David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Moon landing photos: Real or fake? (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=305614)

truth seeker 09 05-03-2016 09:48 PM

Moon landing photos: Real or fake?
 
A poll.

truth seeker 09 06-03-2016 10:34 PM

Is the typical opinion either "everything about it is true" or "everything about it is a lie"?

How common in conspiracy circles is claim that NASA went to the Moon but they found something (ancient ruins, aliens, bases, technology) and faked the material?

sylviatrilling 06-03-2016 11:45 PM

IMO pictures and video were faked but I don't know if they went or not so choices in your poll don't apply to me.

truth seeker 09 06-03-2016 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylviatrilling (Post 1062692204)
IMO pictures and video were faked but I don't know if they went or not so choices in your poll don't apply to me.

If they went but the material was faked what could be the reason?

sylviatrilling 07-03-2016 02:24 AM

NASA is a military organization that pretends to be a scientific organization. They did not want to want to reveal military secrets.

truth seeker 09 07-03-2016 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylviatrilling (Post 1062692233)
NASA is a military organization that pretends to be a scientific organization. They did not want to want to reveal military secrets.

For example?

sylviatrilling 07-03-2016 03:21 AM

Just an idea that makes sense to me, I don't have any more details.

rigsby 07-03-2016 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylviatrilling (Post 1062692204)
IMO pictures and video were faked but I don't know if they went or not so choices in your poll don't apply to me.

Same here, although I voted for the nearest option (all fake).

There's a lot of talk about how the Van Allen belts would make it impossible for manned missions to pass through safely. There are also issues of credibility relating to the technology, and to the sheer luck of it all going to plan first time round with no mishaps...

But on the other hand, the level of human deception involved would have to be considerable - ie were the astronauts in on the hoax or were they brainwashed into believing they were on a real mission to the moon?

Occam's Razor and all: it would - arguably - be easier to fake it all than actually try go to the moon, so I'll stick with that for now.

rigsby 07-03-2016 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truth seeker 09 (Post 1062692207)
If they went but the material was faked what could be the reason?

Good question. Maybe it wasn't possible to make it look as real as they wanted by filming on the moon -? And/or maybe they wanted to control the media (okay, propaganda) side of events and use faked footage in case something unpleasant (or disastrous) happened -?

I reckon there's a strong case to be made for saying that if the footage is fake then the landings probably never happened at all.

oz93666 07-03-2016 08:29 AM

My belief is they would not have done this for real , so many things that could go wrong , thousands of different items needed to perform flawlessly, if one link in the chain broke , disaster ...with the whole world watching , live.

They could not take that risk , they were in a (fake) cold war with Russia , a public failure of rocket technology, the same technology behind ICBM's could give the Russians the idea they had the upper hand and then they deliver a first strike.
This is what they told the astronauts "this is about America's national security".

It's understood many of the early Russian space missions were faked , or done with doubles , just so they would not lose face if things went wrong.(source Alex Jones from talks with russian insiders)

fairyprincess 07-03-2016 08:32 AM

I think Kubrick faked the 69 landing. But, subsequent landings were real.....

truegroup 07-03-2016 03:28 PM

As usual a whole host of zany unproven opinions. Thanks for sharing everyone. I particularly liked the "couldn't afford for the rocket to fail" argument when that was THE most visible and obviously unfaked bit! Especially humourous considering the soviet N1 couldn't even get off the ground and neither rocket was anything like ICBMs. Haha.

I'll go with the colossal amount of evidence that says they landed and none of it is faked. Thank heavens for yet another poll on this subject huh.

rigsby 07-03-2016 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1062692393)

I'll go with the colossal amount of evidence that says they landed and none of it is faked.


Good for you. :rolleyes:

I believed in Santa Claus until I was 31. But then I woke up to the truth.

Maybe you will too. One day.

dave52 07-03-2016 07:51 PM

NASA abandoned the idea of "returning" to the moon because it was too difficult and too expensive (even though they put aside more time and money than they had in the 60s).

But it's fun to look at their hair-brained ideas of how they could protect their astronauts from all that radiation. I don't know why they didn't just contact a bra manufacturer again.

truegroup 07-03-2016 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigsby (Post 1062692483)
Good for you. :rolleyes:

I believed in Santa Claus until I was 31. But then I woke up to the truth.

Maybe you will too. One day.

I woke up alright. There is no evidence for Santa:thud: Your patronising tone is just slightly misplaced. You are the one who needs to look at the evidence. Perhaps you gullibly accept alternatives to "mainstream" just because they are alternatives.

From Count Zero at apollohoax.net

"One af the many mistakes that hoax believers make is that they assume that the odds of performing an actual manned moon-landing would be likely to fail, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense. Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements. You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive. You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft. All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process.

Everything is in the open. Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience . If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again. No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult. Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time. America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years. Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time: No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof. It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do you really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB? Do you think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidity and corruption?

Don't forget that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not. They didn't cancel their program until 1976. If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real."

truegroup 07-03-2016 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave52 (Post 1062692513)
But it's fun to look at their hair-brained ideas of how they could protect their astronauts from all that radiation.

Dave, another one for you to avoid.

What radiation, please quantify it and how it would affect them in a shielded craft?

Thanks:thud:

dave52 07-03-2016 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1062692538)
Dave, another one for you to avoid.

What radiation

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...lectrostatics/

truegroup 08-03-2016 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave52 (Post 1062692563)

Dave, I asked for you to quantify it and how it affected the Apollo craft. Instead you point ne to an article about the dangers for long flights and moon bases. Considering you think thousands of hours of ISS footage is faked and NASA is a bunch of liars, why have you cited a NASA article?? Is it ok for you to do that when it appears to support your case?

Answer my request properly please.

truth seeker 09 08-03-2016 01:39 AM

Somebody else is on the Moon?
 
How common in conspiracy circles is claim that NASA went to the Moon but they found something (ancient ruins, aliens, bases, technology) and faked the material?

oz93666 08-03-2016 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1062692538)
....how would radiation affect them in a shielded craft?

Shielded craft ? What shielding?


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 PM.