Moon Landing A Fake or Fact - expose

[king]

in nine parts

this is the ultimate expose of Moon landing hoax

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1 - YouTube

this should put speculations to rest once and for all

Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfield, Haig, Kissinger,
Eagleburger and rest of hacks are speaking, so this is not only exposure of moon hoax conspiracy but also a proof of conspiracy to silence all eyewitnesses who were part of the moon landing conspiracy.

[chris]

Very interesting but the interviews with Kissinger and Rumsfeld has brought it completely into disripute...It seems to have been edited carefully to sound like they are talking about the subject but they could be talking about something completely different and most likely are.

[king]

Very interesting but the interviews with Kissinger and Rumsfeld has brought it completely into disripute...It seems to have been edited carefully to sound like they are talking about the subject but they could be talking about something completely different and most likely are.

that is a very good observation.
I would say that it is possible that certain parts were edited to sway one's opinion.
however, i thought that CIA and Nixon parts of the videos were very telling, as how people in power think and operate.
trail of dead bodies is very telling as well.

[hagbard_celine]

I've only watched the first few minutes, but it looks familiar and I've a feeling that is a spoof.

I think that NASA did faked the moon landings, but this is not a factual programme about it.

[rocco marchegiano]

Its a mockumentary as they say.

King its not edited in certain parts to sway your view its all edited and made up. Its supposed to be a bit of a giggle. It wasnt made by people who believe in the Moon hoax and then edited like Sibrel does.
I dont think anyone watched it till the end you do have to watch it all because at the very end you see the outtakes.
Its a good way to show people how moon hoaxers edit interviews to make you sound like you are saying something you are not. This is why most people refuse to do interviews with Bart Sibrel.

This is the same film they are talking about it has around 3 titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)

[limelady]

I've only watched the first few minutes, but it looks familiar and I've a feeling that is a spoof.

I think that NASA did faked the moon landings, but this is not a factual programme about it.

Dead right hagbard. This was on telly here a year or so ago.

Its a scripted spoof. At the end they showed the out-cuts
and they were all having a jolly good haw-haw about how clever they
all were to take part in this production.

None the less, very telling that they went to all this trouble....me thinks
its Illuminati double-speak ;)

[rocco marchegiano]

Dead right hagbard. This was on telly here a year or so ago.

Its a scripted spoof. At the end they showed the out-cuts
and they were all having a jolly good haw-haw about how clever they
all were to take part in this production.

None the less, very telling that they went to all this trouble....me thinks
its Illuminati double-speak ;)

It was an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

The whole idea of it being filmed in a London studio should have given the game away. Its the same as the desert one the desert is not a vacuum and where the footage was shot is a vacuum. All you have to do is watch the dust to see that.

[davidbarstis]

in nine parts

this is the ultimate expose of Moon landing hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

this should put speculations to rest once and for all

Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfield, Haig, Kissinger,
Eagleburger and rest of hacks are speaking, so this is not only exposure of moon hoax conspiracy but also a proof of conspiracy to silence all eyewitnesses who were part of the moon landing conspiracy.

The Moon landing hoax needs no help from people. It is obvious on its own with the original proof. I will say this again for people who are having a hard time understanding. The burden of proof is on NASA or anyone who blindly believes them. No one here has been to the Moon and so does not know what is real or isn't. I believe we had technology way beyond the space shuttle and to this day, we never have manned travel into deep space only low earth orbit. Why is that? Could it be because with the technology they want people to think is all they have (ie the space shuttle), it can't be done? I think so.

[rocco marchegiano]

David i understand you perfectly well. The reason you offer no evidence for a hoax is because you dont have any.
You are right about one thing though deep space travel is not possible for the Shuttle. Then again it wasnt designed for that so its a null argument really.
OK one thing at a time if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
Actually here's another question what in your mind would constitute proof?

[raffles]

David i understand you perfectly well. The reason you offer no evidence for a hoax is because you dont have any.
You are right about one thing though deep space travel is not possible for the Shuttle. Then again it wasnt designed for that so its a null argument really.
OK one thing at a time if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
Actually here's another question what in your mind would constitute proof?

why dont you post some evidence that the moon landings are real ?
Because you can't thats why !!

[rocco marchegiano]

I cannot post conclusive proof but we can go on evidence for and against. We need a starting point i believe it was true others do not but the will not post reasons they believe its a hoax. Lets face it some hoax believers state even if they went themselves they still wouldn't believe it so what would be the point of debating them?

I posted if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
That's my starting point. Moon rock is evidence.

[raffles]

I cannot post conclusive proof but we can go on evidence for and against. We need a starting point i believe it was true others do not but the will not post reasons they believe its a hoax. Lets face it some hoax believers state even if they went themselves they still wouldn't believe it so what would be the point of debating them?

I posted if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
That's my starting point. Moon rock is evidence.

The only evidence you can provide is government info aka NONE !!
the same people who told us obl did 9/11 and oswald killed jfk
Moon rock is not evidence prove it came from the moon !!

Yeah like thats eveidence .. lol

Come back with some real proof.

[rocco marchegiano]

I notice your playing the same game as the the other chap.

You say the moon rock isn't proof but you dont state why. How can it be possible to debate your thoughts if you dont Post them? It can be proved the Moon rock came from the Moon it can also be proved its not from the Earth. So whats your point? Hes a little gem, not all geologists work for the government. If the Moon rock didn't come from the Moon then where did it come from?

[raffles]

I notice your playing the same game as the the other chap.

You say the moon rock isn't proof but you dont state why. How can it be possible to debate your thoughts if you dont Post them? It can be proved the Moon rock came from the Moon it can also be proved its not from the Earth. So whats your point? Hes a little gem, not all geologists work for the government. If the Moon rock didn't come from the Moon then where did it come from?

moon rock can be created in a laboratary.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=166052007

Now why dont you answer my questions from yesterday, the video i posted and the apollo 12 pictures.

[chris]

lol I made my post before I had watched it all...I was interested until I saw the 'kubrick' picture on the moon, that was hilarious but that was when I realised it was all completely made up...

I'm glad that I had the power of discernment not to trust it though, I thought the other people could all be actors, but still they were quite convincing. Bear in mind I wasn't paying too much attention to it, I was working and listening to the audio and would look up when I heard something interesting.





When it comes to the moon landing I don't believe it at all. I think the lack of pictures is what really does it for me. Still it's not something I'm going to focus on, in fact I'd pretend I do believe in the moon landing to others to make me not sound so crazy when discussion real hardcore evidence on 9/11.

[lumukanda]

neither side can prove anything either way, so it really is a pointless argument, but we all have our takes on it based on what we choose to believe, agree to disagree and all that.

[david ickes bike]

lol I made my post before I had watched it all...I was interested until I saw the 'kubrick' picture on the moon, that was hilarious but that was when I realised it was all completely made up...

I'm glad that I had the power of discernment not to trust it though, I thought the other people could all be actors, but still they were quite convincing. Bear in mind I wasn't paying too much attention to it, I was working and listening to the audio and would look up when I heard something interesting.





When it comes to the moon landing I don't believe it at all. I think the lack of pictures is what really does it for me. Still it's not something I'm going to focus on, in fact I'd pretend I do believe in the moon landing to others to make me not sound so crazy when discussion real hardcore evidence on 9/11.

Lack of pictures thats a new one on me. Ive heard to many pictures before, what makes you say there's a lack of pictures Chris?

Bart Sibrel did go though a phase of telling people there's only 12 pictures.

[david ickes bike]

neither side can prove anything either way, so it really is a pointless argument, but we all have our takes on it based on what we choose to believe, agree to disagree and all that.

I surpose that could be said of any discussion it dosent make them pointless. A HB generally changes their theory as parts of there evidence are shown to be false eventually they end up contradicting themselves.

[david ickes bike]

moon rock can be created in a laboratary.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=166052007

Now why dont you answer my questions from yesterday, the video i posted and the apollo 12 pictures.

Any geologist would be able to spot the fake Moon rock instantly because of its convection patterns. Convection is a function of gravity, and lunar rocks exhibit convection patterns that were obviously produced in the much less lunar gravity. Also the radiological effects observed in lunar rocks are produced by the long-term bombardment of solar particles, the solar wind, and cosmic radiation Which the fakes wouldn't have.


Mail Edinburgh University i think you will find this is correct and they will tell you that its easy to distinguish between fake and real.


Still if they could make Moon rock on Earth in a recently discovered technique that cannot be seen to be fake how would that have been used to create rock in the 60's a time machine?

[hagbard_celine]

It was an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

The whole idea of it being filmed in a London studio should have given the game away. Its the same as the desert one the desert is not a vacuum and where the footage was shot is a vacuum. All you have to do is watch the dust to see that.


Yes. There are plenty of genuine documentaries about the faked moon missions, but this ain't one of them.:(

It may well have been intended as disinformation. Anyone who watched it all the way through thinking it was real, only to be told at the end that it was a mockumentary will probably feel pretty foolish. It might well put them off watching any of the serious documentaries. ;)

[david ickes bike]

Disinformation lol the producer made films like that.

Just nipped into the studio at the weekend and shot it lol that should give it away right at the start. Does any studio in London have a vacuum chamber miles across? To tell you the truth the genuine documentaries you speak of are just as much of a joke.

Someone posted me a link to Sibrels secret tape yesterday:eek: Another person one to paper Moon why dont HB's check things out for themselves instead of believing what some proven liars say on a DVD?

[raffles]

Disinformation lol the producer made films like that.

Just nipped into the studio at the weekend and shot it lol that should give it away right at the start. Does any studio in London have a vacuum chamber miles across? To tell you the truth the genuine documentaries you speak of are just as much of a joke.

Someone posted me a link to Sibrels secret tape yesterday:eek: Another person one to paper Moon why dont HB's check things out for themselves instead of believing what some proven liars say on a DVD?

The proven liars are the government agencys like nasa.

[david ickes bike]

OK here's a lie by Bart Sibrel the current Mr Moon Hoax. He says in his film NASA sent him a previously unseen tape of astronauts faking TV footage. This is a lie the tape has been available for years on video and DVD and the broadcast was shown live. Sibrel cleverly edits the footage to make it look like it is something its not.

Arguments like that may appear strawman but its the arguments HB's use to support their theories.

Where did NASA lie?

[raffles]

Where did NASA lie?


Nasa lied about the apollo missions landing man on the moon
Prove they did land on the moon without using nasa evidence..

[david ickes bike]

As im sure you will agree from the beginning of the space programme until Apollo 11 landed on the Moon is quite some time and a hell of a lot of things to cover.

Could you be a bit more specific if you have doubts say what they are.

Jodrell bank (nothing to do with NASA) tracked the Eagles decent to the moon and the point where Armstrong is forced to take manual control to land the LM is registered on their data. The Guidance computers shut down for a while on the way to the surface so Armstrong took manual control and throttled up. The computer when it came back up was long in its approach and was going to put them in a deep crater. So Armstrong kept powering forward untill he landed it by hand almost out of fuel.

The people at Jodrell Bank were tracking the descent for fun funny how they noticed all this going on.

How about the thousands of radio amateurs who pointed their antennas very precisely at the Moon and listened in.

[hagbard_celine]

Jodrell bank (nothing to do with NASA) tracked the Eagles decent to the moon


Well, to be precise they tracked a spacecraft descending to the moon. Its identity as the LM with Armstrong and Aldrin aboard could not be verified from Jordrell Bank

[hagbard_celine]

How about the thousands of radio amateurs who pointed their antennas very precisely at the Moon and listened in.

Yes, many of therm picked up the beam from the moon. There were also the people at Parkes Observatory in Australia who relayed the signal. But the same applies here as applies to Jodrell Bank: This doesn't prove that those signals originated on the moon.

Let's face it, this is the argument the Skeptics would use if we claimed that a supposed alien radio signal from space was really alien! They'd say: "Get away! That could be some people taking the mick with a satelite relaying the signal!":rolleyes:

[king]

Its a mockumentary as they say.

King its not edited in certain parts to sway your view its all edited and made up. Its supposed to be a bit of a giggle. It wasnt made by people who believe in the Moon hoax and then edited like Sibrel does.
I dont think anyone watched it till the end you do have to watch it all because at the very end you see the outtakes.
Its a good way to show people how moon hoaxers edit interviews to make you sound like you are saying something you are not. This is why most people refuse to do interviews with Bart Sibrel.

This is the same film they are talking about it has around 3 titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)

ok, i'll check it out
my main point that there is conspiracy behind conspiracy, cold bloodedness of usual protagonists
and their 'business as usual'

[sibe]

Hello

I Have not read all posts here so sorry if this has been posted before

http://www.freewebs.com/truestoriesvideoblog/seven.htm

some good videos on their about this, i like the "Apollo Moon Landing Wires Footage" were you can clearly see the wires LOL

peace & respect

[chattanova]

Here's 33 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

[frenat]

Ah yes, Cosmic Dave's questions. They've been out for years and have been answered numerous times in numerous places. One of the best explanations can be found here
http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html
Of course some on here will dismiss the link based on the source and not the info contained therein. It is also interesting to note that the author of that page debated online with Dave Cosnette regarding his "questions" and Dave conceded on quite a few of them and promised to change them. Then Dave stopped debating and his page never got changed. Wonder why?

[raffles]

Ah yes, Cosmic Dave's questions. They've been out for years and have been answered numerous times in numerous places. One of the best explanations can be found here
http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html
Of course some on here will dismiss the link based on the source and not the info contained therein. It is also interesting to note that the author of that page debated online with Dave Cosnette regarding his "questions" and Dave conceded on quite a few of them and promised to change them. Then Dave stopped debating and his page never got changed. Wonder why?

why dont YOU answer them then ?

[frenat]

why dont YOU answer them then ?

I could, but I know my own limitations and the explanations that I've linked to do a much better job than I ever could. Why is the link not sufficient?

[raffles]

I could, but I know my own limitations and the explanations that I've linked to do a much better job than I ever could. Why is the link not sufficient?

Thats a pro nasa disinfo site, thats why..

[frenat]

You have evidence for this or just your opinion? Even if true, if the explanations are correct, then what is the problem?

[david ickes bike]

Yes, many of therm picked up the beam from the moon. There were also the people at Parkes Observatory in Australia who relayed the signal. But the same applies here as applies to Jodrell Bank: This doesn't prove that those signals originated on the moon.

Let's face it, this is the argument the Skeptics would use if we claimed that a supposed alien radio signal from space was really alien! They'd say: "Get away! That could be some people taking the mick with a satelite relaying the signal!":rolleyes:

Sorry you obviously know nothing about radio. Those radio armatures knew very well that the signal was coming from the Moon. You have to point you directional beam antenna very presently.

[raffles]

Sorry you obviously know nothing about radio. Those radio armatures knew very well that the signal was coming from the Moon. You have to point you directional beam antenna very presently.

The signals would have been coming from this.

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear

[raffles]

You have evidence for this or just your opinion? Even if true, if the explanations are correct, then what is the problem?

The explanations are a pack of lies that my problem.

Can i ask you, why do you spend so much time on websites defending the nasa position ? why do you give a shit if me and others dont beleive the nasa hype, why are you doing their job for them ?

Do you work for nasa or have you in the past.

[david ickes bike]

The signals would have been coming from this.

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear

Sorry not so as you state it says relay thats 2 trips the time delay difference would be wrong. Also a satellite orbiting the moon couldn't provide the coverage you would loose all communication every time it went around the side that faces away from the Earth.

[david ickes bike]

The explanations are a pack of lies that my problem.

Can i ask you, why do you spend so much time on websites defending the nasa position ? why do you give a shit if me and others dont beleive the nasa hype, why are you doing their job for them ?

Do you work for nasa or have you in the past.

Can you explain why you think they are lies instead of just throwing out insults?

[raffles]

Can you explain why you think they are lies instead of just throwing out insults?

Go thru the other threads, cant be arsed going over the same crap again.

[raffles]

Sorry not so as you state it says relay thats 2 trips the time delay difference would be wrong. Also a satellite orbiting the moon couldn't provide the coverage you would loose all communication every time it went around the side that faces away from the Earth.

Depends what type of orbit it was put into.

By the sounds of it, it wasnt going to be a problem when they ran their "simulation" :D

[frenat]

The explanations are a pack of lies that my problem.
Which ones? How? What is wrong with them? If they are lies then you should be able to point to things that are wrong.

Can i ask you, why do you spend so much time on websites defending the nasa position ? why do you give a shit if me and others dont beleive the nasa hype, why are you doing their job for them ?

Do you work for nasa or have you in the past.

No I don't work for NASA and never have. Why would that matter anyway if what I have to offer is facts?

Can I ask you, why so hostile? Why do you give a shit if I do believe the "NASA hype". Has it even occured to you that not all that we know about space and the moon comes from NASA? That most of it is backed up by other companies and other countries? If what NASA says is "hype" then why do so many other countries go along with it when it would be so easy to prove wrong? Why would NASA even start the "hype" when it would be inevitable that they would one day be found out? I came here to learn and discuss and meet nothing but hostility. If that is a general characteristic of those that believe in Icke's theories then maybe I don't want to learn more about them.

[hagbard_celine]

The signals would have been coming from this.

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear

Really? That's new one on me. Have you got any more information? :cool:

Both NASA and the Russians sent unmanned craft to the moon before Apollo. (They probably sent many more that have not been declassified, both manned and unmanned!) To relay a signal from Earth to make it seem to come from the moon would be easy. You just send your signal to the craft up there and get it to repeat it back to you.

I'm sure if someone claimed to receive a radio signal from aliens the Skeptics wouldn't hesitate to use this very same arguement to challenge it! This is what happened in the movie "Contact".:rolleyes:

[david ickes bike]

Depends what type of orbit it was put into.

By the sounds of it, it wasnt going to be a problem when they ran their "simulation" :D

Your right it wasnt going to be a problem on the simulation the same as loosing all communication with the CM each time it went behind the moon. Still periodic lose of communication from the Moons surface was not noted.

As for the type of orbit what orbit do you suggest that would result in the Moon never being in between the satellite and Earth?

[david ickes bike]

Really? That's new one on me. Have you got any more information? :cool:

Both NASA and the Russians sent unmanned craft to the moon before Apollo. (They probably sent many more that have not been declassified, both manned and unmanned!) To relay a signal from Earth to make it seem to come from the moon would be easy. You just send your signal to the craft up there and get it to repeat it back to you.

I'm sure if someone claimed to receive a radio signal from aliens the Skeptics wouldn't hesitate to use this very same arguement to challenge it! This is what happened in the movie "Contact".:rolleyes:

You just send your signal to the craft up there and get it to repeat it back to you. You say, you do realise that would throw the delay times out yes? More trips more time.

[raffles]

Your right it wasnt going to be a problem on the simulation the same as loosing all communication with the CM each time it went behind the moon. Still periodic lose of communication from the Moons surface was not noted.

As for the type of orbit what orbit do you suggest that would result in the Moon never being in between the satellite and Earth?

All they needed to do was put in geo-stationary orbit around the moon and it will always face the earth

[david ickes bike]

A geostationary orbit round the Moon would still leave the satellite behind the Moon at times.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Geostat.gif/180px-Geostat.gif

Place the Earth anywhere outside the satellite and you will see it dosent always face Earth.

[raffles]

I was under the impression this was orbiting the Moon was it in Earth or lunar orbit?

If u read my last post i said "geo-stationary orbit around the moon" geez.
No wonder pro nasa guys aint got a clue.

Im outta here...

[david ickes bike]

www.clavius.org/techcomm.html

[raffles]

www.clavius.org/techcomm.html

Piss off with ur clavius bs. how many times do i have to state thats a pro nasa disinfo site..

[david ickes bike]

You need to prove that to get me to believe it.

I could just as easily spout piss off with your hoaxers its all bullshit but i dont.

[rocco marchegiano]

If u read my last post i said "geo-stationary orbit around the moon" geez.
No wonder pro nasa guys aint got a clue.

Im outta here...

Well it was in orbit round the Earth not the Moon and not geostationary. While tracked from Earth it would appear and be gone in minutes The orbit a 172 × 294 mile job required only took only 92 minutes to complete one revolution. It streaked across the sky and because of this it would have been useless to convince people that the signals were coming from the Moon. Some of the larger stations couldn't move quick enough to track it. Also as someone mentioned the transmission delay times would be out.

[hagbard_celine]

The signals would have been coming from this.

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear

Sorry to push you again, raffles, but this is dynamite! Where did you hear about it?

[raffles]

Sorry to push you again, raffles, but this is dynamite! Where did you hear about it?

Hi Hagbard,
Heres the nasa link with some basic info.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1967-123B.html

Ill dig up some further info later, im at work at the moment, :mad:

[hagbard_celine]

Hi Hagbard,
Heres the nasa link with some basic info.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1967-123B.html

Ill dig up some further info later, im at work at the moment, :mad:

Thanks!

:)

[hagbard_celine]

How many of you have seen the bonus material on "Secret Space 2"? What do you think of Marcus Allen's info on the Apollo 17 photoes? For those of you who haven't seen it, he points out how the pictures taken of Taurus Littrow are composites and montages; and that in some sections the same bits have been mistakenly pasted on twice. I'll try and find something online about it.

I saw Marcus Allen live last year and he came out with some amazing stuff about artifacts on thr moon.

[sensimillia]

i really haven´t researched the moonlandings to much, but i wonder how they landed the lunar module on the moon without getting as mush as a speck of dust on it? the pictures i´ve seen shows no trace of dust, nothing...

[hagbard_celine]

i really haven´t researched the moonlandings to much, but i wonder how they landed the lunar module on the moon without getting as mush as a speck of dust on it? the pictures i´ve seen shows no trace of dust, nothing...

They also show plenty of dust around the craft that should have been blown away. It looks all the world to me like a stage prop that's been carried in and dumped there.

[kromagg]

Here's 33 things that need to be answered!



http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

I haven't been to the moon yet, so I don't know how bright exactly the stars will be compared to down here, but as a photographer I can say it's quite difficult to photograph them. Especially when it comes to adjusting shutter speeds to get optimal exposure for both subject (astronomers or vehicles) and also the stars.

However, it is suspicious that there weren't a lot of pictures released of the stars from the moon? (In spite of the fact astronomers aren't photographers and would probably screw it up :P )

In spite of that, I still do think it was faked. Probably a reasonably easy thing to fake if there was anything to fake at all.

[hagbard_celine]

I haven't been to the moon yet, so I don't know how bright exactly the stars will be compared to down here, but as a photographer I can say it's quite difficult to photograph them. Especially when it comes to adjusting shutter speeds to get optimal exposure for both subject (astronomers or vehicles) and also the stars.

However, it is suspicious that there weren't a lot of pictures released of the stars from the moon? (In spite of the fact astronomers aren't photographers and would probably screw it up :P )

In spite of that, I still do think it was faked. Probably a reasonably easy thing to fake if there was anything to fake at all.

The stars controversy is a pretty minor detail in my view. You're right; taking pictures of stars can't done if you're taking pictures in a brightly-lit environment with short exposures. If you go to a dark place and use a long exposure the stars will appear on the film, but I personally have never been able to capture stars at night when I'm not trying to photgraph them. I tried to take a picture of a UFO a few months ago on a starlit night. Not only did the UFO not show uo, but neither did the stars!

There are a few photoes take in Earth orbit that also show stars though. What's remarkable about Apollo is that at no point does any pic show stars. Yes, this could be explained as every frame or shot being taken at inadequate exposure length, but these are suspposed to be professionally done photographs, not holiday snaps. In the end it doesn't matter because it's a weak point either way.

[nuit]

in the moon landing photos, you do not see any other type of landscape, you do not see stars. There's no blast crater under the craft. A person who was stationed at Houston during the moon landing when the first photo materialized...and the picture was backwards.Why? And why have we not been back since? if we could go there back then? surely we are more advanced now?
Plus if there is no atmosphere in space, why was the flag moving as in a breeze?

[hagbard_celine]

in the moon landing photos, you do not see any other type of landscape, you do not see stars. There's no blast crater under the craft. A person who was stationed at Houston during the moon landing when the first photo materialized...and the picture was backwards.Why? And why have we not been back since? if we could go there back then? surely we are more advanced now?
Plus if there is no atmosphere in space, why was the flag moving as in a breeze?

The questions you ask open the doorway to even deeper ones. Check out this thread in General:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8750

Maybe we not only went to the moon, but we were doing it routinely long before Apollo. But on top of this the Apollo missions are still fake!

[gorana]

I saw this documentary in full on German TV, and i was suprised about things inside. Then i went to website of that TV station (ARTE) stating:

Mi 16.10 20:45 (arte)
Kubrick, Nixon und der Mann im Mond!

Dokumentarfilm, Frankreich 2002
Autor: William Karel
Der Film ist ein dokumentarisches Verwechselspiel, eine Mischung aus Fakten, Fiktion und Hypothesen rund um die Mondlandung. Was wäre, wenn es überhaupt keine Live-Übertragung der Mondlandung gegeben hat?

*sighs* my brain can't translate it, so i used babelfish...

Wed 16,10 20:45 (arte)
Kubrick, Nixon and the man in the moon!

Documentary film, France 2002
author: William Karel
the film is round a documentary confounding play, a mixture from facts, fiction and hypotheses around the moon-landing. What would be, if it gave at all no live-signal of the moon-landing?

G.

[gorana]

while we are at this, i just got this link from a friend...

"Alien Spacecraft on Moon Video " Analyzed - YouTube

G.

[mada88]

I heard they might have went to the moon but the film they showed was fake. Maybe they found something?

[hagbard_celine]

I heard they might have went to the moon but the film they showed was fake. Maybe they found something?


There are things on the moon that have been covered up, yes: ancient structures and modern military bases. It's even possible that the Apollo footage was really filmed on the moon! The secret studio might not be at Area 51, but on one of the moon's secret bases.

We've been going to the moon decades, even centuries before the supposed Apollo missions. It's a bit like Columbus "discovering" America. It had just reached that time in the agenda for the presence of America to be publically declassified so they got a bloke to sail over there and pretened he'd found a new land.

I wonder if there are any other continents on Earth that have never been "discovered".

[hagbard_celine]

I saw this documentary in full on German TV, and i was suprised about things inside. Then i went to website of that TV station (ARTE) stating:

Mi 16.10 20:45 (arte)
Kubrick, Nixon und der Mann im Mond!

Dokumentarfilm, Frankreich 2002
Autor: William Karel
Der Film ist ein dokumentarisches Verwechselspiel, eine Mischung aus Fakten, Fiktion und Hypothesen rund um die Mondlandung. Was wäre, wenn es überhaupt keine Live-Übertragung der Mondlandung gegeben hat?

*sighs* my brain can't translate it, so i used babelfish...

Wed 16,10 20:45 (arte)
Kubrick, Nixon and the man in the moon!

Documentary film, France 2002
author: William Karel
the film is round a documentary confounding play, a mixture from facts, fiction and hypotheses around the moon-landing. What would be, if it gave at all no live-signal of the moon-landing?

G.

That film was a "mockumentary". Someone probably just made it to take the piss out of us!:D:rolleyes:

[chattanova]

Who can explain this? Who's the guy dropping in from the right ?:)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[hepatha]

Hello
Well, its film-studio made. Ha ha the man is obviously living on the moon without spaceclothes.....

Ridicoulous
Hepatha

[chattanova]

Hello
Well, its film-studio made. Ha ha the man is obviously living on the moon without spaceclothes.....

Ridicoulous
Hepatha

LOL:D:D

[hagbard_celine]

Who can explain this? Who's the guy dropping in from the right ?:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

I saw two extra figures. In the first shot there was a third person standing at the right edge of the frame and in the next one there was a small black object scooting along the horizon. This could be a car or something.

[hagbard_celine]

Hello
Well, its film-studio made. Ha ha the man is obviously living on the moon without spaceclothes.....

Ridicoulous
Hepatha

Yes, the figure in the first shot is definitely wearing ordinary clothes!

[pri01]

Hi all, I am new so not yet managed to read all of the posts here. I have an observation that I would like to mention. If my memory is correct, there is a photograph or stiil that has been published in one or two books on subject of 'moon landing'. The photo is that of a foot print showing the very distinctive tread of the sole of the boot belonging to one of the moon walkers. My thinking is where has the moisture come from to infiltrate the moon dust to allow it to form such a distinctive and robust print. You know when you make sand castles, you need a certain amount of water to give it a certain amount of stability. Moon dust in my thinking is as it says 'moon dust'.

[frenat]

Moisture is needed in sand to create an impression but not in all substances. Very fine dirt will hold an impression without moisture as will portland cement. The Moon dust was found to have jagged edges because of the lack of erosion on the Moon that helps it to retain its cohesiveness and hold impressions. This was seen not only on Apollo but also in the American and Russian unmanned probes.

[gorana]

Yes. There are plenty of genuine documentaries about the faked moon missions, but this ain't one of them.:(

It may well have been intended as disinformation. Anyone who watched it all the way through thinking it was real, only to be told at the end that it was a mockumentary will probably feel pretty foolish. It might well put them off watching any of the serious documentaries. ;)

There was no mockumentary notice... At least i did not see it.

G.

[hagbard_celine]

There was no mockumentary notice... At least i did not see it.

G.

No there wasn't any. What you get at the end are the funny outtakes and we're supposed to get the message from them. Actually I think they just confuse the issue which may be the film's objective.

[ssyx]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9cd_1179849088

I found this recently. Maybe you all know about it already, I'd never seen it but I like it.

[umbrex]

NASA LOST 7000 HOURS OF THE ORIGINAL LUNAR TAPS. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ?!?!?!

[kashmir_z]

Humans have been to the moon

Humans have not been in the manner which they think or when they think

[utkin]

NASA LOST 7000 HOURS OF THE ORIGINAL LUNAR TAPS. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ?!?!?!

Loosing the tapes on purpose to hide something wouldn't work because there are still the copies and other countries like Germany have some original tapes that they recorded live from the feed themselves. If NASA had wanted to keep something quite they wouldn't have announced they had lost the tapes given that most people never knew they existed and the ones that did had mostly forgotten or are dead. The best way to keep the tapes from being seen would have been not to mention them seeing as the few remaining machines capable of reading them are to be scraped soon.

The tapes are starting to turn up though so if NASA did try to hide them they didn't do a very good job. If NASA wanted rid of they would have destroyed them and then said they were lost. Around 100 tapes turned up all at once. They were under seats in the basement of a physics lecture hall at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia. Christ knows how they ended up there.

[utkin]

There was no mockumentary notice... At least i did not see it.

G.

A mockumentary notice would have ruined the joke some what.

Ever seen the piece of film that shows people picking spaghetti from trees that was show on April the first? TV companies show silly programs on April fools day and thats exacly what this was. Although if i remember correctly it was shown by Arte a few days after April fools day because of French TV workers industrial action.

I once saw an interview with William Karel. He said he thought that before the end most people would have worked out its a joke. Lets face it by the time it gets to half way through its definitely on par with spaghetti picking. The bloopers at the end are there for people who hadn't worked it out.

[utkin]

A friend recently contacted me with regards this clip (as follows) : -

one slight flaw. the tape is dated in 1970 or 73,cant make out the second number
but the first 7 in the year is crystal clear.

note that it is on headed paper with the NASA logo. however NASA did not start
using that logo until at least the late 80's or possibly the 90's. before then
it was this one: www.tucoo.com/logo/logo_eps048/images/NASA.png

sorry but i'm not convinced.

Thats the problem with hoaxers. Someone interested in NASA will spot that but a hoaxer wouldn't know so they leave mistakes.

Most moon hoax advocates only belive the hoax storys because their understanding of Apollo is poor. If they had a better understanding they could disregard all the absurd claims that are made because they could see for themselves why its wrong. So when the Hoax believer comes to fabricate evidence they make mistakes because there understanding of the subject is so poor.

This also begs the question why ids it the Moon hoax believes cry NASA fakes evidence and yet its them that get caught doing it all the time?

[utkin]

Who can explain this? Who's the guy dropping in from the right ?:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

Its a poorly done hoax.

[utkin]

in the moon landing photos, you do not see any other type of landscape, you do not see stars. There's no blast crater under the craft. A person who was stationed at Houston during the moon landing when the first photo materialized...and the picture was backwards.Why? And why have we not been back since? if we could go there back then? surely we are more advanced now?
Plus if there is no atmosphere in space, why was the flag moving as in a breeze?

Do not see any other type of landscape, what do you mean what would you expect to see? The shapes of the mountains etc change but its all the same color and the like. What were you expecting?
Why would you expect to see stars?
Why would you expect a blast crater?
Ive no idea what you mean about photos at houston being backwards.
We are going back soon.
The flag dosent wave in the breeze there isnt one. Now looking at it that way what could be making the flag move, any ideas?

[hagbard_celine]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1848048459740022356&q=neil+armstrong+on+family+guy&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

This episode was shown on TV last night. I'm glad it's online because it's really funny. :D

Many a true word is spoken in jest!

[chattanova]

Its a poorly done hoax.

Previously Banned member ? ...again ? ;)

[sunyatta60]

Maybe we not only went to the moon, but we were doing it routinely long before Apollo. But on top of this the Apollo missions are still fake!


I am inclined to agree with this, you have to remember that America is one of the most secretive societies in the World. If they went there they would not broadcast for the world and its dog to see.
The Military are never going to let people see what it really has, again remember that all of those Astronauts were from the American Military, no civilians were involved in relation to going there. These guys all signed the official secrets act, if you ever get around to reading about The Montauk project Al Bilek and the Philadelphia experiment I think people will be better clued up to what went on and why.


When one person tells a lie, countless others tell it as a Truth.
Mu

[hagbard_celine]

Maybe we not only went to the moon, but we were doing it routinely long before Apollo. But on top of this the Apollo missions are still fake!


I am inclined to agree with this, you have to remember that America is one of the most secretive societies in the World. If they went there they would not broadcast for the world and its dog to see.
The Military are never going to let people see what it really has, again remember that all of those Astronauts were from the American Military, no civilians were involved in relation to going there. These guys all signed the official secrets act, if you ever get around to reading about The Montauk project Al Bilek and the Philadelphia experiment I think people will be better clued up to what went on and why.


When one person tells a lie, countless others tell it as a Truth.
Mu


I take a similar position. I don't claim that we never went to the moon because we don't have the technology to do it. I say the opposite! We have far more powerful and advanced space travel technology than anoyne could imagine; it's just that it's not available to the public and is kept secret to all, but a tiny elite.

For whatever reason it was decided, that like Columbus "discovering" America, it was time for it to be seen in the public's eyes that we've been to the moon. This was probably related to the Cold War, which was staged too. Whether the fake moon mission was planned when the Cold War was or if it arrived through contingency I don't know. But the thing is they wanted to say to the public: "Look! We've been to the moon!" and at the same time keep their true capabilities still secret. So what did they do? Cook up a yarn that we'd been to the moon using the publically-released rocket technology.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

If it's such a secret how come you know about it?

[ezbar]

Sorry but as a budding physicist and engineer (currently completing a degree in both) I cannot accept the claims of a moon landing hoax. Most claims in those 33 questions can easily be disputed with some understanding, and the evidence collected and brought home in the form of moon rocks combined with the mirror array left on the moon that is still used to this day are overwhelming in the face of any criticism.

Once you understand the feat that was performed, you will be immensely proud to be a part of this species and rest assured, we will see more interesting projects involving the moon with another landing planned for 2017 and potential projects exploiting the (apparent) vast quantities of the fusion fuel, helium-3.

[gorana]

A mockumentary notice would have ruined the joke some what.

Ever seen the piece of film that shows people picking spaghetti from trees that was show on April the first? TV companies show silly programs on April fools day and thats exacly what this was. Although if i remember correctly it was shown by Arte a few days after April fools day because of French TV workers industrial action.

I once saw an interview with William Karel. He said he thought that before the end most people would have worked out its a joke. Lets face it by the time it gets to half way through its definitely on par with spaghetti picking. The bloopers at the end are there for people who hadn't worked it out.

I did not see it in TV but i got it through torrent and if i properly remember, there were no bloopers there. But these could be removed intentionally.

Anyway... They are f...ing with our brain :(

G.

[sunyatta60]

If it's such a secret how come you know about it?

Is this in response to anything I said?

The Truth is still The Truth even if expressed by a minority of One.
Mahatma Gandhi

[revolutionary_jam]

I think the Appolo missions were real but the pictures were faked to cover up what they actually saw there

I saw a website with a very in depth analysis showing this, he siad NASA had a long history of faking pictures and drew examples of when the videos flicked off all of a sudden just before a youfoh or something appeared

[hagbard_celine]

If it's such a secret how come you know about it?

I worked it out.

I assure you nobody's come forward to tell me! :eek:

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

:eek::eek::eek:

I'd always rejected the waving flag theory before, not because I'm a moonlanding believer, but because I thought that they'd never make such a daft mistake! But look at this! The flag does wave! And the astronaut definitely doesn't touch it!

Does he get close enough to give the flag a static discharge? I think not.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

it's called physics, hagbard. get real.

i'm so sick of these pseudo-science experimenters who think they have cracked the universes mysteries sitting by their pc. it's pathetic.

[greenleaf]

is there anything in what a Dr. Steven Greer says..and has th e project he did had any effect.

also a Dr.Salla.. how credable do ppl here think their info is?:confused:

[sunyatta60]

it's called physics, hagbard. get real.

i'm so sick of these pseudo-science experimenters who think they have cracked the universes mysteries sitting by their pc. it's pathetic.

The onus is on you Shifty to get real and prove conclusively that the Apollo programme took us to the moon. I am not convinced by all the official Stuff it is Crap.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

The onus is on you Shifty to get real and prove conclusively that the Apollo programme took us to the moon. I am not convinced by all the official Stuff it is Crap.

The onus is on me to do bugger all. I'm not the one making ANY claims. All I said was I am sick of psuedo science bullshitters who think they are fucking smartarses waving bits of paper about in front of a toy flag. It's truly pathetic and you lot lap it up like a dog eating its own sick.

So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it :D

[graflok]

Once you understand the feat that was performed, you will be immensely proud to be a part of this species

Species? What an odd choice of words!

[ezbar]

Aye but it's the best word for it, it reminds me of this quote from bill hicks

Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace. Bill Hicks, Revelations

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Species? What an odd choice of words!

What makes you think we are any different or better than the other living, breathing organisms on this planet? :D

[ezbar]

What makes you think we are any different or better than the other living, breathing organisms on this planet? :D

Hehe, I will give you an insight into my views on life in the universe, I believe that the universe teems with life, in many many forms.

As for intelligence, I believe we are the only beings in the universe who are able to ponder their existence, and to investigate and manipulate phenomena the way we do (such as fire, electricity etc.)

I would like to be proved wrong but as for my reasoning, I ask that you look at the world we live in. In its entire history, we are the only beings (that there is evidence of) who possess these abilities, while life has been abundant and varied.

[graflok]

What makes you think we are any different or better than the other living, breathing organisms on this planet? :D

"We?" I don't know about "we."

But, as for me, I suppose I could start with the songs, stories, articles and
scripts I've written. Maybe not great, but decidedly better than what any jellyfish
could come up with, I'm sure.

Now, for you I'm sure it would be much harder to see any difference, I admit. ;)

[reptilianshapeshifter]

"We?" I don't know about "we."

But, as for me, I suppose I could start with the songs, stories, articles and
scripts I've written. Maybe not great, but decidedly better than what any jellyfish
could come up with, I'm sure.

Now, for you I'm sure it would be much harder to see any difference, I admit. ;)

Cheeky :D

Maybe when you die and go to heaven you'll be a mute slave to an egotistic jellyfish novelist. :D

[graflok]

Cheeky :D

Maybe when you die and go to heaven you'll be a mute slave to an egotistic jellyfish novelist. :D

Maybe when you wake up you'll find yourself a sex slave for an arrogant reptile. Hold still, now! :D

[adimon]

hagbard celine said> "I wonder if there are any other continents on Earth that have never been "discovered?"

Well maybe not continents, but there are many tiny islands in the southern atlantic which some maps show and some don't. Google Earth does NOT show all of them.

Gough Island houses a very small (less than 50 people) scientific community, under UK administration. After being told about it by a botanist friend of mine who had been there and found the whole place a bit sketchy, (please bear in mind he works alongside the military so he's used a fair bit of oddity but he said the other scientists down there behaved very strangely) I decided to check it out myself. There is almost no information on it in the HoC Library; the British Library has very little, and I tried other places too. Nowhere did I find any accounts of the history of how the island was discovered, colonised, technologized, anything. Quite strange, and only one of many islands in that region - see also Ascension Island, Tristan de Cunha and St. Helena.

hagbard celine said> There are things on the moon that have been covered up, yes: ancient structures and modern military bases. It's even possible that the Apollo footage was really filmed on the moon! The secret studio might not be at Area 51, but on one of the moon's secret bases.

Whats your source on this please?

Personally, I think man has been to the moon, but the footage is clearly faked.

If you examine that list of 33 questions, and the concessions the author made after discussion, the answers fall into two categories:- things that suggest man could have gone to the moon; and indications the footage was faked.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There is a lot of talk about the power of intuition on this forum, and in all honesty, it was my trip to Florida, which concluded my proper investigation on this matter. Definitely worth checking out. To fake the footage and not go at all would have been a total waste of money, without any gain.

graflok and reptilianshapeshifter > I like your avatars. Graflok what is that a picture of?

[graflok]

I like your avatars. Graflok what is that a picture of?

Thank you. It's a mongoose (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053361/mongoose).

[hagbard_celine]

it's called physics, hagbard. get real.

i'm so sick of these pseudo-science experimenters who think they have cracked the universes mysteries sitting by their pc. it's pathetic.

I couldn't agree less. These PC experimenters are helping break down the walls between the ivory towers of academia and the "ignorant masses". Before the internet there's no way this guy to get his information out. Of course this means that skeptics like Svector have the same ability so what's the problem? What would you prefer; that the questions never even get asked? If so then it's hard to see the dfifference between the scientific world and a religious bastion like the Vatican.

[hagbard_celine]

The onus is on me to do bugger all. I'm not the one making ANY claims. All I said was I am sick of psuedo science bullshitters who think they are fucking smartarses waving bits of paper about in front of a toy flag. It's truly pathetic and you lot lap it up like a dog eating its own sick.

So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it :D

How come when people who know nothing about space and science believe that men have walked on the moon, nobody accuses them of lapping it up like a dog eating its own stick? :confused:

[hagbard_celine]

The onus is on me to do bugger all. I'm not the one making ANY claims.

I think that when a space agency announces that it sent 12 men across a quarter of a million miles of unknown deep space, to the moon, with primitive chemical combustion rockets then that's a claim. An extraordinary claim.

And as Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary explanations". A sequence of foggy TV pictures, some photoes and a few lumps of rock, from such an unreliable source as a governement agency, are not what I call extraordinary.

[hagbard_celine]

hagbard celine said> "I wonder if there are any other continents on Earth that have never been "discovered?"

Well maybe not continents, but there are many tiny islands in the southern atlantic which some maps show and some don't. Google Earth does NOT show all of them.

Gough Island houses a very small (less than 50 people) scientific community, under UK administration. After being told about it by a botanist friend of mine who had been there and found the whole place a bit sketchy, (please bear in mind he works alongside the military so he's used a fair bit of oddity but he said the other scientists down there behaved very strangely) I decided to check it out myself. There is almost no information on it in the HoC Library; the British Library has very little, and I tried other places too. Nowhere did I find any accounts of the history of how the island was discovered, colonised, technologized, anything. Quite strange, and only one of many islands in that region - see also Ascension Island, Tristan de Cunha and St. Helena.




There is an enormous amount on Google Earth that is censored. I've seen some of the discrepancies with my own eyes.

[hagbard_celine]

hagbard celine said> There are things on the moon that have been covered up, yes: ancient structures and modern military bases. It's even possible that the Apollo footage was really filmed on the moon! The secret studio might not be at Area 51, but on one of the moon's secret bases.

Whats your source on this please?

Personally, I think man has been to the moon, but the footage is clearly faked.


I agree. Man has indeed walked on the moon. All I question is that it was done in the way that history tells us it was.

And this answers your question because there are people who've worked in NASA and the Russian space agency who've seen moon bases and have also witnessed the doctoring of space data for the media and scientific community. The evidence of this doctoring can be seen ourselves in the data if we look.

[sunyatta60]

[QUOTE=reptilianshapeshifter;125507]The onus is on me to do bugger all. I'm not the one making ANY claims. All I said was I am sick of psuedo science bullshitters who think they are fucking smartarses waving bits of paper about in front of a toy flag. It's truly pathetic and you lot lap it up like a dog eating its own sick.



You are making claims and you are to obtuse to know it. Did you go to school dipstick or what? You have science programmes run by universities that allows anyone with a pc and internet access to participate in the research by collecting data. One programme is called Seti, then there are people searching the night sky for doom day asteroids. Another is the global consciousness project.
As for psuedo science that is tomorrow's science. I bet you are one of these Jackarses who thinks mainstream consensus science is there to move things forwards. Only idiots think that, I suggest you read Crichton he will put you right so will Dr Brian Martin and Dr Brian Josephson LOL.
Only Mavericks in Science move Science forwards not those who are intereted in protecting their grants and maintaining the Status Quo.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

[QUOTE=reptilianshapeshifter;125507]The onus is on me to do bugger all. I'm not the one making ANY claims. All I said was I am sick of psuedo science bullshitters who think they are fucking smartarses waving bits of paper about in front of a toy flag. It's truly pathetic and you lot lap it up like a dog eating its own sick.



You are making claims and you are to obtuse to know it. Did you go to school dipstick or what? You have science programmes run by universities that allows anyone with a pc and internet access to participate in the research by collecting data. One programme is called Seti, then there are people searching the night sky for doom day asteroids. Another is the global consciousness project.
As for psuedo science that is tomorrow's science. I bet you are one of these Jackarses who thinks mainstream consensus science is there to move things forwards. Only idiots think that, I suggest you read Crichton he will put you right so will Dr Brian Martin and Dr Brian Josephson LOL.
Only Mavericks in Science move Science forwards not those who are intereted in protecting their grants and maintaining the Status Quo.

I think you better copy and paste the claims I've made on man's trek to the moon so we can analyse and discuss. It's no good you saying I've made claims and then not show me the claims I've made before you talk to me like that.

[adimon]

I agree. Man has indeed walked on the moon. All I question is that it was done in the way that history tells us it was.

And this answers your question because there are people who've worked in NASA and the Russian space agency who've seen moon bases and have also witnessed the doctoring of space data for the media and scientific community. The evidence of this doctoring can be seen ourselves in the data if we look.

Could you please tell me where I can find accounts of these people who've supposedly seen moon bases?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Could you please tell me where I can find accounts of these people who've supposedly seen moon bases?

You won't find any real accounts but there's zero evidence to support it other than fantasies inside people's heads. :rolleyes:

[adimon]

You won't find any real accounts but there's zero evidence to support it other than fantasies inside people's heads. :rolleyes:

LOL :D

Well my asking that question was based on the fact that I share your view.

They don't like questions on here!

[hagbard_celine]

Could you please tell me where I can find accounts of these people who've supposedly seen moon bases?

Scroll down to the ET Disclosure DVD. It actually has four different programmes on it, but the witness testimony is in the first.

The whole thing lasts about 4 hours! A real bargain!

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg

If Greenmagoos and Michaelstmark are correct then this precludes the need for the location studio that I was beginning to think was how they did it. On the other hand, if this is not the real Earth and just a picture or model, then the hoaxers must have had accurate weather reports, and the ability to adjust the simulated cloud patterns on their mock-up virtually hour-by-hour.

Wouldn't it be simply easier, as well as making the hoax more believable and less likely to be rumbled, to simply fly the whole unit out into space and shoot the scene from the position that the Apollo craft would have been in if the moon mission were real? But then how do explain the anomalies these YouTubers have raised?

Well actually they have an answer to my question. They reckon that a satelite was launched at the same time as, or just before, Apollo 11. This is new information on me and I'll have to look into it.

[raffles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg

If Greenmagoos and Michaelstmark are correct then this precludes the need for the location studio that I was beginning to think was how they did it. On the other hand, if this is not the real Earth and just a picture or model, then the hoaxers must have had accurate weather reports, and the ability to adjust the simulated cloud patterns on their mock-up virtually hour-by-hour.

Wouldn't it be simply easier, as well as making the hoax more believable and less likely to be rumbled, to simply fly the whole unit out into space and shoot the scene from the position that the Apollo craft would have been in if the moon mission were real? But then how do explain the anomalies these YouTubers have raised?

Well actually they have an answer to my question. They reckon that a satelite was launched at the same time as, or just before, Apollo 11. This is new information on me and I'll have to look into it.

Good video hagbard.
Heres another good video about spotlights on the moon !!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[hagbard_celine]

Good video hagbard.
Heres another good video about spotlights on the moon !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw&mode=related&search=

So we actually have photographic analysis of the "sun". Percy and Bennett pointed out that the reflection of the "sun" in the astronaut's helmet visors was from that of a big, close-up light rather than a distant one.

[frenat]

Percy and Bennett neglected to mention that the reflection of the sun can appear different sizes based on the object it is being reflected off of, exposure time, focal length of the lens and distance of camera to reflection. Don't just take my word for it, test it yourself. These "anomalies" can be tested in your own backyard with your own camera. Of course Percy and Bennett wouldn't tell you that. There's no money to be made that way.

[hagbard_celine]

Percy and Bennett neglected to mention that the reflection of the sun can appear different sizes based on the object it is being reflected off of, exposure time, focal length of the lens and distance of camera to reflection. Don't just take my word for it, test it yourself. These "anomalies" can be tested in your own backyard with your own camera. Of course Percy and Bennett wouldn't tell you that. There's no money to be made that way.

Does this include TV pictures too?

As for making money? Well, NASA's $US40 billion taken from the taxpayer sounds a little more lucrative than self-publishing an underground small circulation paperback book. If they wanted to make money then they should have started their own space programme!:D

[frenat]

Of course it includes tv pictures. As for the $40 billion, Apollo was a very public program and all of the money was accounted for in various audits. NASA themselves used little of it as a large part went to pay various contractors that actually built the equipment.

[lizzy]

Of course it includes tv pictures. As for the $40 billion, Apollo was a very public program and all of the money was accounted for in various audits. NASA themselves used little of it as a large part went to pay various contractors that actually built the equipment.

LOL.....the Elite stole Billions of taxpayers money.
They can't get through the Van Allen radiation belt yet. Thatwould have killed them.
Kubrick knew, that is why he never left is house for many years before he died.

[frenat]

Can't get through the Van Allen belts? Any proof? Why wouldn't the Russians have called them on it? Why did the Russians continue their program into the early 70's if it were impossible? Why did the Russian probe Zond 5 that carried live animals around the Moon not have any problems? Why do the ISS and the space shuttle that both routinely pass through a low hanging area of the Van Allen belts not have a problem?

And Kubrick? I think you've been reading too much fiction.

[lizzy]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
this is a start.
Good Luck finding out the Truth.
Who knows whether those animals went around the Moon or not. Perhaps they did, perhaps the radiation killed them within days or months.
But that has crossed my mind, Why did'nt the Russians cry 'foul'.....perhaps they had too much tied up in their military. Perhaps their masters really were the same as ours anyway. Did'nt the Rothchild / Rockerfellow elite put the Bolshies in power?

[frenat]

That page has been refuted so many times it's not funny. The author even debated its points on the old Badastronomy forum and agreed to change some things. Then he disappeared and never changed a thing. Shows you something about his level of honesty.

[heart]

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Notice the name Lizzy? Dr. James Van Allen the very same man they named the Van Allen belts after. Are you saying you know more about the belts than the Late Dr. James Van Allen did?

LOL.....the Elite stole Billions of taxpayers money.
They can't get through the Van Allen radiation belt yet. Thatwould have killed them.
Kubrick knew, that is why he never left is house for many years before he died.

[heart]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

That sites been there quite a few years now showing us how the Apollo program was a fake:D. Thousands of websites all regurgitating the same basic claims. TV shows radio programs video Dvds and still only a tiny fraction belive it. I wonder why :p

The late Bill Kaysing Grandfather of the Moon hoax theory would tell friends in private he didnt belive Apollo was faked for one minute. I find it funny that in some interviews he clams not to have see any Apollo launch then in others describes watching them on TV. Funny how the same disinformation is still spreading. Despite all his fancyful claims Mr. Kaysing was basically a librarian at rocketdyne and left before any major work on the Apollo programme started.

[lizzy]

We are still free to think what you would like.
My Truth is mine. Shadow lighting, flags, footprints, no landing crater or dust from landing, faked telementary, it just goes on and on.
Take a look at the frist press conference they gave.....3 very reticent guys, no one even wanted to answer quiestions. When Patrick Moore asked 'what did the stars look like?', they could,nt remember seeing any, LOL.
With the huge leaps in technology they can't even get back there today, LOL.
But it is nice that you still believe.

[heart]

Who told you they cant get back there today?

[frenat]

We are still free to think what you would like.
My Truth is mine. Shadow lighting, flags, footprints, no landing crater or dust from landing, faked telementary, it just goes on and on.
Take a look at the frist press conference they gave.....3 very reticent guys, no one even wanted to answer quiestions. When Patrick Moore asked 'what did the stars look like?', they could,nt remember seeing any, LOL.
With the huge leaps in technology they can't even get back there today, LOL.
But it is nice that you still believe.

All has been refuted multiple times. As for the press conference, these guys were not chosen for how they were on tv. They were chosen for their skills as test pilots. They were and are private guys and appear that way.

As for the question about the stars, they were asked specifically "did you see the stars in the solar corona, in spite of the glare?" How many stars do you think you would see in the solar corona? The question was referred to Collins who performed the particular experiment with the solar corona and he answered correctly. Incidentally, other astronauts have reported seeing stars on the Moon when they stood in the shadow of the LM and took the time for their eyes to dark adjust.

There may be changes in technology but rocketry still remains largely the same. It still takes a certain amount of thrust to get there and back. There has not been the political will nor the money given to NASA in the years since to go back but they are planning to now.

[heart]

The return to the Moon hardware is being designed and built as we post.

As frenat said

There has not been the political will nor the money given to NASA in the years since to go back but they are planning to now.


Helium-3 frenat?

[frenat]

Helium-3 frenat?

Helium-3 may help them recoup some money from missions in the future but it has not really affected why we haven't returned since the 70's which is what I was posting about. That is mainly because of lack of political will and money. NASA can't do anything without Congress approving it first and their budget has been slashed compared to what it was in the 60's.

[heart]

Helium-3 may help them recoup some money from missions in the future but it has not really affected why we haven't returned since the 70's which is what I was posting about. That is mainly because of lack of political will and money. NASA can't do anything without Congress approving it first and their budget has been slashed compared to what it was in the 60's.

I understand the point you were making frenat. The question i was posing was do you think Helium-3 could be the reason for the planned missions?

[frenat]

I understand the point you were making frenat. The question i was posing was do you think Helium-3 could be the reason for the planned missions?

I doubt it. There is still a long way to go before they can return enough helium-3 to make it profitable. Plus, the way I heard it, they aren't really sure just how much is up there and how plentiful it will be. What they have now is some highly educated guesses.

[raffles]

We are still free to think what you would like.
My Truth is mine. Shadow lighting, flags, footprints, no landing crater or dust from landing, faked telementary, it just goes on and on.
Take a look at the frist press conference they gave.....3 very reticent guys, no one even wanted to answer quiestions. When Patrick Moore asked 'what did the stars look like?', they could,nt remember seeing any, LOL.
With the huge leaps in technology they can't even get back there today, LOL.
But it is nice that you still believe.

Ignore these trolls lizzy, for some reason they always turn up when a new moon hoax post is made.
Dont worry 99% of people here think they are talking thru their arses.

And look frenats brought a new troll friend with him called heart .. ohhh

[raffles]

Come on then trolls do your job and debunk hagbards video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg

[heart]

Come on then trolls do your job and debunk hagbards video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg)

Greenmagoos and Michaelstmark

Job done id say. :)

[heart]

Ignore these trolls lizzy, for some reason they always turn up when a new moon hoax post is made.
Dont worry 99% of people here think they are talking thru their arses.

And look frenats brought a new troll friend with him called heart .. ohhh


Lizzy you will find if you look into each one of the points you raised the claims made by the hoax believers (if they really belive what they say) are completely bogus.

[heart]

Lizzy you seem all to willing to claim hoax but you seen unwilling to say why.

Flag waving in the wind do you really belive that?

Why would you expect to see a blast crater?

What do you think is wrong with the shadows?

Footprints, footprints what?

Faked telemetry, have you evidence?

Come on Lizzy enough of the hand waving state your case.

Your parroting Bill Kaysing Lizzy whether you know it or not. Bill Kaysing the grandfather of the Hoax conspiracy didnt belive for one moment Apollo was faked and you are parroting him.

The Late Bill Kaysing wrote his book to finance his late wife's medical bills. He knew suckers would and did by it. Still like i said he laughed at the Hoax believers.

You should take time out and look at some of the claims being made by HB's and you might see just how silly they are.

It does amuse me that no matter how many times a hoax claim is proved wrong it still keeps on cropping up week in week out.

[pigpot]

How much is The Man paying you!!!!!

Grow up heart. OOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! I love the world I'm living in, please don't try and change it because I might not be so important.

Lose your ego and grow up somewhat!!!!!!!!

pigpot............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .. . . . .

[raffles]

Greenmagoos and Michaelstmark

Job done id say. :)

Nope, come on debunk it troll, u cant !!:)

[lizzy]

Ignore these trolls lizzy, for some reason they always turn up when a new moon hoax post is made.
Dont worry 99% of people here think they are talking thru their arses.

And look frenats brought a new troll friend with him called heart .. ohhh
Hi raffles. Thankyou. There's no fool like a mindless tool. (just thought of that).LOL Yup, I think those guys are on the wrong website. But I am sure happy to be here and have the support you just gave me.
R.I.P. Stanley Kubrick.

[anna]

!!! My Vote Is Faked !!!

[heart]

How much is The Man paying you!!!!!

Grow up heart. OOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! I love the world I\'m living in, please don\'t try and change it because I might not be so important.

Lose your ego and grow up somewhat!!!!!!!!

pigpot............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .. . . . .

How do you know its a man?

[heart]

!!! My Vote Is Faked !!!

What makes you belive it was faked?

[heart]

lol I made my post before I had watched it all...I was interested until I saw the \\\'kubrick\\\' picture on the moon, that was hilarious but that was when I realised it was all completely made up...

I\\\'m glad that I had the power of discernment not to trust it though, I thought the other people could all be actors, but still they were quite convincing. Bear in mind I wasn\\\'t paying too much attention to it, I was working and listening to the audio and would look up when I heard something interesting.





When it comes to the moon landing I don\\\'t believe it at all. I think the lack of pictures is what really does it for me. Still it\\\'s not something I\\\'m going to focus on, in fact I\\\'d pretend I do believe in the moon landing to others to make me not sound so crazy when discussion real hardcore evidence on 9/11.

There was enough in the April fools day movie to suggest that anyone watching with an open mind would spot a few things that are obviously B/S.

The standard hoax claim is too many pictures.

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

The genius by the name of Bart Sibrel did go through a stage of claiming there are only 12 pictures.

[anna]

HEART ASKED: "What makes you believe it was faked?"

Well, I wish I could give you a long drawn out scientific reason . . . but I will tell you from my point of view.

First I'm just someone looking for truth - and what might be my truth at the time, may not be someone else's - see? So okay. . . .

First I saw the program on TV several years ago "Fake Moon Landing?" or something. That really raised questions for me.

Then the different video on youtube or video.google, I don't remember now. They were quite convincing to me. I thought those brought out a lot of reasons that made me believe them.

AND, another biggie, for me at least. I don't really believe anything our government says.

So, sorry I don't have a bigger reason to give you but those are big enough for me.

[frenat]

I have not personally seen a single hax claim that hasn't been completely and thoroughly refuted.

The government is just one of many saying that men landed on moon in the 60's and 70's. Every other major government in the world also accepts it. Every astronomer says it. Those that operated the radio telescopes that tracked the craft and received radio, telemetry, and television from it accept it. Geologists say it. The contractors built equipment capable of reaching the Moon. Rocket scientists say the craft was capable. Physicists say the Van Allen belts are composed of primarily particle radiation which is easily shielded by thin metal and Polyethylene, the shielding they did use for their very short times in the belt, so they say it is possible as well. Some current astronauts spend more time physically in the belts than Apollo astronauts did as the shuttle and ISS routinely pass through a low hanging section of the belts so that further proves the belts would not be a problem. Millions of scientist around the world have no problem with their respective disciplines regarding a Moon landing. Many of them not associated with the US government and some in countries openly hostile to the US government.

[synak]

The government is just one of many saying that men landed on moon in the 60's and 70's. Every other major government in the world also accepts it.

Yes, I'm sure that groups called "restrain mind" are very trustworthy. :rolleyes:

I will "accept" nothing and question everything.

[heart]

HEART ASKED: \\\\\\\"What makes you believe it was faked?\\\\\\\"

Well, I wish I could give you a long drawn out scientific reason . . . but I will tell you from my point of view.

First I\\\\\\\'m just someone looking for truth - and what might be my truth at the time, may not be someone else\\\\\\\'s - see? So okay. . . .

First I saw the program on TV several years ago \\\\\\\"Fake Moon Landing?\\\\\\\" or something. That really raised questions for me.

Then the different video on youtube or video.google, I don\\\\\\\'t remember now. They were quite convincing to me. I thought those brought out a lot of reasons that made me believe them.

AND, another biggie, for me at least. I don\\\\\\\'t really believe anything our government says.

So, sorry I don\\\\\\\'t have a bigger reason to give you but those are big enough for me.

So your reasons for calling hoax are based on what you saw on a TV programme and read/saw/heard on conspiracy sites and youtube. It must be true i saw it on Fox, LOL.

BTW.

If They really did land a man on the Moon thats truth. Not matter what you or i say one way or the other if it really is true its truth.

[heart]

Yes, I\'m sure that groups called \"restrain mind\" are very trustworthy. :rolleyes:

I will \"accept\" nothing and question everything.

No ones asking you to except anything at face value, i for one certainly dont.

What is evident here is a recent lack of reasons to claim hoax.

Waving flag etc have all been proved false time and again.

[raffles]

No ones asking you to except anything at face value, i for one certainly dont.

What is evident here is a recent lack of reasons to claim hoax.

Waving flag etc have all been proved false time and again.

The flag waving has not been proven false, somebody just can up with an idea to explain it as electrical discharge. I for one do not bye that idea.

[synak]

No ones asking you to except anything at face value, i for one certainly dont.

What is evident here is a recent lack of reasons to claim hoax.

Waving flag etc have all been proved false time and again.

I think you mean 'accept' not 'except', but thats irrelevant.

There are many reasons. Journeying to the root foundation of why they would fake such an event would benefit anyone.

No, not proven. Attempting to discredit a theory with another theory proves little if anything, especially when the latter has less supporting evidence than the other.

[heart]

I think you mean \'accept\' not \'except\', but thats irrelevant.

There are many reasons. Journeying to the root foundation of why they would fake such an event would benefit anyone.

No, not proven. Attempting to discredit a theory with another theory proves little if anything, especially when the latter has less supporting evidence than the other.

Yes i make spelling mistakes and use the wrong words in the wrong situation, your point is? Me thinks your clutching at straws. Still you got my meaning.


What if you can prove hoax theories wrong in your own back garden with your own camera being operated by your own good self? If only people would take the time.

I apologize in advance for any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors but hey only an asshole who\'s never made a mistake would point them out.

[heart]

The flag waving has not been proven false, somebody just can up with an idea to explain it as electrical discharge. I for one do not bye that idea.

OK raffles lets assume the flag is waving in the wind. How do you account for the behaviour of the lunar soil? It goes up it comes down. So now am i expected to belive the flag is fluttering because there\'s an atmosphere but at the same time belive the soil acts the way it does because they are in a stage set which is vacuum?


Which is it raffles are they

1. In an environment with an atmosphere which causes the flag to flutter

Or

2. In a vacuum sound stage that accounts for the behaviour of the kicked up soil.

Which is it raffles as it cant be both.

[raffles]

OK raffles lets assume the flag is waving in the wind. How do you account for the behaviour of the lunar soil? It goes up it comes down. So now am i expected to belive the flag is fluttering because there\'s an atmosphere but at the same time belive the soil acts the way it does because they are in a stage set which is vacuum?


Which is it raffles are they

1. In an environment with an atmosphere which causes the flag to flutter

Or

2. In a vacuum sound stage that accounts for the behaviour of the kicked up soil.

Which is it raffles as it cant be both.

The first, if you watch the videos of the lunar rover you can see the dust trails hitting an atmosphere.

[synak]

Yes i make spelling mistakes and use the wrong words in the wrong situation, your point is? Me thinks your clutching at straws. Still you got my meaning.

What if you can prove hoax theories wrong in your own back garden with your own camera being operated by your own good self? If only people would take the time.

I apologize in advance for any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors but hey only an asshole who\'s never made a mistake would point them out.

Clutching at straws? Very funny. It seems you skipped over the words "but thats irrelevant" after I noted the mistake.

I think you mean 'accept' not 'except', but thats irrelevant.

When first posting I made a point of making that clear so that you'd know I wasn't utilizing it as an argumentative comment. Thought you would have seen that but apparently it became invisible somehow. :rolleyes:

No idea why your rambling on about using camcorders in gardens. Unless your garden happens to be on the actual moon or doubling as a NASA test facility I don't see why you would attempt using it to refute "hoax theories".

There's only one person here being an "asshole" and it sure is not me.

[heart]

The first, if you watch the videos of the lunar rover you can see the dust trails hitting an atmosphere.


No you cant.


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

As the video shows the dust goes up and falls straight back down.

[heart]

Clutching at straws? Very funny. It seems you skipped over the words \"but thats irrelevant\" after I noted the mistake.



When first posting I made a point of making that clear so that you\'d know I wasn\'t utilizing it as an argumentative comment. Thought you would have seen that but apparently it became invisible somehow. :rolleyes:

No idea why your rambling on about using camcorders in gardens. Unless your garden happens to be on the actual moon or doubling as a NASA test facility I don\'t see why you would attempt using it to refute \"hoax theories\".

There\'s only one person here being an \"asshole\" and it sure is not me.


Try testing some of the claims about shadows for yourself. Thats the point.
Your garden does not have to be on the Moon or in a NASA test facility to test out some of the false claims made by the hoax brigade thats just being silly.

Here\'s one of the hoax believers claims \"the shadow of the person taking the picture must always be in the middle of the shot\".

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/Shadows6.jpg

As you can see thats nonsense. You can test the converging shadows claim the lengthening shadows etc all without the need to move to the Moon. Go out at night and take a picture with your cam set on a datetime exposure, see any stars? Hoax claims busted by yourself no need to take anyones word for it and all in the comfort of your own back yard.

[heart]

I have not personally seen a single hax claim that hasn\'t been completely and thoroughly refuted.

The government is just one of many saying that men landed on moon in the 60\'s and 70\'s. Every other major government in the world also accepts it. Every astronomer says it. Those that operated the radio telescopes that tracked the craft and received radio, telemetry, and television from it accept it. Geologists say it. The contractors built equipment capable of reaching the Moon. Rocket scientists say the craft was capable. Physicists say the Van Allen belts are composed of primarily particle radiation which is easily shielded by thin metal and Polyethylene, the shielding they did use for their very short times in the belt, so they say it is possible as well. Some current astronauts spend more time physically in the belts than Apollo astronauts did as the shuttle and ISS routinely pass through a low hanging section of the belts so that further proves the belts would not be a problem. Millions of scientist around the world have no problem with their respective disciplines regarding a Moon landing. Many of them not associated with the US government and some in countries openly hostile to the US government.

I found it interesting that the North Koreans were told by official sources of the moon landings. They were told that man had landed on the Moon but they were not told which country had achieved the landing.

[heart]

Hi raffles. Thankyou. There\'s no fool like a mindless tool. (just thought of that).LOL Yup, I think those guys are on the wrong website. But I am sure happy to be here and have the support you just gave me.
R.I.P. Stanley Kubrick.

Lizzy your reference to Stanley Kubrick is not in relation to this video is it?

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1 - YouTube

Please tell me thats not one of the things that made you call hoax.

99% of the hoax claims originated from the mouth of Bill Kaysing a guy who openly admitted to friends that he never believed Apollo was hoaxed.

BTW call me all the names you like but you go and check just a few of the hoax claims for yourself you will be the one with the red face.

[raffles]

No you cant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

As the video shows the dust goes up and falls straight back down.

Yes you can, the dust trails from the back wheels are hitting an atmosphere.

Apollo never landed a man on the moon end of strory.

[raffles]

99% of the hoax claims originated from the mouth of Bill Kaysing a guy who openly admitted to friends that he never believed Apollo was hoaxed.


Total BS, funny how after he had died, you lot start peddling lies about the guy, as well as landing on the moon.

And 99% didnt come from him. :rolleyes:

[raffles]

I have not personally seen a single hax claim that hasn't been completely and thoroughly refuted.

Well you and your troll mate heart are idiots then.
You beleive everything you are told and question nothing, no doubt you you run around life like a lap dog doing what your masters tells you.

Nasa landed a man on the moon "of course they did master"
Arn't you "good little puppets !!"

[joyful]

Cover to the Apollo 13 flight plan
2 lithium-hydroxide canisters
Roll of gray duct tape
2 LCG bags
2 hoses from the red suits
2 socks
1 bungee cord


http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2326/johnswigertgpn200200005rg0.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9208/694pxapollo13lmwithmailwj9.jpg

[kingdom]

in nine parts

this is the ultimate expose of Moon landing hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

this should put speculations to rest once and for all

Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfield, Haig, Kissinger,
Eagleburger and rest of hacks are speaking, so this is not only exposure of moon hoax conspiracy but also a proof of conspiracy to silence all eyewitnesses who were part of the moon landing conspiracy.

Hi,I am kingdom.the moon landing was genuine,nothing else to it...

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Yes you can, the dust trails from the back wheels are hitting an atmosphere.

Apollo never landed a man on the moon end of strory.

lol, another armchair specialist. Good one Raffles. :D

"My name's raffles and i've got a homeopathic degree in talking bollox and pseudo-science. At my house the computer runs on "good vibes" and excess electricity from my chem-trail buster."

[raffles]

lol, another armchair specialist. Good one Raffles. :D

"My name's raffles and i've got a homeopathic degree in talking bollox and pseudo-science. At my house the computer runs on "good vibes" and excess electricity from my chem-trail buster."

Hi, my names reptilianshapeshifter i believe everything the on the news and everything the goverment tells me .. :rolleyes:

[synak]

lol, another armchair specialist. Good one Raffles. :D

"My name's raffles and i've got a homeopathic degree in talking bollox and pseudo-science. At my house the computer runs on "good vibes" and excess electricity from my chem-trail buster."

If your going to criticize him as an 'armchair specialist' you might as well say the same for everyone else on the planet who's ever attempted to analyse this issue or similar ones since none of them are "certified" specialists. By this mentality both those who explain how they believe in a fake moon landing and those who explain how they believe in a real one are all 'armchair specialists'.

Here\'s one of the hoax believers claims \"the shadow of the person taking the picture must always be in the middle of the shot\".


Seeing as I haven't made the above mentioned 'claims' myself I don't feel it necessary for me to 'test' it. Thanks anyway.

Hi,I am kingdom.the moon landing was genuine,nothing else to it...

Don't question it, just accept what we're told and move on ey? Riiiight...:rolleyes:

[anna]

HEART SAID: "So your reasons for calling hoax are based on what you saw on a TV programme and read/saw/heard on conspiracy sites and youtube. It must be true i saw it on Fox, LOL."

Not exactly, heart. It made good sense to me. Don't know how I can defend that. . . . . IT MADE SENSE ! That's all I can say.

Seeing something on Fox, CNN, all the others . . . . . no way am I just going to
believe what THEY say . . . . . they are TOLD what to say. I don't go for main
stream news casts. Give me the cyber-reporters. I'll believe them faster than I will main stream anyday.

So "LOL" all you want :) . . . . . "I saw it on YouTube ! :D

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Hi, my names reptilianshapeshifter i believe everything the on the news and everything the goverment tells me .. :rolleyes:

No Raffles, that's the difference. You throw that line at anyone who doesn't agree with what you opinion is on events. You have no critique of anything and your opinions are nothing more than regurgitated horseshit. Your mind is stuck in another form of narrow minded, one dimensional thinking. You think that being open minded means swallowing any foolishness or believing the exact opposite or anything close to the "official line". You are no more free of anything than a christian, muslim or jew or anyone else that can't separate fact from fiction or hold a view that wasn't passed down from someone else.:rolleyes:

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Don't question it, just accept what we're told and move on ey? Riiiight...:rolleyes:

lol, Question it, decide it's bullshit, don't test it (cos you're not that interested anyway) and then make a decision. Aha. :D

What I mean by armchair specialist is there are people here that don't understand that they know fuck all about what they are talking about but present themselves as experts on everything. Rarely do these people do tests or look for evidence that would disprove their beliefs, only confirm it.

[raffles]

No Raffles, that's the difference. You throw that line at anyone who doesn't agree with what you opinion is on events. You have no critique of anything and your opinions are nothing more than regurgitated horseshit. Your mind is stuck in another form of narrow minded, one dimensional thinking. You think that being open minded means swallowing any foolishness or believing the exact opposite or anything close to the "official line". You are no more free of anything than a christian, muslim or jew or anyone else that can't separate fact from fiction or hold a view that wasn't passed down from someone else.:rolleyes:

LMOA
Instead of waffling on, why dont you prove to the 95% of people on here who think the moon landings where a hoax, and that nasa really landed on the moon ?

You can start by de-bunking the video posted by hagbard a few days ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg

Cheers mate, all the best.

[synak]

lol, Question it, decide it's bullshit, don't test it (cos you're not that interested anyway) and then make a decision. Aha. :D

What I mean by armchair specialist is there are people here that don't understand that they know fuck all about what they are talking about but present themselves as experts on everything. Rarely do these people do tests or look for evidence that would disprove their beliefs, only confirm it.

Oh so because I don't immediately jump and latch onto a specific claim others have made before me you believe your in a position to mock me as if I've faltered in some way? Nice try. :rolleyes:

I don't necessarily agree but the exact same can be said for people on the other side of the argument as well. For each theory that supposedly "proves" the moon landing was 'real' there is another that just as easily disproves it. They are not facts...so don't hold on too tightly.

[raffles]

For each theory that supposedly "proves" the moon landing was 'real' there is another that just as easily disproves it. They are not facts...so don't hold on too tightly.

Very good point, its also interesting to note that when people start to question the moon landings on here, that certain posters (some new some old) turn up out of blue and strongly defend nasas viewpoint, but yet never post in any other threads .. Strange :confused:

[ezbar]

Very good point, its also interesting to note that when people start to question the moon landings on here, that certain posters (some new some old) turn up out of blue and strongly defend nasas viewpoint, but yet never post in any other threads .. Strange :confused:

I have been a long time lurker and felt compelled to post in here as my first post because I feel I am in a position to defend it, and like I said in my earlier post, why on earth do people find it so hard to believe? I understand the feats that were performed and, as I said, I am so proud to be alive now and be a part of a species that is potentially the first and only to have left it's planet and seen the planet from the soil of another.

[hagbard_celine]

Can't get through the Van Allen belts? Any proof? Why wouldn't the Russians have called them on it? Why did the Russians continue their program into the early 70's if it were impossible? Why did the Russian probe Zond 5 that carried live animals around the Moon not have any problems? Why do the ISS and the space shuttle that both routinely pass through a low hanging area of the Van Allen belts not have a problem?

And Kubrick? I think you've been reading too much fiction.

I think we've already been through the Van Allen belts (through the issue not the belts themselves!) earlier in this thread. But I can tell you why the Russians wouldn't have blown the whistle. It does them no good to be too far ahead in the Space Race. Remember that the Space Race was a highly charged political campaign. It attracted people's interest, and of course as a result their money. But a race only get's interesting when their are two evenly-matched sides. So far the Russians had got nearly all the firsts. They geot the first spacecraft, the first Earth being: Laika the dog, and the first man: Yuri Gagarin. The Americans catching up was good for the space programme in both countries.

And at a higher level the whole Cold War was an illusion anyway. The Soviet Union itself was funded into existance by Western politicians and bankers. Therefore any competition attached to it was an illusion too.

[hagbard_celine]

But that has crossed my mind, Why did'nt the Russians cry 'foul'.....perhaps they had too much tied up in their military. Perhaps their masters really were the same as ours anyway. Did'nt the Rothchild / Rockerfellow elite put the Bolshies in power?

Spot on!:)

[hagbard_celine]

The return to the Moon hardware is being designed and built as we post.


Yes, but how do you know it's going to go to the moon? What if they fake this new mission?

[hagbard_celine]

Greenmagoos and Michaelstmark

Job done id say. :)

Ad Hominem Alert!

:eek::eek::eek:

[hagbard_celine]

I have not personally seen a single hax claim that hasn't been completely and thoroughly refuted.

But I've seen very few that haven't been thoroughly counter-refuted. Simply saying that doesn't make it true; it makes it your opinion.

[hagbard_celine]

The flag waving has not been proven false, somebody just can up with an idea to explain it as electrical discharge. I for one do not bye that idea.

Me neither. The astronaut doesn't get close enough to the flag for that. Also, if the flag was charged with static it would crumple like a charged pair of tights. You can see that it hangs quite flat and smoothly.

[hagbard_celine]

No you cant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

As the video shows the dust goes up and falls straight back down.

I'm not so sure.

Besides, have any of you considered another possiblity? These films and photoes were filmed on the moon, or a similar airless heavenly body. Why not? If they've got secret bases on the moon and other places then why not use them as a location setting? All you'd need to do it launch the astronauts into space by conventional means, the Saturn 5, then transfer them to a UFO or high tech craft, fly them to the moon, do the shoot then fly them back to Earth orbit and put them back in the CM for reentry and splashdown.


I don't dispute that people have been to the moon; I only dispute the way it was done.

[hagbard_celine]

Try testing some of the claims about shadows for yourself. Thats the point.
Your garden does not have to be on the Moon or in a NASA test facility to test out some of the false claims made by the hoax brigade thats just being silly.

Here\'s one of the hoax believers claims \"the shadow of the person taking the picture must always be in the middle of the shot\".

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/Shadows6.jpg

As you can see thats nonsense. You can test the converging shadows claim the lengthening shadows etc all without the need to move to the Moon. Go out at night and take a picture with your cam set on a datetime exposure, see any stars? Hoax claims busted by yourself no need to take anyones word for it and all in the comfort of your own back yard.

We've done this one before several times now.:rolleyes:

Yes, there is such a thing as natural perspective, but the moon photoes cannot be all explained that way because the shadows don't match natural perspective (even if the shoot was done on the moon, as I say above, they used artifical lights). This is a good example:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3665/moonrightiy6.png (http://imageshack.us)
By porterboy (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/porterboy)

[hagbard_celine]

Lizzy your reference to Stanley Kubrick is not in relation to this video is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

Please tell me thats not one of the things that made you call hoax.

99% of the hoax claims originated from the mouth of Bill Kaysing a guy who openly admitted to friends that he never believed Apollo was hoaxed.

BTW call me all the names you like but you go and check just a few of the hoax claims for yourself you will be the one with the red face.

That Stanley Kubrik spoof was very funny. it was obviously meant to satirize so-called "Apollo hoax loonies" like me.

[hagbard_celine]

Hi, my names reptilianshapeshifter i believe everything the on the news and everything the goverment tells me .. :rolleyes:


It's interesting that with some things people will say your should demand absolute proof before accepting them as real; but with others, as with the moon landings, those same people will say that you should accept them with none at all because it's "common sense". :confused:

Let's go back to basics here. 12 men walk into a press conference with the most astounding claim: They went to the moon using chemical combustion rockets though deep space and came back safely!:eek: What evidence do they have? A few photoes and some TV footage that could have been made anywhere and the word of NASA, a govt agency that carries out top secret military operations.

Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary explanations". Call the official story extraordinary?

[hagbard_celine]

I have been a long time lurker and felt compelled to post in here as my first post because I feel I am in a position to defend it, and like I said in my earlier post, why on earth do people find it so hard to believe? I understand the feats that were performed and, as I said, I am so proud to be alive now and be a part of a species that is potentially the first and only to have left it's planet and seen the planet from the soil of another.

It is nice to think that this is the case. The truth is, we did go to the moon! I'm not argueing with that. But wouldn't it be better still to be told the truth about how it was done and be really proud of real achievements than to be sold a fable and be treated by our govt with contempt and dismissivemess?

[heart]

I think we\'ve already been through the Van Allen belts (through the issue not the belts themselves!) earlier in this thread. But I can tell you why the Russians wouldn\'t have blown the whistle. It does them no good to be too far ahead in the Space Race. Remember that the Space Race was a highly charged political campaign. It attracted people\'s interest, and of course as a result their money. But a race only get\'s interesting when their are two evenly-matched sides. So far the Russians had got nearly all the firsts. They geot the first spacecraft, the first Earth being: Laika the dog, and the first man: Yuri Gagarin. The Americans catching up was good for the space programme in both countries.

And at a higher level the whole Cold War was an illusion anyway. The Soviet Union itself was funded into existance by Western politicians and bankers. Therefore any competition attached to it was an illusion too.

The Americans catching up had nothing to do with making it an interesting race. Once America decided to commit itself to landing a man on the Moon it could put behind its effort money and resources Russia couldn\'t match.

[heart]

[QUOTE=synak;151328]


Seeing as I haven\'t made the above mentioned \'claims\' myself I don\'t feel it necessary for me to \'test\' it. Thanks anyway.



[QUOTE]

That was not the point. The point it you can test some claims in your back garden a fact 7you seemed unwilling to except.

[heart]

Total BS, funny how after he had died, you lot start peddling lies about the guy, as well as landing on the moon.

And 99% didnt come from him. :rolleyes:

Nar people were telling the truth about Kaysing long before he died, right after his book came out actually.

Kaysing could have had his opportunity to show the world in a high profile trial that what he was saying was truth. Jim Lovell called him Kaysing, so Kaysing sued. Apparently the fact Kaysing called Lovell a liar and a fraud was ok though. The trial was set and here was Kaysing\'s big chance to prove to world he was right. Kaysing never showed.

[heart]

I\'m not so sure.

Besides, have any of you considered another possiblity? These films and photoes were filmed on the moon, or a similar airless heavenly body. Why not? If they\'ve got secret bases on the moon and other places then why not use them as a location setting? All you\'d need to do it launch the astronauts into space by conventional means, the Saturn 5, then transfer them to a UFO or high tech craft, fly them to the moon, do the shoot then fly them back to Earth orbit and put them back in the CM for reentry and splashdown.


I don\'t dispute that people have been to the moon; I only dispute the way it was done.

Why not just fly them to the Moon the way it was done?

[soap]

We did go to the moon. In fact I have SEEN the flag on the moon through a very powerful telescope at the observatory my friend works for. The trouble comes with the fact that the photographs are most likely retouched. It was very hard to operate the camera and in a low gravity environment you'll most likely constantly sway because there is less resistance, so even slight movements become exaggerated. This generally leads to blurry photographs (and bear in mind that the cameras of those days weren't nearly as good as todays), so you'd get grainy and blurry pictures which were hardly testament to the achievment of putting men on the moon. For this reason, its most likely that NASA retouched the photographs which is wht he +'s vanish behind some objects.

As for the C (the theory that since all props are given a letter in filming so as to match their placement to the set map, the C on the rock proved it was all staged.) on the rock - there's a pebble in my garden with the letter B underneath. Well, not a B, but a pattern that makes it LOOK like a B.

[heart]

We did go to the moon. In fact I have SEEN the flag on the moon through a very powerful telescope at the observatory my friend works for. The trouble comes with the fact that the photographs are most likely retouched. It was very hard to operate the camera and in a low gravity environment you\\\'ll most likely constantly sway because there is less resistance, so even slight movements become exaggerated. This generally leads to blurry photographs (and bear in mind that the cameras of those days weren\\\'t nearly as good as todays), so you\\\'d get grainy and blurry pictures which were hardly testament to the achievment of putting men on the moon. For this reason, its most likely that NASA retouched the photographs which is wht he +\\\'s vanish behind some objects.

As for the C (the theory that since all props are given a letter in filming so as to match their placement to the set map, the C on the rock proved it was all staged.) on the rock - there\\\'s a pebble in my garden with the letter B underneath. Well, not a B, but a pattern that makes it LOOK like a B.

There is no telescope that can see Apollo hardware left on the Moon.

If NASA retouched some of the picture why not all? Most people dont know but theres plenty of out of focus out of frame and accidentally exposures. People dont know this because they have only seen the ones in books and national geographic extra. The Hasselblad EDC were fine cameras were very fine cameras even by todays standards.

The fiducials/reticles do not disappear behind objects the simply wash out in some situations. If you look carefully you can often still see them.

http://www.clavius.org/img/as16-107-17446-logain.jpg

[clint web]

It's a difficult one to call, this.

Fascinating subject.

[frenat]

We did go to the moon. In fact I have SEEN the flag on the moon through a very powerful telescope at the observatory my friend works for.

I'm sorry but this is a lie. There is no telescope on Earth or above it that has the angular resolution to make out the flag or any other object left on the Moon. To say you have seen it is a lie.


The trouble comes with the fact that the photographs are most likely retouched. It was very hard to operate the camera and in a low gravity environment you'll most likely constantly sway because there is less resistance, so even slight movements become exaggerated. This generally leads to blurry photographs (and bear in mind that the cameras of those days weren't nearly as good as todays), so you'd get grainy and blurry pictures which were hardly testament to the achievment of putting men on the moon. For this reason, its most likely that NASA retouched the photographs which is wht he +'s vanish behind some objects.
No, the crosshairs only appear to vanish behind bright white objects. Or in other words, behind objects of high contrast. There are pictures showing crosshairs over the American flag and only disappearing over the white stripes and not the red. Were only the red stripes pasted in? Or did they simply fade over the areas of higher contrast? This can even be tested in you backyard. Draw some black lines of various widths on white posterboard and take pictures of it in bright sunlight. The thinner ones will fade out.

[soap]

If NASA retouched some of the picture why not all?


I suppose it would depend on which images had the most commercial value for NASA

[heart]

I suppose it would depend on which images had the most commercial value for NASA

Look you have already been proved to be a liar.

You say they retouched the pictures can you show where and say why?

[heart]

It's a difficult one to call, this.

Fascinating subject.

Not really when you look at the hoax claims most are quite comical and some are disgusting.

[raffles]

Not really when you look at the hoax claims most are quite comical and some are disgusting.

LOL

Debunk this video then, Hagbard posted it days ago but all you pro nasa guys avoid it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg

[hagbard_celine]

Why not just fly them to the Moon the way it was done?


Well, this thread is where we're discussing that.

[hagbard_celine]

The Americans catching up had nothing to do with making it an interesting race. Once America decided to commit itself to landing a man on the Moon it could put behind its effort money and resources Russia couldn\'t match.


If you're watching a horse race or a athlectics track event, the best ones are always the ones where the competitors are neck-and-neck right up to the finish line. In the story of the tortoise and the hare, the one-sidedness of the race so bored the hare that he fell asleep and let the tortoise win!

[hagbard_celine]

We did go to the moon. In fact I have SEEN the flag on the moon through a very powerful telescope at the observatory my friend works for. The trouble comes with the fact that the photographs are most likely retouched. It was very hard to operate the camera and in a low gravity environment you'll most likely constantly sway because there is less resistance, so even slight movements become exaggerated. This generally leads to blurry photographs (and bear in mind that the cameras of those days weren't nearly as good as todays), so you'd get grainy and blurry pictures which were hardly testament to the achievment of putting men on the moon.

You what!?:confused::eek: Is it really possible to see the flags and LM descent stages etc through an Earth-based telescope?

Someone asked this on the 30th anniversary TV special in 1999, hosted by Violet Berlin, and the panel of experts said it wasn't possible.

[hagbard_celine]

LOL

Debunk this video then, Hagbard posted it days ago but all you pro nasa guys avoid it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg)

I once asked a skeptic why the astronauts filmed the "Earth" from the other side of the compartment. Why not hold the camera close to the window to make it easier to keep the object in view? And they said that they were worried that the TV camera might break the window!:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[heart]

LOL

Debunk this video then, Hagbard posted it days ago but all you pro nasa guys avoid it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg)

The point of the video appears to be they think the Apollo 11 footage of the earth is too stable. LOL obviously the guys have never seen any hand held shots from the shuttle. Another funny thing was HB's used to claim the footage was too shaky.

OK i think Ive got what their saying now they are trying to say either its a picture stuck on the window or a near object just like Bart sibrel with his secret film and David Percy with his transparencies. If your going to get a picture and stick it on the window how the hell do you match the cloud patterns up for that day even that time? If its a near object why is its rotation so slow compared to all other pictures taken in EO?

[heart]

I once asked a skeptic why the astronauts filmed the "Earth" from the other side of the compartment. Why not hold the camera close to the window to make it easier to keep the object in view? And they said that they were worried that the TV camera might break the window!:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well we only have your word for that. Here lies one of the HB's biggest mistakes. They think that every AB will know his stuff off by heart (i certainly dont) and never be wrong. Thats like asking you about Icke and the one time you slip up using that to discredit everything Icke says. Still you seem to agree the cam was at the other side of the ship so pissing on Sibrels thesis thats good because it was a blatant lie his secret film do you agree?

Here's another point if NASA faked all the footage why do HB's get caught faking film and pictures all the time? Why do they feel the need to fake stuff if its all fake anyway. Go to Aulis there's more fakes on there than you can shake a stick at.

[heart]

Astronauts on wires is a favorite of mine. This bullshit clearly shows Percy either has no clue what hes talking about or he deliberately misleads people. Take your pick.

Lol greenmagoos has joined in also.

[heart]

You what!?:confused::eek: Is it really possible to see the flags and LM descent stages etc through an Earth-based telescope?

Someone asked this on the 30th anniversary TV special in 1999, hosted by Violet Berlin, and the panel of experts said it wasn't possible.


No its not possible at the moment and very doubtful for the future.

You have to take into account people bullshit on the net. He just didn't realise people would know its bollocks.

[the spackler]

I Believe We Have Been To The Moon. Maybe Not As Many Times As We Say We Have But We Have Been There. I Believe Nasa Airbrushed And Covered Up Several Objects And Ufos Out Of Photos. For The Life Of Me Though I Can't Figure Out Why - Being The Age Of Google Earth And All - Cant' They Take One Of Or Not Some Of The Camera Sattelites Out There, Piont Em At The Moon And Give Us Photos Of The Flag And The Rover And Any Of The Other Crap They Have Left Behind.... I Can Zoom In And See The Cars In My Driveway From Space-but They Cant Turn One Of Those Cameras To The Moon? Somethings Not Right...

[heart]

I Believe We Have Been To The Moon. Maybe Not As Many Times As We Say We Have But We Have Been There. I Believe Nasa Airbrushed And Covered Up Several Objects And Ufos Out Of Photos. For The Life Of Me Though I Can't Figure Out Why - Being The Age Of Google Earth And All - Cant' They Take One Of Or Not Some Of The Camera Sattelites Out There, Piont Em At The Moon And Give Us Photos Of The Flag And The Rover And Any Of The Other Crap They Have Left Behind.... I Can Zoom In And See The Cars In My Driveway From Space-but They Cant Turn One Of Those Cameras To The Moon? Somethings Not Right...

The QuickBird satellite one of the satellites that takes the pictures for Google operates from a height of 450 kilometres above the earth. However the extreme ranges of the Moon from the Earth are from 356400 km to 406700 km. Thats why you cant use them to picture the hardware. You could build a satellite and fly it to the Moon its been done but not to take pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Why would anyone spend all that money to do that?

[frenat]

LOL

Debunk this video then, Hagbard posted it days ago but all you pro nasa guys avoid it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiuUP2IVfg)

I can't see any video sites where I am. Can you describe it?

[hagbard_celine]

I'm reading the Sunday Times magazine at the moment. I don't usually, but I'm interested this time because it's a special on space and astronautics, because we've just had the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. Jeremy Clarkson has written one of the articles. Clarkson is a very witty and entertaining writer. He often uses sarcastic humour and innuendo in his style so it's hard to tell whether he's being serious or not, but this is what he wrote in his article on page 19:

"As a result (of the end of the Cold War), the magic of space exploration has gone. Instead of getting up at 3am to watch a fuzzy man bouncing around a sound stage in Nevada, we turn over and go back to sleep."

I'd be interested to know Clarkson's personal views on the Apollo Hoax theory.

[hagbard_celine]

It's also struck me that Greenmagoos mentions the idea of static discharge over that waving flag vid. Of course that's what happens with an electroscope. The gold leaf rises up when it's hit with a charge.

[hagbard_celine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7145400/7145485.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7145485&bbcws=1

I wonder what edited, censored CGI wonders this little beauty will "find" up there.:rolleyes:

[rwolf]

One of my favourite subject, flake Apollo moon landings

Was it only a paper moon? James Collier


video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


28:55 Minutes into the video - but watch it all anyway


When the moon rover is supposedly going over the lunar surface the dust being thrown off the wheels is in the shape of a chicken's tale as though it is coming up against resistance-an atmosphere, if the moon rover really was on the lunar surface with no atmosphere the dust coming off the wheels would be in the form of a perfect arc

All NASA astronauts are Freemasons. Also NASA itself is covered in Masonic symbolism (David Icke, Jordan Maxwell)

All I see are little specks, little specks that make up the television picture, little specks that make up the newspaper print, and some vibrating air for sound, nothing at that convinces me that man has been to the moon


How many more times do you need to be knocked over the head before you people wake up

[hagbard_celine]

One of my favourite subject, flake Apollo moon landings

Was it only a paper moon? James Collier


video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247&q=was+it+only+a+paper+moon&total=57&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


28:55 Minutes into the video - but watch it all anyway


When the moon rover is supposedly going over the lunar surface the dust being thrown off the wheels is in the shape of a chicken's tale as though it is coming up against resistance-an atmosphere, if the moon rover really was on the lunar surface with no atmosphere the dust coming off the wheels would be in the form of a perfect arc

All NASA astronauts are Freemasons. Also NASA itself is covered in Masonic symbolism (David Icke, Jordan Maxwell)

All I see are little specks, little specks that make up the television picture, little specks that make up the newspaper print, and some vibrating air for sound, nothing at that convinces me that man has been to the moon


How many more times do you need to be knocked over the head before you people wake up

Thanks for posting that one. I've never watched the whole of Paper Moon and i really should because it's a pet subject of mine too.:)

[stelios]

100% fake
anyone who believes man has walked on the moon is a naive simpleton

[chattanova]

Military Helping In Fake Moon Walk Rehearsal And The Mystery Ladder

A video from the website moontruth.com has been around for some time now. But it seems no one has taken a closer look at this video. We will here. The thirty four second video clip shows an astronaut on the Lunar Lander ladder about to take his historic first step. Moments after he steps onto the fake lunar surface, a light bar comes crashing down. But who is actually working on this production?

http://www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htm

[chattanova]

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11 'Live' Broadcast Faked

We now have concrete evidence which proves that live pictures broadcast to the world by Apollo 11 which showed the astronaut jumping off the ladder down to the surface of the moon did NOT originate on the moon. Forget about rock shadows and shadow angles. Finally, the smoking gun. We will use NASA's images, unenhanced to prove this.

The proof for the fake broadcast has been hidden in plain site all along * it is the ladder on the Lunar Lander. In researching this, it appears other imags were also faked or staged.

http://www.rense.com/general79/apol11.htm

[sunyatta60]

Someone else started another thread about alien structures being found on the moon so Nassa put forward the idea that they never really went. I spent an enjoyable time looking at Richard Hoaglands site he is in effect a Whistle Blower because he worked for Nassa back in the 70's. This for me all fits in with Gary McKionnon's testimony about behind the scenes space exploration going on, while the dozy Western public sit there hypnotised by the archaic Space shuttle distraction trick.
I will post a link to Hoaglands site you can clearly see that the Nassa photos have been doctored. According to Hoagland nassa found Robots on the moon and brought them back to Earth.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Albert Einstein


http://www.enterprisemission.com/NPC-Russia.htm

[frenat]

A video from the website moontruth.com has been around for some time now. But it seems no one has taken a closer look at this video. We will here. The thirty four second video clip shows an astronaut on the Lunar Lander ladder about to take his historic first step. Moments after he steps onto the fake lunar surface, a light bar comes crashing down. But who is actually working on this production?

http://www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htm
Military Helping In Fake Moon Walk Rehearsal And The Mystery Ladder


The funny part about this is this video is a known fake. It was created by the owners of www.moontruth.com and admitted as a fake by them a few months later. Then the website disappeared and people started to rediscover the video and accept it as real without doing any research. Moontruth.com still exists in internet archives however.
See here
http://web.archive.org/web/20040622140927/www.moontruth.com/full.htm
Pretty funny that Rense is going to the trouble to analyze the footage for military involvement on an admittedly faked video.

[frenat]

We now have concrete evidence which proves that live pictures broadcast to the world by Apollo 11 which showed the astronaut jumping off the ladder down to the surface of the moon did NOT originate on the moon. Forget about rock shadows and shadow angles. Finally, the smoking gun. We will use NASA's images, unenhanced to prove this.

The proof for the fake broadcast has been hidden in plain site all along * it is the ladder on the Lunar Lander. In researching this, it appears other imags were also faked or staged.

http://www.rense.com/general79/apol11.htm
Smoking Gun - Apollo 11 'Live' Broadcast Faked

This is being discussed here
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/68520-new-apollo-11-smoking-gun-fakery-accusation.html

[hagbard_celine]

Military Helping In Fake Moon Walk Rehearsal And The Mystery Ladder

Nah, this one's been around for years and I think it's a joke. Sorry.

[hagbard_celine]

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11 'Live' Broadcast Faked


Good find!:) A continuity error. Nearly all movies have them if you look hard enough. I'll have to look into this in more detail.

[hagbard_celine]

This is being discussed here
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/68520-new-apollo-11-smoking-gun-fakery-accusation.html


These guys reckon that this can be explained by the removal of the black covering (speculated) and that the pictures all came from different missions and were therefore of different LM's, but do we know this? Is there any footage of an astronaut removing the black covering? Which mission DID each picture come from?

And that ladder does look a bit flimsy, especially seeing as the spacesuit was so heavy that the "jump salute" wasn't higher than it was.:confused:

[frenat]

These guys reckon that this can be explained by the removal of the black covering (speculated) and that the pictures all came from different missions and were therefore of different LM's, but do we know this? Is there any footage of an astronaut removing the black covering? Which mission DID each picture come from?

And that ladder does look a bit flimsy, especially seeing as the spacesuit was so heavy that the "jump salute" wasn't higher than it was.:confused:

It is sure that some of the pictures used were from Apollo 11 and some from 15 (I think it may even be mentioned in the article on Rense). There were modifications to the LM between missions and 15 was one of the ones designed for a longer duration and to carry the rover so would be different from 11 for those reasons.

As for the jump salute, they weren't going for height on that. On jumps that they did go for height they found that the mass of the large backup on their back caused them to tip over backward. Landing on your sole means of life support would be bad so they limited their jumps to heights that would be more stable. Still there is at least one video I know of where an astronaut jumped up most if not all of the ladder into the LM and only using his hands to guide him and keep him upright.

[hagbard_celine]

It is sure that some of the pictures used were from Apollo 11 and some from 15 (I think it may even be mentioned in the article on Rense). There were modifications to the LM between missions and 15 was one of the ones designed for a longer duration and to carry the rover so would be different from 11 for those reasons.

As for the jump salute, they weren't going for height on that. On jumps that they did go for height they found that the mass of the large backup on their back caused them to tip over backward. Landing on your sole means of life support would be bad so they limited their jumps to heights that would be more stable. Still there is at least one video I know of where an astronaut jumped up most if not all of the ladder into the LM and only using his hands to guide him and keep him upright.

I've seen that one. It's very poor quality and long distance, but his jump looks slightly non-ballistic, as if his body is being supported by wires.

The thing about the jump salute was that the way the astronaut crouches just before he lifts off makes it look like he's putting a lot of effort into jumping the height he did.

[frenat]

I've seen that one. It's very poor quality and long distance, but his jump looks slightly non-ballistic, as if his body is being supported by wires.

The thing about the jump salute was that the way the astronaut crouches just before he lifts off makes it look like he's putting a lot of effort into jumping the height he did.

Which jump salute? There were quite a few if I remember correctly. I've also heard the opposite argument on the same thing, that they didn't put enough effort into the jump. Another thing to consider is with the stiffness of the suit, it was not easy, although not impossible, to bend your knees fully. This would make it harder to jump in some instances and may make it look as if they were putting too much effort into it. This is all speculation though and not really in the realm of what I'd like to discuss. Facts are much easier to deal with such as the fact of finding military involvment in a known and admitted internet video fake.

[hagbard_celine]

Which jump salute? There were quite a few if I remember correctly. I've also heard the opposite argument on the same thing, that they didn't put enough effort into the jump. Another thing to consider is with the stiffness of the suit, it was not easy, although not impossible, to bend your knees fully. This would make it harder to jump in some instances and may make it look as if they were putting too much effort into it. This is all speculation though and not really in the realm of what I'd like to discuss. Facts are much easier to deal with such as the fact of finding military involvment in a known and admitted internet video fake.


Hmm. There are a few shots of the astronauts crouching right down, if i remember; I'll have to have another look at them because they seem to show that the knee joints were very flexible.

As for the film of the moon studio. I know that's fake; it's very obvious:D!

[frenat]

Hmm. There are a few shots of the astronauts crouching right down, if i remember; I'll have to have another look at them because they seem to show that the knee joints were very flexible.

As for the film of the moon studio. I know that's fake; it's very obvious:D!
As I said, not impossible but not easy either as the stiffness is well documented. I know of at least one clip where they used the stiffness of the knee joints to help them snap up onto their feet after falling onto their knees.

[hagbard_celine]

Has anyone watched the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever? If you've got the DVD or VHS, thie most interesting bit comes about half and hour into the film. James Bond infiltrates a secret base in the American high desert and comes across a secret studio where they're faking the moon landings! Here's the last bit of the scene http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-528797941802645350&q=diamonds+are+forever+moon+landings&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 , but a few minutes before Bond makes some very interesting comments about the dangers of radiation. He infiltrates the base by posing as one of the techicians and says: "I've come to check your radiation shields." Are the makers of the film trying to tell us something? How much do they know?

[angelicangel]

I remember watching the first moon landing, and feeling very privaliged to be there. But my Father never believed this to be true. He used to say it was like watch something made up in a studio. Now after all these years of watching the footage, that I really see and understand what he was saying to be true. What a shame he is no longer with us, he would surely loved to have added he's piece to this conversation. Yes I do believe it was faked, how on earth can they take a moon buggy onto the moon when it is bigger than the moon landing craft? Makes you wonder who they thought they could fool. Obviously most of the public, come on, someone somewhere knows the truth. Hollywood have made a fortune out of people so someone must have been paid a lot of money to cover this up.:p

[hagbard_celine]

I remember watching the first moon landing, and feeling very privaliged to be there. But my Father never believed this to be true. He used to say it was like watch something made up in a studio. Now after all these years of watching the footage, that I really see and understand what he was saying to be true. What a shame he is no longer with us, he would surely loved to have added he's piece to this conversation. Yes I do believe it was faked, how on earth can they take a moon buggy onto the moon when it is bigger than the moon landing craft? Makes you wonder who they thought they could fool. Obviously most of the public, come on, someone somewhere knows the truth. Hollywood have made a fortune out of people so someone must have been paid a lot of money to cover this up.:p


Condolences on the loss of your dad.:(

He was sharp-minded to rise above the emotion and pomp of the whole event and see it in a more critical light. A few people did at the time, like Bill Kaysing. It was only years later, when the passion wore off, that more and more people became suspicious.

Interestingly the movie Cadillac Moon features an "Apollo-denier". True to form he is demonized in the character of a child bully who harrasses the main protagonist, a boy who goes on a journey with his father, set against the backdrop of the Apollo 11 landings.

[frenat]

Yes I do believe it was faked, how on earth can they take a moon buggy onto the moon when it is bigger than the moon landing craft? Makes you wonder who they thought they could fool.

How? Just as they said they did. It partially folded up and was attached to the outside of the LM.

[angelicangel]

Ok so that means that the craft was two sizes bigger before it left earth. So why didnt the LM just float in space when landing. Or did the LM have a kind of roof rack? :p

[frenat]

Ok so that means that the craft was two sizes bigger before it left earth. So why didnt the LM just float in space when landing. Or did the LM have a kind of roof rack? :p

Not sure what you're getting at here at all. The rover folded up fairly flat and attached to the outside of the LM. What do you mean by two sizes bigger? What do you mean by float in space when landing?

[adimon]

Question: moon gravity being what it is, how come when speeded up the footage of moonwalking is just people running in Earth gravity?

[frenat]

Question: moon gravity being what it is, how come when speeded up the footage of moonwalking is just people running in Earth gravity?

It is only some footage that looks like that and it is because of Moon gravity being lower that it looks like that. The greater majority of the footage does not look like Earth gravity when sped up. Especially the times when you see an astronaut fall and flail his arms to try to catch his balance and break his fall. When sped up that looks silly as the movements are way too fast.

[phreedom]

In either case, does it REALLY matter?

[adimon]

Good question phreedom but I would suggest that if it didn't happen, and there was a cover-up, and that cover-up extended outside of the machinations of NASA and into the government, then this is something that WOULD matter.

[angelicangel]

I don't really care if the LM landed on the moon or not. It's not the place I would like to visit anyway, one it's to far, two, I don't like flying and three can't go window shopping. :p

[hagbard_celine]

Good question phreedom but I would suggest that if it didn't happen, and there was a cover-up, and that cover-up extended outside of the machinations of NASA and into the government, then this is something that WOULD matter.


It would have to go into govt for the cover-up to work. The Russians would have to be in on it too because they certainly had the means of verifieing Apollo if they were suspicious. This may seem like a conflict-of-interests, but it's not as I've explain above.

[hagbard_celine]

Ok so that means that the craft was two sizes bigger before it left earth. So why didnt the LM just float in space when landing. Or did the LM have a kind of roof rack? :p

It was collapsible and could be stowed in an exterior hold on the LM's hull. A bit like one of those bikes that fold up and can fit in the boot of your car. Whoever handled the production design for Apollo had to make the moon landings moderately believable and if they hadn't come up with a fairly credible explanation for how the rover would have got to the moon then even the enraptured public of the 1960's would have picked up on it.

[mari]

Quote " OK one thing at a time if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?" Unquote

brighton beach:D
I've been there!

[mari]

PS: One thing has always intrigued me: if the ML was hoaxed, then how would they have been able to ensure the 'astronaut's' silence all these years?

Going back to what someone mentioned earlier about our lack of 'progress' in space, I see it from a much higher perspective: there is simply a higher intelligence out there which has ensured that we - in our current state of evolution (ie,definately NOT harmless) are going absolutely NOWHERE until we get our collective act together.
So there!

[hagbard_celine]

PS: One thing has always intrigued me: if the ML was hoaxed, then how would they have been able to ensure the 'astronaut's' silence all these years?

Going back to what someone mentioned earlier about our lack of 'progress' in space, I see it from a much higher perspective: there is simply a higher intelligence out there which has ensured that we - in our current state of evolution (ie,definately NOT harmless) are going absolutely NOWHERE until we get our collective act together.
So there!

I think that's very possible. Certainly some of the aliens regard us in that light and I don't blame them! David Percy says that's why so many spacrcraft have failed over the years. In fact all in all spacecraft have a less that 50% success rate. Luckily most are unmanned, but they still take up a lot of money and efffort.