Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moon Landing Faked !! Why ?
#1
Moon Landing Faked !!! — Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories ?

New psychological research helps explain why some see intricate government conspiracies behind events like 9/11 or the Boston bombing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...y-theories

Did NASA fake the moon landing? Is the government hiding Martians in Area 51? Is global warming a hoax? And what about the Boston Marathon bombing…an “inside job” perhaps? 

In the book “The Empire of Conspiracy,” Timothy Melley explains that conspiracy theories have traditionally been regarded by many social scientists as “the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe,” often inspired by what the late historian Richard Hofstadter described as “the paranoid style of American politics.” Influenced by this view, many scholars have come to think of conspiracy theories as paranoid and delusional, and for a long time psychologists have had little to contribute other than to affirm the psychopathological nature of conspiracy thinking, given that conspiricist delusions are commonly associated with (schizotype) paranoia.
Reply
#2
Sounds a little like those who say Christ wasn't crucified, or the holocaust never happened, but they are historical facts.
However, a piece of burning paper brought down #7 in it's own footprint?
Men never stood on the Moon?
Mars?

A confusion of events.
Who's to know?
So, the words Autumn and Fall are not to be capitalized?
They are in my world!

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new?"It has been already, in the ages before us. Ecc 1: 9-10
Reply
#3
That article is a load of disinformation crap that is best  Flush

The writer has an axe to grind and it is quite sharp at the end but intellectual integrity? there is none.

if the author is correct then as is pointed out in the piece below the same "crazy" people who think JFK was killed by our government would also, because they are "crazy", believe that the assassination attempt on Regan was also a conspiracy.

I have never met anyone who made this argument, but the question is why not?

The answer is simple, the "crazies" aren't crazy, they are critical thinkers and that cannot be tolerated.

A lot of unanswered questions and strange coincidence lead the critical thinker to ask "what is going on here, why is this happening?" and try to come up with a viable hypothesis.

The author of that disgusting piece thinks that is wrong, and we should all just believe what the authorities tell us and accept it without question. To do that makes us all fools and sheep.

Well to answer the question about the moon landings? People wonder if they were faked because there are unanswered questions and a deliberate disinformation campaign to prevent answers. I personally don't think the moon landings were faked, however i am open to the possibility that the footage they showed us was not real and was filmed in advance, but i would need proof.

Quote:JFK and the Deferentials

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Proponents of the government’s lone-nut assassination theory in the John Kennedy assassination oftentimes suggest that those who reject the official version of what happened have some sort of psychological need to place the assassination within the context of a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists, they say, simply cannot accept the idea that a lone nut succeeded in killing a president of the United States and a popular president at that.

I see it a different way.

When it comes to the national-security state, there are basically two groups of people, one group consisting of people with an independent and critical mindset and the other group consisting of people with a mindset of deference to and trust in authority.

For ease of expression, I will refer to the first group as the independents and the second group as the deferentials.

Over the years, I have read a considerable amount of literature relating to the Kennedy assassination. I have never encountered anyone who believes that there was a government conspiracy in the JFK murder who also believes that there was a government conspiracy in John Hinkley’s assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan or in Lynette Fromme’s assassination attempt against President Gerald Ford. Wouldn’t you think that if a person has a psychological need to look for government conspiracies behind presidential assassinations or assassination attempts, the need would be applied consistently to all presidential assassinations or assassination attempts?

So, what’s different about the Kennedy assassination?

The difference is that there are so many unusual anomalies within the Kennedy case that an independent and critical thinker feels compelled to ask, “Why?” The ability and willingness to ask that simple one-word question is what distinguishes the independents from the deferentials.

For the deferential, all such anomalies are irrelevant. All that matters is the official government version of the assassination. For the deferential, questioning or challenging the official version of a major event like a presidential assassination is a shocking notion, one that violates the deference-to-authority mindset that has been inculcated within him since he was six years old.


Examine carefully the criticisms that lone-nut proponents make of people in the assassination research community. Many lone-nut proponents mock conspiracy theories in the JFK case not because they feel there is a lack of evidence to support the theory. That is, they don’t say: “After carefully reviewing the evidence in the JFK case, I’ve concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone-nut assassin.”

Instead, many of the lone-nut proponents subscribe to what I call the “inconceivable doctrine,” one that holds that it is simply inconceivable that the U.S. national-security state would have conspired to assassinate a U.S. president.

Oh sure, for a deferential it is entirely conceivable that the national-security state would conspire to assassinate a foreign president or effect a regime-operation abroad, especially if national security is at stake. In such cases, the deferential, unable to bring himself to question or challenge the legitimacy of such operations, offers his unconditional support. But for the deferential, it is just inconceivable that the national-security state would do the same here at home, even if national security depended on it.

The inconceivable doctrine, of course, dovetails perfectly with the deference-to-authority mindset.

It continues here to examine the Kennedy assassination and it's oddities in detail, not the point of this thread nor my response.

http://lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger196.html
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards...
Reply
#4
let's see now...

con·spir·a·cy
k?n?spir?s?/
noun
noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiracies
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.


yep, that guy's fulla shit
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#5
Who gets to decide that something is a "conspiracy theory"?
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." --Aldous Huxley
Reply
#6
I was attending an aerospace engineering college during that whole time. We aspiring engineers soaked up whatever tidbits we could get on space travel. Most folks these days don't remember (or never knew) how extended and methodical a program it was, from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. Risks were taken, and men died on both sides of the enterprise. It was real.

It was a political race, even more so than a space race. As such, the USSR space apparatus - and indeed any country with the ability to detect radio signals - would have easily debunked any claims of a moon landing or even an orbital mission. Just triangulate the signal, whether in space or on the moon. A fake-conspiracy implies that the Soviets were in on it, as well as every other technologically-advanced country.

I believe that the current "Moon landing hoax" being pedaled around is a 'bad guys' attempt to embed legitimate conspiracy folks within a 'lunatic fringe' movement (if you'll pardon the pun). That way, all will be tarred with the same brush.

Truthers: Be aware of the bigger 'game'... Naughty
Hunter S. Thompson: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Reply
#7
Quote:Since a number of studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty and a general lack of agency and control, a likely purpose of this bias is to help people “make sense of the world” by providing simple explanations for complex societal events — restoring a sense of control and predictability.

From the OP.
Does this alleged conspiracy-prone state of mind sound much different to people complaining about the remoteness of their political establishment from grassroots voter sentiment?
Are spooks and Martians that different a category of scapegoats than immigration, political correctness, focus groups or disproportionately influential lobbies?
This Scientific American article is symptomatic of the decline of interest in political psychology since the rightward shift in the West's ideological climate. These days just about everybody feels powerless and unheard but blame different causes for their troubles, some more exotic than others.

There was a brief time when conspiracism was known as parapolitics, and studying it didn't attract the condemnation it does now. Perhaps if it were still considered a respectable field of study this SA report might have been better focused.

It's remarkable how the Moon landing hoax theory has persisted. The spooks have been gleefully poisoning this particular well but it's a sad fact that there are a lot of impressionable ill-informed people around, just as there are with conventional political issues.
It's a great shame that the Hidden Mission narrative hasn't gained more widespread publicity, nobody on any of the conspiraloon threads I've argued on has ever heard of it. But then for that to happen a lot of people would have to do the equivalent of putting down their populist tabloids and picking up the broadsheet qualities and some specialist journals too - that doesn't happen much with politics so it's not likely to happen with the Moon landings either.
Reply
#8
LROC has the last say in this debate

because it has photographed every landing site of every craft we've sent to the moon

You can see the Apollo equipments and even the Astronaut's and rover tracks

but I guess that's faked too right?

Doh
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#9
LROC is crucial and ironic : it's proved the hoax believers wrong, but gives credence to the Hidden Mission theory by photographing Taurus Littrow valley while it was in shadow. The South Massif looked suspicious enough in the Apollo 15 pics, what it would have looked like in perfectly exposed hi-res can only be imagined.
Don't know what happened to LRO, could still be up there for all I know but somehow I don't think there are any plans for it or anything else to go back and do the bits it missed.
Reply
#10
Well there was a movie several years ago Hangar something about the faked Moon landing. In this world we are living anything is possible.
Seek and ye shall find. JESUS
------------------------------------------
I am a recovering vegetarian   Hi
Reply
#11
One must admit, looking back, there are problems with some of the data.

Beginning with how the hell they were able to travel trough the Van Allen Belts without getting killed.

Still don't know why there are no stars in any of the surface shots of the moon.

Lots of other inconsistencies throughout the program.

Did we or didn't we?

Watch this and see what you think.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1atbdcGWgs


Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#12
Van Allen belt my ass.

[Image: kung-fu-hustle.jpg]

You say that like they're prison walls of instantly deadly nuclear conflagration

They're not.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vinta...llen-belts
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#13
Mayito, are you thinking of Capricorn One?  I liked it, BTW.
e4e5Qh5Ke7Qe5#
Reply
#14
Yes that was the one, I saw that movie waaaay back, and it was awesome.
Seek and ye shall find. JESUS
------------------------------------------
I am a recovering vegetarian   Hi
Reply
#15
"You say that like they're prison walls of instantly deadly nuclear conflagration"

Kinda close,

Even if the trip to and from the Moon were in the absolute minimum zones,
the capsule occupants would have received a pretty healthy dose of radiation.

But that would have been without proper shielding.

"Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died."

From:http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

NASA itself has finally recognized how critical this environment is to future space travel.

Source:

NASA SP-2009-3405
Human Health and Performance
Risks of Space Exploration Missions

"Astronauts who are on missions to the ISS, the moon, or Mars are exposed to ionizing radiation with effective
doses in the range from 50 to 2,000 mSv (milli-Sievert) as projected for possible mission scenarios (Cucinotta
and Durante, 2006; Cucinotta et al., 2008). The evidence of cancer risk from ionizing radiation is extensive
for radiation doses that are above about 50 mSv."

"As noted by Durante and Cucinotta (2008), cancer risk that is caused by exposure to space radiation is now
generally considered the main hindrance to interplanetary travel for the following reasons: large uncertainties
are associated with the projected cancer risk estimates; no simple and effective countermeasures are available,
and significant uncertainties prevent scientists from determining the effectiveness of countermeasures. Optimizing
operational parameters such as the length of space missions, crew selection for age and gender, or applying
mitigation measures such as radiation shielding or use of biological countermeasures can be used to reduce risk,
but these procedures are clouded by uncertainties."


Some think this guy does a good job of refuting the Apollo hoaxers RE: VAB with his mathematical treatise at:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm


But he does say this:

"Note that the total dose is about 180 rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the calculated dose is significant enough to cause serious illness, but it is below that typically regarded as causing death. We see, therefore, that even a completely exposed and unprotected astronaut, i.e. one naked and outside the spacecraft, could survive Apollo 11's trip through the VARB from the radiation point of view."

I don't remember him examining what radiation may have occurred on the surface of the Moon itself which would add to the total radiation dose.


Did you watch the video?

It is clear, IMO, just as the narrator has stated, that the astronauts are filming the round hatch window and passing it off as Earth at a distance.


[Image: 4ictiB.jpg]


They are not 240,000 miles away as stated, but rather in low Earth orbit. This becomes rather obvious toward the end with this image:

Which shows the supposed Earth on the right and a massive alien battlecruiser, I mean interior capsule light fixture on the left.


[Image: MGtbo3.gif]


And this one which shows the same hatch window ablaze with the Earth's reflected blue light.


[Image: HwOJeT.gif]


People have to admit that some of this stuff was faked.

One that's near and dear to your heart. Apollo 17 images faked.


http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm


This individual even thinks the Apollo computer may have been faked.


http://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm


I was thinking about building one of these, using more modern components, since the software for it is now available online.


[Image: 4iexBi.jpg]



 
During my gathering of information concerning the DSKY, came across this little tidbit.

On its Apollo 11 site, NASA says the images ap11-S69-36311,ap11-S69-36313,ap11-S69-36314,ap11-S69-36315,ap11-S69-36316,ap11-S69-36317,ap11-S69-36319,ap11-S69-36320,ap11-S69-36321,ap11-S69-36322,ap11-S69-36323, and ap11-S69-36324 are all supposed to be the Apollo 11 Command Module just before launch of the mission.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

They appear to have been staged. But that's just an opinion. What is odd, is the fact that the keyboard and display interface or DSKY in these preflight images is different than the one photographed during the flight. The left visual display showing Error messages has a different pattern than the inflight version. Both are supposed to be in the same Command Module.


[Image: fcmY2V.gif]

Another oddity is that the first on the launch pad DSKY appears to be active and it is displaying the identical information as this page from a NASA document on the device.



[Image: i70xP3.gif]

[Image: dnmMp6.gif]

Then the actual CM computer code called "Colossus" became available and that will take a separate post.

Either the programmers had one hell of a sense of humor, or they were trying to tell us something about the missions.


We'll also take a look at the quality of the construction of these modules (Command and LEM).





Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#16
Quote:One that's near and dear to your heart. Apollo 17 images faked.


http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
[url=http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm][/url]
actually that is of Apollo 15
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#17
Yep, it is A-15. Must have been thinking about a Utube video I saw,

Shots from A17 were in this video-which in of itself is very interesting.

It's called "Only a Paper Moon" Kinda lengthy but the guy brings up some salient points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11SsXYUUHSs

or might be the kubrickesque effect seemingly present in so many images of the surface.

Too many images seem to have 2 parts. One is close in, the other far away. One can usually pick out the
horizontal line area which separates the two. The background is either a canned scene (which may appear in
multiple images but at supposedly different locations) or the entire horizon is just black (no stars).

After a while it all looks the same.

The comment allegedly made by a NASA insider (perhaps paraphrased)..... "We didn't just lie about the Moon, We
lied about everything"...continues to be burned into my memory.
 
The belief that we actually sent men to the moon during the Apollo era is not helped by the following:

As a matter of fact, it appears to add another nail which indicates fraud.

As indicated in the previous post, and while researching specific info on the construction and operation of
the Apollo computer, keyboard and display known as the DSKY, I came across a document that gave a listing of
the computer program called Colossus. It was the primary computer program supposedly used to operate the
Command module. Another program, called Luminary was used for the LEM in its landing and return to the Command
module.

Aside from potential problems with what has been shown to be the hardware of this computer and whether it
could actually operate as indicated in this link:

http://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm

It appears that the only way to load new data into the computer was either by the onboard keyboard (highly
labor intensive for long assembly programs) or by a telemetry uplink, which had its own problem....a delay of
2-3 secs depending on CM location.

The onboard software has revealed some fascinating gems.

The language used is called assembly language and is one step above using machine language which is all 1s and
0s. Depending on the hardware, it can allow access to every individual CPU command, Ram location, Rom
location, or any other device or I/O port location attached to the computer.

A basic listing looks like this: Nice, tight, understandable code.
The vast majority of all assembly language listings I've studied follow this format


[Image: cdiVHY.png]


There are individual commands [example: LDA A] stored in a single memory location [example: C010] (whether
that be eraseable RAM or, at the time, uneraseable storage ROM). Different assembly programs can be loaded
into the RAM portions on the fly depending on events, but that requires some sort of storage like a hard
drive.

Assembly language subroutines, made up of numerous individual CPU commands,  [example: INCH, which means input
a single character] that are used frequently can have their own pseudo opcode identification and can be called
anytime within the main program.

It is somewhat difficult to follow exactly what is happening with the NASA assembly listing of Colossus, the
main operational program for the Apollo 11 mission. The code appears different (does not follow usual
established norms), and is not tight nor easily understandable.


[Image: tmRGU3.gif]


The astute reader should immediately notice a few things.

1. The overall section name is...[and this one's for Bob]...KOOLADE! Koolaid
(Upper right hand corner) This is a specific area of the main program which contains various other groups of subroutines.

2. And on the next line, the name of a specific group of subroutines .......

   "PINBALL GAME BUTTONS AND LIGHTS"  There's also "PINBALL NOUN TABLES".

It would seem to me that, as a programmer, one would approach this a bit more seriously and call these

subroutines "STATUS BUTTONS AND LIGHTS" and "STATUS NOUN TABLES".

Or was this a subtle message left for the future?

"KOOLADE" being a message that the public was being treated like children with the entire operation being just
a pinball game with fancy lights flashing whenever an astronaut played with the DSKY keys.

Maybe nothing in of itself, but against a background of other inconsistencies.....?

This short video shows the Apollo 11 crew demonstrating the on board DSKY/computer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UshIJbbDFH0

There is a comment from Earth that....... "We see a real display now"

(Does that mean we didn't before?)

The computer registers it is active (flashing area, upper left in right hand display)

Left display - 5 status lights come on indicating (simultaneously)

There is uplink activity (top light)
There is an attitude problem (2nd light down)
The Standby light comes on (3rd light down)
The Key Release light comes on (4th light down)
The Operator Error light comes on (last light)

Next

The last two lights flash and then the astronaut clears the display.

Again, the requirement for attention to detail.

If one approaches the examination of the accumulated information about the Apollo era, with all the simulation
resources present during that period, I do not believe anyone could question the fact that NASA had the
capability to have faked the program, either partially or completely.


Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#18
Nuts...........................................
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#19
Horsepoop
Quote:I do not believe anyone could question the fact that NASA had the capability to have faked the program, either partially or completely.
Hmmm.
Naughty
I do not believe anyone could question the fact that alemos/allmost has the capability to have faked any fact, either partially or completely.
Assimilated
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#20
You can be so silly sometimes Wookie.

Have you been smoking that "Wacky Weed" again? Biggrin

You know how that clouds your judgement.

I stand by the statement. "NASA had the capability to have either partially or completely fake the Apollo
missions". That's a fact.

So what do YOU think. Is this real or simulated? And why?


[Image: bpJRFx.jpg]


Can you (or anyone) figure out why top NASA officials and German rocket scientists were sent to Antarctica
shortly before the Apollo moon landing?

Of course, it wasn't to gather specimens from the Moon to be used later as evidence that we actually went
there.
 

"During the local summer of 1966–67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him
and several other members of top NASA management. The goal of the field trip was [supposedly]to determine
whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic
wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space. Von Braun was mainly interested in management
of the scientific effort on Antarctic research stations, logistics, habitation and life support, and in using
the barren Antarctic terrain like the glacial dry valleys to test the equipment that one day would be used to
look for signs of life on Mars and other worlds."



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


Antarctica-Project-Deep-Freeze-von-Braun

[Image: rdZA0y.jpg]


Left to right: Maxime A. Faget (NASA Space Task Group), Dr. Robert Gilruth (director, NASA Manned Spacecraft
Center), Werner von Braun (the German rocket scientist), two un-named scientists from the mysterious "Project
Deep Freeze", and Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger (another of the German scientists who worked with von Braun and was
brought to the USA after the war).


"Before the systematic recovery of meteorites from Antarctica, most researchers didn't believe you could knock
a piece off of a big planetary body, and send it to Earth as a meteorite. In 1981, that was proven to be false
when this meteorite was found near the Allan Hills. There was no doubt that it came from the moon- studies of
the Apollo specimens had revealed a distinctive and limited range of lithologies there, and this specimen was
a spitting image for one of the more common types. In a short time researchers realized they might have
samples of other planets as well, including Mars. "

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_27.html

[Image: 2rdAI3.jpg]

Hmmm, looks a little like Keith's Apollo-17 rock in that thread.

[Image: v38e1f.jpg]


Even NASA itself admits pieces of the Moon exist on Earth

Searching for Meteorites in Antarctica

"Where is the best place on Earth to find meteorites? Although meteors fall all over the world, they usually
just sink to the bottom of an ocean, are buried by shifting terrain, or are easily confused with terrestrial
rocks. At the bottom of the Earth, however, in East Antarctica, huge sheets of blue ice remain pure and
barren. When traversing such a sheet, a dark rock will stick out. These rocks have a high probability of being
true meteorites -- likely pieces of another world. An explosion or impact might have catapulted these
meteorites from the Moon, Mars, or even an asteroid, yielding valuable information about these distant worlds
and our early Solar System. Small teams of snowmobiling explorers so far have found thousands. Pictured above,
ice-trekkers search a field 25-kilometers in front of Otway Massif in the Transantarctic Mountain Range during
the Antarctic summer of 1995-1996."


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080907.html


Let's examine one of these "Moon" rocks.

OOPS!  NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, Report Says

http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-m...eport.html


NASA has lost or misplaced more than 500 of the moon rocks its Apollo astronauts collected and brought back to
Earth, according to a new agency report.

In an audit released Thursday (Dec. 8), NASA's Office of Inspector General states that the agency "lacks
sufficient controls over its loans of moon rocks and other astromaterials, which increases the risk that these
unique resources may be lost."

And while the agency reported the 517 missing moon rock samples, even more of these precious materials may
have gone astray, according to the report.


Then, of course, some may actually be fake (or not actually recovered from the surface of the Moon).

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Bu

zz-Aldrin-is-fake.html




"Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year,
discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood."

"The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael
Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago."

"Researchers [from] Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be
from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests."


NASA seems to have had some really bad luck, along with certain manufacturers of space hardware (Grumman in
particular).

 When independent researchers request information relative to the Apollo program, the "evidence" conveniently
goes missing. The explanation is "It's lost, it was taped over, or we simply do not know where it is. We don't
have it. It was destroyed.

After awhile you have to start asking yourself....Why? The single most important achievement of mankind, and
the information concerning it is not protected?


Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#21
Fuck you
you little twit .
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#22
well, there's a BIG difference between a rock picked up on the moon's surface and brought back here and one that fell through the atmosphere to get here.

I guess Von Braun took a butter knife and scraped all the burnt parts off like a piece of toast eh?
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#23
As well, do you not perhaps think that- given the immense monetary value of an actual moon rock... that someone in Amsterdam might have snagged it and replaced it with something else?

of course, no one EVER steals from Museums.... but in this case this one, Dees had it for many years before the museum, perhaps it got switched while in his care, or even by him?

lol

honestly, do you think an agency capable of pulling off a hoax like you think they did would be so sloppy as to not realize you can't pass off petrified wood as a moon rock?
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#24
Quote:LunaCognita he comment allegedly made by a NASA insider (perhaps paraphrased)..... "We didn't just lie about the Moon, We
lied about everything"...continues to be burned into my memory.
 

I remember that too, it was 3 ex-NASA employees then working for a subsidiary or contractor who were being interviewed by now-dormant blogger LunaCognita AKA Cary Martiniuk. They were being asked if they lied about a lot of things - not specifically Apollo missions.
LunaCognita's interest was the obfuscation of anomalous evidence not the faking of Apollo 11.

That console stuff could all just have been part of the Apollo 11 creative PR effort.
Reply
#25
"I guess Von Braun took a butter knife and scraped all the burnt parts off like a piece of toast eh?"

Probably not, but a large enough rock could have been located to alter so that the outer covering was no
longer present. There are also specimens that don't appear to have been burned that have been found in
Antarctica and perhaps elsewhere, maybe chunks of a larger hit.

As far as the petrified wood moon rock is concerned, like Fox News, just reporting information I come across,
"We provide, you decide".

Don't think I stated that I thought it was all fake, simply said NASA had the capability to have faked it.

Now, there can only be one of three scenarios:

Option 1. It's all real, none of it was faked. It's exactly as NASA says.

     This assumption is not supported by the historical record which exists. These are the "inconsistencies"
mentioned in my first post one example of which was shown in the Apollo 11 video that was posted. There are
others. The video was never supposed to be shown to the public. It was mistakenly sent to the researcher.

Armstrong said he was 130,000 miles from Earth....judging from the amount of blue light in the circular hatch
window at the end, they were actually in LEO or at very high altitude above the Earth. The video was being
shot for later playback so it all could be shown as one continuous episode, supposedly "live". The video
indicated an attempt to fake the distance of the craft from the earth...why do that?

Option 2. Some of it was real, some of it was simulated and presented to the public as being real.

     I'm personally leaning toward this probability considering not only NASA's initial formation from then
existing military research entities (NACA, Langley Lab, Ames Lab, Lewis Flight Propulsion Lab, JPL, ARPA etc)
which brought with those elements a military mindset, but also the military-style operation that these
missions resembled. Classified information, mostly military astronauts, security clearances, etc etc. Feed the
public a simulated version on TV and out in the open, while the actual operation is going on and no one can
see it but a specific team within NASA itself. That scenario supports your assumption of a possible
clandestine mission for Apollo 17, and perhaps for other missions as well.

Option 3. None of it was real. It was all simulated and fed to the public as actually happening.

I can't bring myself to believe this option even though it is a possibility. If one examines the historical
record without any predetermined opinions you will see that as the Astronauts were being trained, various
simulators were being used. Given the right lighting conditions, lack of clear focus, initial size of the
image, speed of the video, whether the image is upside down or not.......string that all together with audio
in the background, and you've got yourself an Apollo mission. NASA has been famous for obfuscating the data,
presenting it incorrectly, mirroring the image, in short doing anything to muddy the waters. We've discussed
it many times.

NASA had simulators for everything.  https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/NASATND7112.pdf

If they could provide the Astronauts with real looking training simulations, they certainly could have used
the same devices to fool us.

There are inconsistencies.

This is the kind of observation that bothers me, and it should bother others also.

The Apollo-11 LEM:

What appears to be two (perhaps three) different (LEM) craft, in the same mission.

How can that be?

All of these images are available from http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

First image, AP11-S69-19644HR is just prior to launch, before being loaded into the Saturn-5
(Notice the color of the top panel....white)

Second image, AS11-44-6574HR (Rotated 180 degrees) upon separation from the A11-Command Module and being
inspected prior to landing on the Moon. (Again, the top panel is white)

Third image, AS11-40-5862HR which is now on the surface of the Moon with Buzz Aldrin beginning his exit of the
LEM. But this time the top panel is black! Black?

And finally in the last image, AS11-44-6642HR returning for docking with the Command Module, the same panel is
now grey. Compare its shade with some of the other obvious black areas.

As an added plus, there is some sort of debris at the bottom of the hatch which shouldn't be there.

[Image: 5ODhVN.jpg]

Same panel, same craft, white on earth, white before it lands on the Moon, black when its on the surface and
grey when it returns to lunar orbit.

This panel should be a relatively consistent color in all four images, it is not. So what's going on?



Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#26
it's not white, it's metal, and is taking on the hue of whatever light is reflecting off it.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#27
Apollo 15 cannot be disputed.



[Image: M175252641LR_ap15.png]

perhaps before you try pulling out the 'ole lunar hoax theory here you might want to realize we know exactly where all the equipment and tracks are

nice compilation, EVERY mission.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apoll...aqyo_lVhBc
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#28
sand flea tracks.
lol..
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#29
One of these images has to be fake. Which one?

They seem to be  mutually incompatible.

Earth diameter = 7917.5 miles
Moon diameter  = 3474.8 miles
Distance between Earth and Moon = 238,900 miles

(Moon is located a little over 30 Earth diameters from the Earth)


" New NASA EPIC Imagery Shows Moon Crossing Earth on August 9, 2015 at 8:24 am NASA’s four megapixel CCD camera known as the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) snapped a series of shots of the moon orbiting in front of our home........."

Read more at: http://www.immortal.org/14381/dark-side-...sa-camera/



[Image: yqFe73.jpg]



Apollo image of Earth rising over the moon.


[Image: AN2wAA.jpg]






Mellow
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Reply
#30
Parallax error .
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#31
All the missions were faked, we never went anywhere, the Earth is flat and sits on top of a giant turtle, the Moon is made of cheese, Mars has canales, my grandmother was a bycicle and EA is a very rational and normal person, very kind and sweet as a grandmother who loves to bake pies and brownies.
Seek and ye shall find. JESUS
------------------------------------------
I am a recovering vegetarian   Hi
Reply
#32
Alemos predictably says this:
Quote:This is the kind of observation that bothers me, and it should bother others also.

The Apollo-11 LEM:

What appears to be two (perhaps three) different (LEM) craft, in the same mission.

How can that be?
Gets better every Day!!
Alemos...  You truely are a gift LMFAO!
WOW!

Sometimes I actually think your being serious Alemos... That, bothers me ....
Reply
#33
[quote pid='224426' dateline='1437250070']

This picture is very easy to produce....  can be fake....



[Image: M175252641LR_ap15.png]

[/quote]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)