uh huh
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(September 06, 2009 09:43 AM)
Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.
Do you think that NASA has the same budget they had in the 1960s? Well, they don't.
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
HapHazzard — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 05:32 PM)
Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.
Stupidity on this level truly amazes me. Here's the thing - the satellite in orbit around the moon right now has imaged the landing sites just a couple of months ago. It's even picked up the tracks the astronauts made in the dust. These photos are being examined by scientists all over the world and are also in the public domain - and none have been shown to be anything other than genuine photos. Kind of kills the moronic argument once and for all.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump. -
NebLWeffah — 16 years ago(September 18, 2009 10:07 PM)
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)!! HALLEH-FREAKIN'-LOOYAH!!!!!
Now maybe all the nut cases will shut up for awhile. The latest image of Apollo 12 landing site shows the LM decent stage clearly with shadow, the Surveyor 3 in the crater right where it was supposed to be and Pete Conrad's and Al Bean's tracks. Very cool pictures actually.
Look here:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/ -
videojohn — 16 years ago(October 09, 2009 02:20 PM)
Dear Hap;
Very good point there, Sir.
Here's what (I believe) got
this all started to begin with,
as I used to live in La Canada
where many of the JPL folks do
and had 'first hand' knowledge.
Were the Moon "landings" faked??
In a word NO. Our spacecraft and
Astronauhts walked on it as well.
Various "Ham Radio" stations heard
it & recorded (world wide) the audio
at the time. This could NOT ever
be "faked".Were the Moon "landings" faked in
photographic image?? I'm sure
some were, for a variety of reasons.- Actual photos distorted, damaged,
lost, or destroyed by accident. - Photos were inhanced/altered for
the creation of foreign propaganda. - Photos were altered for the purpose
of "national security" etc. - Photos were altered/created for a
variety of presentations to Congress
to gain funding for the program.
The two topics are different.
The film titled; Capricorn One (1977),
was for entertainment only and was a
story to make money for the Producers.
"That's all folks"; Buggs Bunny.
Happy trails to all - Actual photos distorted, damaged,
-
stratdax — 16 years ago(November 09, 2009 04:29 PM)
Yes, they landed on the moon. Any amateur astrologist with gear could track the ship. They also left a retro-reflector on the surface of the moon that people and universities all over the world began using immediately.
And the arguements saying "well why haven't we been back?" is stupid. Not only because they went back lots of times, butI've been to Sweden once, but I'm likely never going to go back does that mean I've NEVER been there? No, of course it doesn't. -
standrkm — 15 years ago(March 13, 2011 04:26 PM)
What is certain is that Kubrick and the Apollo 11 astronauts did make an alternate moon landing. NASA airbrushes out certain things from their photo's, never has a straight answer, calls anything resembling a ufo water crystals, and has put out obvious manipulated photos of the moon. This is fact and it should be well known. Did you know that they even have a 20 second delay when showing live television that is used to control what information gets out? Oh and they taped over the first moon landing ever because of shortage of tapes, or just plain out can't find the originals, lol.
In a film called "something funny happened on the way to the moon" you get to see the Apollo 11 astronauts making the earth seem further away while making their way to the moon and the date doesn't add up with their trajectory. In many photo's you can see photo tampering done in the exact same way Kubrick did 2001.
Here's a nice article:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf
I don't know if all manned missions were faked, I really don't know. But maybe the initial moon landing was or was atleast done in a studio just in case of failure. I see that as being more plausible. I don't care about the shadows, the waving flag, maybe that's how it is on the moon, I've never been there. It's the way the moon dust acts that I see as something otherworldly. I don't know how they could have faked the way that stuff moves.
If reincarnated,I'd return to Earth as a killer virus to lower population levels.
-Prince Phillip -
lseybold-2 — 14 years ago(April 12, 2011 07:56 AM)
In a film called "something funny happened on the way to the moon" you get to see the Apollo 11 astronauts making the earth seem further away while making their way to the moon and the date doesn't add up with their trajectory.
Two sides to every story
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
"I am a collage of unaccounted-for brushstrokes, and I am all random!"
-
marktarnovetsky — 13 years ago(October 14, 2012 11:30 AM)
yes of course they were faked. physical life can not travel in space its scientifically not possible. you should rewatch or watch The Shining, that movie is actually about Kubrick himself faking the moon landings.
good question! -
mr_bennett — 11 years ago(April 28, 2014 04:17 PM)
http://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-missio n-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/
-
Century_hades — 11 years ago(July 27, 2014 09:26 PM)
WOW! this thread has been going on for ten years. That's amazing. I personally don't think the moon landings were faked. I can't say for 100 percent certain they actually went. However would I put it past NASA, and the US government to lie about actually going to the moon? I would not be surprised at all.
I heard a story that NASA actually got the whole "fake moon landing" story going it's self. The reason being is because they found structures on the moon from some past civilization. They didn't want the general public to know. So they leaked a bogus story about the moon landings being faked. To divert every ones attention about the real nature of the moon landings.
One can't say for certain, but it sure is fun to speculate, and discuss all the what ifs. -
jackblob — 11 years ago(October 05, 2014 07:16 AM)
Do people who believe conspiracy theories stop to consider the complexity and complicity required to pull them off? The Moon landings were 50 years ago. The task would have been highly complex. There would have to be many complicit people needing to stay silent for the rest of their lives. There would have to be no evidence left to trace. Think about it, people! 9-11 would have to be even more complex with even more complicit people.
All this talk of some omnipotent and malevolent "illuminati" controlling World events is just a convenient black box requiring zero critical thought.
Conspiracy believers tell themselves that theyre the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are gullible sheep. This is just another convenient way to dismiss critical thought and begs the question of who exactly is the gullible one. -
s-tony-kim — 11 years ago(October 28, 2014 08:33 AM)
I disagree with the point that it'd be impossibly difficult to keep those who were involved quiet for 45 years. There are many reasons why more people would not speak out (if it's in fact a hoax, that is).
The first is the obvious difficulty of going up against the reigning power and authority. Needless to say you'd have to be prepared to give up everything to call NASA and the USA government a liar, and few are brave enough to do so. It's a huge claim - calling Nixon a liar is a child's play next to it.
Second, unless you're a big shot overseeing a large part of the operation, your direct involvement is not crucial enough to be able to call the whole moon landing a hoax. Most lower level peons could only make a statement with any authority about some small aspect of the operation they are directly involved with. Beyond that it's all conjectures and won't be given serious considerations. As for the crucial part for which he has first-hand knowledge or evidence, chances are that it can be explained away or refuted by others with broader scope of responsibility as well as backings of other staff. In other words, it's not as easy as one might think to blow a whistle because, for the most part, they are in no position to do so.
The third point is that, even if one had a irrefutable evidence, we should remember that he'd be only as effective as the media allows him. No matter what he says, if the mainstream media does not cooperate, he'll get nowhere. He'll be that proverbial "tree falling when no one's around to hear it". One might put it on the internet and attract some attention, but we all know how the internet is a giant trash dump with more garbage than useful facts.
The fourth is that, it's not like none of the people on the project ever came out with revealing information. People did come out (Bill Keysing was one indirectly involved with the project and there may be others) and the result is what we have now. The whole notion that no one came out whistle-blowing all this time is bogus.
Of the many arguments debunking the hoax theory, I think this particular one about no one speaking out is one of the weakest.