthday on 8 August in another year? Seriously?


all three july 16 events were carried out by the same cult, and are extremely significant:

- the beginning of the atomic age

- the (fake?) conquer of the moon

- the sacrifice of the future king

[hugolast]

anyways, the moon landing looks like a school poduction but if there was enough proof of it not being real wouldn't it be resolved by now? :p

[tampaman]

Ive seen it said that the film taken on the Apollo missions was off the shelf 35mm and Kodak did not create anything new for the project. This is not the full story or facts. The film used for Apollo is not the stuff you would buy to put in your camera for your holiday snaps. Normal film is celluloid base where as the film they took to the Moon was Kodak's Estar base which is polyester. The reason Kodak didn't develop a new film for the missions is they didn't have to, they already had one fit for the job. Estar base was formulated for high-altitude photography and is not the sort of 35mm you get from Walmart.

The people making money out of the hoax claims want you to think its just normal film but when you know the facts you soon see its not and they have tried to fool you by only giving half the story.

[endlessvista]

Ive seen it said that the film taken on the Apollo missions was off the shelf 35mm and Kodak did not create anything new for the project. This is not the full story or facts. The film used for Apollo is not the stuff you would buy to put in your camera for your holiday snaps. Normal film is celluloid base where as the film they took to the Moon was Kodak's Estar base which is polyester. The reason Kodak didn't develop a new film for the missions is they didn't have to, they already had one fit for the job. Estar base was formulated for high-altitude photography and is not the sort of 35mm you get from Walmart.

High Altitude film is not the same as what's needed on the Moon.

The moon is not in the earth's upper atmosphere. Go buy some polyester film and cover it in a metal cigarette box. Put it in the microwave at full setting for 4 days and then put it in a vat of liquid nitrogen for 4 days then put it in a camera stuck to your chest with no viewfinder and see it you can take a photo of this breathtaking artistic skill, technical mastery and image quality while inside a nuclear reactor:

http://ww.mhschool.com/science/2008/student/na/images/nasa/ast2.jpg

[existenz]

The people making money out of the hoax claims want you to think its just normal film but when you know the facts you soon see its not and they have tried to fool you by only giving half the story.

How does one make money out of hoax claims? Just asking..

[dreamweaver]

How does one make money out of hoax claims? Just asking..

Bill Kaysing made a living from selling books and videos. I don't know how much Bart Sibrel made out of selling videos but he seems to be making a living out of them. So the most high-profile hoax believers do make some money out of it.

Others don't make money out of it, of course. YouTube film-makers obviously aren't making any money directly. It may give them a promotional platform for any DVDs they bring out or to market their production skills. Other than that, maybe they feel it brings them kudos? Or they sincerely believe the truth of what they're doing and simply getting that message out is its own reward.

[endlessvista]

How does one make money out of hoax claims? Just asking..

Because it's a classic way of trying to silence folk. "they are in in for the money"

Which is interesting as I bet the Mythbusters guys and the Bad Astronomy team have made more money off the Discovery Channel for an hours work than the Apollo Hoax Researchers have made in 40 years work combined.

[dreamweaver]

Because it's a classic way of trying to silence folk. "they are in in for the money"

Which is interesting as I bet the Mythbusters guys and the Bad Astronomy team have made more money off the Discovery Channel for an hours work than the Apollo Hoax Researchers have made in 40 years work combined.

I have seen the claim made somewhere that Bill Kaysing said before he died that his main motive for doing the hoax books and videos was to pay for his wife's medical bills and that he didn't believe the Apollo missions actually had been faked. But so far I have seen no proof that he actually said this.

It makes a change from the usual explanation of him being a disgruntled ex-employee of Rocketdyne anyway.

[endlessvista]

I have seen the claim made somewhere that Bill Kaysing said before he died that his main motive for doing the hoax books and videos was to pay for his wife's medical bills and that he didn't believe the Apollo missions actually had been faked. But so far I have seen no proof that he actually said this.

Then do not say it.

[dreamweaver]

Then do not say it.

I'm trying to find it, it was probably some forum post somewhere. But it's obviously bullshit or it would be all over the pro-Apollo sites.

Edit: never mind, can't find it now. As I say, obviously bullshit.

[tampaman]

How does one make money out of hoax claims? Just asking..

Its used in videos and books which they sell for cash. Its misleading the reader/viewer and that should set alarm bells ringing.

[tampaman]

I'm trying to find it, it was probably some forum post somewhere. But it's obviously bullshit or it would be all over the pro-Apollo sites.

Edit: never mind, can't find it now. As I say, obviously bullshit.

Bill used to admit to friends and family that he didn't think the landings were hoaxed at all. Some of these people have said as much since his death. Bill felt cheated by the government because he had paid into a med insurance thing for years and when his wife became seriously ill he found out the insurance didn't cover her.

Kaysing was so skint he had to move into a trailer in the desert but he would have told you it was to avoid NASA assassins.

[dreamweaver]

Bill used to admit to friends and family that he didn't think the landings were hoaxed at all. Some of these people have said as much since his death. Bill felt cheated by the government because he had paid into a med insurance thing for years and when his wife became seriously ill he found out the insurance didn't cover her.

Kaysing was so skint he had to move into a trailer in the desert but he would have told you it was to avoid NASA assassins.
OK, can you find anything to back it up as my google skills seem to have evaporated today? :(

I've seen the stuff about his wife's medical insurance refusing to pay out but I've found nothing to back up these "confessions".

[tampaman]

Because it's a classic way of trying to silence folk. "they are in in for the money"

Which is interesting as I bet the Mythbusters guys and the Bad Astronomy team have made more money off the Discovery Channel for an hours work than the Apollo Hoax Researchers have made in 40 years work combined.

When Bart Sibrels wife was asked if her husband really believes the landings were a hoax she said he started to believe it more when the money started to roll in.

Here's a fine example of how Bart sibrel lies cheats and fakes for cash.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA

[tampaman]

OK, can you find anything to back it up as my google skills seem to have evaporated today? :(

I've seen the stuff about his wife's medical insurance refusing to pay out but I've found nothing to back up these "confessions".

I wouldnt bother they will only say its hearsay. I would concentrate of things that are more in your face.

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts never left the earth.

The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. (Nardwuar interview)

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts did leave the earth.

For the conspiracy theory show on Fox, he says he believes the astronauts lifted into orbit, waited several days, then splashed down in the ocean "as shown on film."

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts might have gone to the moon.

A trio of men supposedly made the quarter million mile journey between earth and its satellite. Now whether this journey was made or not, a great many people witness the failure of their leaders.... (We Never Went to the Moon, 2002, p. 70)

I like the one where he claims the government were so eager to silence him that while doing a radio interview they napalmed the stations transmitters to stop the truth getting out.

In his book (We Never Went to the Moon, p. 6; 2002, p. 7) he says I watched none of the moon "landings." Yet in the Fox program its said Three decades ago, when the world watched the Apollo landings, Bill Kaysing was watching too.

He claimed he lived in a camper van in the desert because of NASA assassins and yet he used to give out his address in radio interviews so people could order his book.

On page 7 of We Never Went to the Moon Bill Kaysing asked, "Why did the Dutch papers, circa 1969, question the authenticity of the moon landing?" Simple answer is they didn't its a lie. I challenge anyone to find a Dutch paper that questioned the authenticity of the moon landing.

In the Nardwuar interview Kaysing admitted he had never seen any doubting Dutch newspapers. But that didn't stop other whistle suckers from repeating this rumour without, of course, bothering to check it out (e.g. Percy and Bennetts Dark Moon, p. 289).

My personal opinion is Kaysing used to leave clues for people that he was pulling their chain.

[tampaman]

High Altitude film is not the same as what's needed on the Moon.

The moon is not in the earth's upper atmosphere. Go buy some polyester film and cover it in a metal cigarette box. Put it in the microwave at full setting for 4 days and then put it in a vat of liquid nitrogen for 4 days then put it in a camera stuck to your chest with no viewfinder and see it you can take a photo of this breathtaking artistic skill, technical mastery and image quality while inside a nuclear reactor:

http://ww.mhschool.com/science/2008/student/na/images/nasa/ast2.jpg

The film was picked because of its resistance to temperature change.

All this talk of microwave ovens, cigarette boxes and nitrogen is silly. You have demonstrated through this thread that you have a very poor understanding of the conditions the film was exposed to and how these conditions were dealt with.

Let me ask you this do you think the lunar probes that went before Apollo were fake? Some of those took pictures on film developed the picture on board and sent them back to NASA.

Breathtaking artistic skill lol there's plenty of stinkers. These guys had the best of everything, training, equipment the lot it was all the best. Try taking a picture from your chest with no viewfinder. Its not ideal but its not that hard.

Wasn't it you who claimed it was normal 35mm?

[endlessvista]

When Bart Sibrels wife was asked if her husband really believes the landings were a hoax she said he started to believe it more when the money started to roll in.

Here's a fine example of how Bart sibrel lies cheats and fakes for cash.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA

So he is the only person in the world who thinks Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax?

Even if this is true and he did it for the money it makes no difference to me as I never heard of Bart Sibrels until about an hour ago.

[endlessvista]

Wasn't it you who claimed it was normal 35mm?


No. It was Kodak film which was not developed specially for the moon.

as for the lunar probes being faked...only the manned ones.

The issue here is if humans have passed through the Van Allen belt and survived to have played golf on the moon and then came back and the evidence to prove this is rock solid and cannot be disputed, not if all space travel is possible.

You are playing the same angle as all the other moon landing hoax debunkers in that you try to make it seem that people who question the moon landings think all space travel is fake. That's after they have been acussed of being in it for the money.

[tampaman]

Hold on its you that said the Apollo film would be damaged by the environment. I asked if then you thought the probes were fake because they used film also and you say no. So now you have to explain why the film in the unmanned probes would not be damaged yet the film in manned probes would.

[tampaman]

So he is the only person in the world who thinks Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax?

Even if this is true and he did it for the money it makes no difference to me as I never heard of Bart Sibrels until about an hour ago.

You took that out of context as you know.

You were commenting about how people say they just do it for the money. I supplied a comment by one of if not the top "hoax believers" wives which shows hes in it for the money.

You must be new to this if you haven heard of Sibrel until today. That piece of film is interesting did you watch it? It shows how these tricksters work and fool people with little knowledge of the subject. Best of it is Sibrel claimed the work as his own when all he did was stole it lock stock and barrel from "was it only a paper moon" by James Collier.

[hagbard_celine]

The trouble with much of this is that it's in the realm of the unknowable. All of it could be true, but we have no way of confirming or refuting it.

The objections to the Apollo landings just don't cut it, in my view. I've read the hoax forums and the likes of Clavius, BA etc and Nasa's own sites and I prefer the evidence of the latter.

I know others draw radically different conclusions, having viewed the same evidence. In some cases I've seen here, it seems to be very closely tied in to their belief in the Illuminati and NWO, as if saying the moon landings were real would somehow imply that the NWO wasn't real. I just don't see it as an either/or thing at all.

There quite clearly are conspiracies in the world, we are frequently lied to by governments and their agencies. But I don't see a belief in the landings as a threat to the truth of that, just as evolution isn't actually a threat to Christianity (there are some very strong believers in God who have no trouble reconciling evolution with their faith).

Dreamweaver, I believe you can get me through the night!:D;):cool:


I've had a look through the thread and I've not seen anything that's not been done before, many times in some cases!:rolleyes: Excuse me for not joining in, but I'd rather not go through it all again. I'm glad you and the other members are enjoying yourselves though:). The Moonhoax theory always generates marathon threads!:cool:

If I might make one observation though: I don't see how if the moon landings were not real then the NWO can't be real either. I also don't see it as an "Either/or" situation.

[wwu777]

I have watched several documentries on the moon hoax and they all seem to have missed one thing. There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM, now they either left a cameraman on the moon or they tied a piece of string to one of the landing vehicles legs. I would like to point out that tying string with thick gardening gloves on is difficult here on earth, so who did they leave,

The best Moon Hoax videos are by Jarrah White, who is currently the most knowledgeable expert on the issue. Here is his YouTube channel. He has created hundreds of scholarly videos on the Moon Hoax that are of very high quality.

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

If you have a question about it, ask him.

[wwu777]

There are no prizes for coming second. The Soviet Union was the only other country at that time that was remotely capable of coming close. They were also well positioned to expose any "fakery" if they could find any, which they would gleefully have done at the height of the Cold War.

And not only the USSR could have exposed it either. There were thousands of radio hams and amateur astronomers who tracked the trajectory of the Eagle at every stage. Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too.

India and China are planning manned space missions to the moon. They will probably beat the Americans back to it if Nasa gets the funding of the new mission pulled too (quite likely in the current circumstances).


I'll have to go and research exactly how much protection they had, you'll have to bear with me on that.

The radio hams argument is debunked point by point here in this video:

MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 8. - YouTube

MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 9. - YouTube

Watch it.

There are not thousands of geologists who say that the moon rocks are real. That is exaggerated. The real number is much smaller. Did you know that water has been found in them now? See here for details:

MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 1. - YouTube

[hagbard_celine]

The best Moon Hoax videos are by Jarrah White, who is currently the most knowledgeable expert on the issue. Here is his YouTube channel. He has created hundreds of scholarly videos on the Moon Hoax that are of very high quality.

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

If you have a question about it, ask him.

I've only had a brief look at Jarrah's work, but it looks impressive. The Skeppers are slaying him:p, which is always a good sign. If he wasn't having an effect they'd leave him in peace.:D

[jiffy]

There are not thousands of geologists who say that the moon rocks are real.

Thought it was rather interesting that the US Ambassador gave the Then President of Holland (I think it was) a lump of moon rock, which year later turns out to be fake!!!!
:eek: