Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Beaujangles said:

 

If they haven't 'returned' there in 53 years I doubt its on the cards LOL - so much for technology eh? ;-)

The 'lost' technology ,supposedly much of the technology that enabled the 'moon landings' has been lost...what a load of absolute unmitigated horseshit.....talk about preying on peoples stupidity

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ancient lost technology. Impossible to recreate..

Anyone who believes that this monkey technology can be used to land on and in a higher dimensional state has still not understood. It is comparable to a holodeck. We will only be where we think we are. And we can't even see. Just that tiny spectrum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/29/2022 at 3:22 PM, Origin said:

Ancient lost technology. Impossible to recreate..

 

This "lost technology" comes from a Don Petitt quote. As quotes go, it isn't that accurate. ALL the blueprints to most of the basic and complex setups for all machinery are kept in the Marshall Space Centre. It's not impossible to recreate, but the same as trying to drive to work in old car instead of a brand new one. Development takes time for new equipment:

 

NASA Artemis

 

On 4/29/2022 at 3:22 PM, Origin said:

Anyone who believes that this monkey technology can be used to land on and in a higher dimensional state has still not understood.

 

I don't fully understand this comment, it was used to land on the Moon. If you think any of it was not fit for purpose, please detail why and I will explain to you how that is not correct. Putting up a picture of the Lunar Module with cladding and doing the customary appeal to incredulity isn't an explanation, just in case that would be your first choice.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kezzy said:

 

 

 

 

I don't fully understand this comment, it was used to land on the Moon. If you think any of it was not fit for purpose, please detail why and I will explain to you how that is not correct. Putting up a picture of the Lunar Module with cladding and doing the customary appeal to incredulity isn't an explanation, just in case that would be your first choice.

 

 

 

Theres a video of a bag outside the lunar module flapping about, I cant find it now maybe you know what video I mean?

Im not talking about when they released the luna buggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

Theres a video of a bag outside the lunar module flapping about, I cant find it now maybe you know what video I mean?

Im not talking about when they released the luna buggy.

 

I don't know what video you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Is a video of a bag attached to the lunar module thats lid seems to be flapping on the windless moon.

 

Oh I know the one. Less gravity means the period of oscillation is longer and takes ages to stop. Nothing odd about it at all. For this to mean something, the claimant needs to identify why the bag shouldn't be doing what is seen. That would be, identify the length of the object and work out the period. From that we can work out how long it should take to come to a complete stop. Go here(link below), change gravity to 1.62, grab blue circle and start pendulam with a 15 degree swing - takes ages to stop, plenty long enough to account for the video we see. I can't find it either.

 

myPhysicsLab Simple Pendulum

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2022 at 10:43 AM, Kezzy said:

 

This "lost technology" comes from a Don Petitt quote. As quotes go, it isn't that accurate. ALL the blueprints to most of the basic and complex setups for all machinery are kept in the Marshall Space Centre. It's not impossible to recreate, but the same as trying to drive to work in old car instead of a brand new one. Development takes time for new equipment:

 

NASA Artemis

 

 

I don't fully understand this comment, it was used to land on the Moon. If you think any of it was not fit for purpose, please detail why and I will explain to you how that is not correct. Putting up a picture of the Lunar Module with cladding and doing the customary appeal to incredulity isn't an explanation, just in case that would be your first choice.

 

 

 

I hadn't noticed your comment. Sorry. Let's just say that our senses cannot detect everything. Everything which you develop is based on the same flaw. You will believe that earth and the moon are exactly what you think you perceive. But what you're standing on and where you think you'll end up is only what looks familiar to you. This does not mean that the overarching structure has been traced and that the tiny spectrum has been properly placed in context where it is located. This also applies to the so-called universe. Nasa goes there what is achievable with current understanding. But Nasa nor astronomy has been able to advance into something that interests me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/5/2022 at 11:02 AM, oddsnsods said:

Theres a video of a bag outside the lunar module flapping about, I cant find it now maybe you know what video I mean?

Im not talking about when they released the luna buggy.

 

This is much the same, from Apollo 14 ...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I can't believe what I've just read on the David icke forum. People believing in official bs propaganda. Next we'll have the same shill faces tell us 911 was just incompetence and coincidence.

 

Peter, darian, Mr nice, comedy time, you guys don't fool anyone.

 

Mods. What is the point of having separate threads if you allow the same cut and paste jobs to spam the board with official narrative?

 

I'm sorry to say but I'm spending less and less time reading this board because of the incessant shills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

I can't believe what I've just read on the David icke forum. People believing in official bs propaganda. Next we'll have the same shill faces tell us 911 was just incompetence and coincidence.

 

Peter, darian, Mr nice, comedy time, you guys don't fool anyone.

 

Mods. What is the point of having separate threads if you allow the same cut and paste jobs to spam the board with official narrative?

 

I'm sorry to say but I'm spending less and less time reading this board because of the incessant shills.

If you mean the posts from back in June, those users were banned. There are 2 sections for FE. Not for the moon landings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....maybe they were on the Moon but it was not televised.....because maybe there was nothing......or maybe there was something they didnt want to show 😎

 

 

well.....I am the Moon and I can tell you nobody was here.....and I also have no American or Russian flag sticking on my surface  😁

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

fair point arnie, what were their compooters like though?  Zx spectrum jobbees? 😄

The computer was a bit cruder than a ZX Spectrum.

2084 words of RAM and 36,864 words of ROM.

The computer had only one job to do and was programmed in Assembler.

That means with careful programming you can get it all to fit and do the job.

Very old school nowadays! I used to work programming 4bit and 8bit microprocessors in assembler a lifetime ago.

They used RTL (resistor-transistor-logic) which is even older than the now obsolete TTL (transistor-transistor-logic) chips I used when designing digital electronic gubbins.

More than you want to know here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

Not really. The onboard computer was designed by MIT and only had specific functions. The real computing was done on the ground and uploaded -

 

us__en_us__ibm100__apollo__rtcc__620x350

I mean, at the end of the day, it's all bullshit anyway, what computer was designed by who, they don't have any of the old designs or telemetry to offer, it was all utter fucking bollocks. I really don't really give two hoots what lack of computing power they used, there was no moon landing.  Don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

I mean, at the end of the day, it's all bullshit anyway, what computer was designed by who, they don't have any of the old designs or telemetry to offer, it was all utter fucking bollocks.

 

You have cited another incorrect claim. If you mean by none of the telemetry that the Apollo 11 tapes were lost, these were backup tapes - and Apollo 11 was only one of 6 missions. All the telemetry exists anyway for all the missions, just not on the original tapes. The spacecraft designs are held at the Marshall Space Flight Centre. Many exist online but since they are off the scale complex, it isn't really possioble to put them all on a webpage. Here's a few -

Lunar Module Structural Drawings (heroicrelics.org)

 

Twenty years ago, there were dozens of complex web pages about Apollo hardware. There was even an online Lunar Module simulator that used the programs within the descent module and mimicked the computing power.

 

43 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

 I really don't really give two hoots what lack of computing power they used, there was no moon landing.  Don't you think?

 

No, I don't think that. They landed on the Moon 6 times and there is an incredible amount of evidence that shows this. Sure people can get convinced it didn't happen by poorly researched and crap films/claims, but it has all been debunked. I mean do you really care to discuss it again? People all over the world have spent decades responding to the rubbish claims and still they persist.

Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)

Moon-landing hoax still lives on. But why? | Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the moon landing deniers who are of the unanimous conviction that the Apollo 11 launch and return splashdown were genuine, but that everything else in-between was staged.

 

The one thing I don't quite get, however, is the reason for the five subsequent manned missions that 'occurred' following Apollo 11. Any moon landing sceptics on board here care to explain this? If Apollo 11 was hoaxed, and successfully so, why bother with any more manned missions? There were 24 astronauts who allegedly visited Earth's natural satellite, when it would have only taken the original three to pull off the hoax. Why involve 21 more alleged perpetrators, thus risking more of a chance of someone turning whistleblower?

 

Of course, a variant on this theme of outright deception is that only the Apollo 11 photos and film footage were faked, that the astronauts did in fact make it to the lunar surface (if for no other reason than to say they penetrated space and conquered Luna/Selene with their macho phallic space vehicle), but that their photographic evidence was destroyed during their return trip back to Earth, by intense radiation. This would help explain why Alan Bean, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins, and the various other geezers interviewed in the documentary film In The Shadow Of The Moon seem so credible, else they are all masterful actors. I watched this yesterevening and is what has prompted me to post this message. They all sound so terribly convincing in this, even absent a laugh track. Released in 2008, it's astounding that only a decade ago there were still some people who were trying to keep the myth alive. Clearly, this was a doc made solely to appeal to those on the lunatic fringe who still buy the official narrative. Also amazing is that these Apollo astronauts, almost forty years on, were sticking to their story as not one confession is made in this twee production, that was obviously designed to tug at one's gullible heartstrings and to foster U.S. patriotism (fluttering American flag and all). Yes, the film made me cry. These were tears of unstifled laughter as each interviewee, looking directly into the camera and with a straight face, speaks of his supposed fond memories of the Apollo missions. (File this one under Special Interest or Fantasy?)

 

I really don't know why I watched this. I suppose I was looking forward to some confessions; either that or hoping to hear from at least one of the astronauts tell of what it was they thought they saw while on the Moon. Legend has it that curious anomalies and possibly even artificial structures were observed on the lunar surface, suggestive of an alien presence. Is this why a handful of the Apollo astronauts were said to behave differently upon their return to Earth -- because of what it was they witnessed that disturbed them so? Or might this change in behavior of theirs have had more to do with troubled consciences?

 

Incidentally, I'm presently reading Bart Sibrel's Moon Man and enjoying every word of it. It's a good one.

Edited by Hegel Schmegel
Edited for grammarspeak. 'Taken' or 'took'? Reads the same to me but maybe not for others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hegel Schmegel said:

The one thing I don't quite get, however, is the reason for the five subsequent manned missions that 'occurred' following Apollo 11. Any moon landing sceptics on board here care to explain this?

 

It's a very good question, money comes to mind and the domination of news media around the world, which just happened to be very useful later on for propagating virus lies and deception, the construction of an orbital doomsday device also comes to mind and the technological advances associated with that, and Apollo 13 just went for a joy ride anyway but what bothers me the most is, when is there going to be a retrieval mission to bring all the dead astronauts back laying around up there on the surface?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just got to see this 😂 I wonder which Hollywood basement will be filming this ?

 

'Buckle up, we're going to the moon': NASA announces 13 candidate regions as potential landing targets for the first woman and person of color to touchdown on the lunar surface during the 2025 Artemis III mission 

NASA announced 13 candidate landing spots for its 2025 return to the moon. The sites are on the lunar South Pole, making this the first time humans have stepped foot on the dark side of the moon.

 

61553289-0-image-m-21_1660940663956.jpg

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11128367/NASA-reveals-regions-moon-potential-landing-targets-2025-Artemis-III-mission.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...