Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I just found this.


NASA Announces Media Teleconference on New Apollo Images GREENBELT, Md. -- NASA will host a media teleconference at noon on Tuesday, Sept. 6, to reveal new images of three Apollo landing sites taken from the agency's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO.

Teleconference participants are:
-- Jim Green, director, Planetary Science Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington
-- Mark Robinson, principal investigator, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Arizona State University, Tempe
-- Richard Vondrak, LRO project scientist, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

To participate in the teleconference, reporters must email Nancy Jones at nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov with their name, media affiliation and work telephone number by 10 a.m. on Sept. 6.

Supporting information and visuals for the briefing will be posted at 11:45 a.m. EDT Sept. 6 at:

www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_M11-184_LRO_Apollo_Telecon.html
So does this mean that they are going to release more photos?

Ok, this is totally weird. My computer completely went haywire last night after looking at the Apollo pdf's and pictures.............Now the first story I see is new landing phots being released........

Am I in the matrix here or something? Lj01 looks around the room.

There is a NASA coverup




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by iNkGeEk
 


I suppose you are right, with the level of technology we have now we can replicate the moon landing on a hollywood set itself...



they were photoshopping just fine back then....theres a thread on this site that goes into detail about the techniques they had way back.....


Link to that please? Photoshop development started in 1987


I am assuming the person is refering to photoshopping as a verb, just as people call all facial tissue, Kleenex.

Here is your link.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


The evidence is all in the public domain. If you are not equipped to evaluate the evidence and come to the inescapable conclusion that we did in fact go to the moon that is not my problem. It's yours.


I will, however, give you this as a start:

www.nasa.gov...
edit on 5-9-2011 by wasco2 because: add link



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
they got there but not with that equitment the saturn rocket would have to be 7+ times bigger what they found freightened the beejezzuz out of them just listen to the tapes . the moon is hollow proved & rang like a bell for more than 30 minutes .not long ago loads of film were found dumped at a empty macdonalds in the trash bin outside .astronomers for hundreds of years have reported THINGS going on lights & movment on the moon download on pdf william brians MOONGATE . he does a good job on the science stuff .another good read is who built the moon by christopher knight . or immanuel velikovskys the earth b4 the moon on his archive . hes the man that tptb removed & burned his 1st edition of worlds in collision happy reading



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
its like saying that Lindbergh didn't fly the Atlantic because nobody saw him en route only saw him take off and land there is no proof that there was a interim journey. your not using logic



I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, but your logic is off a bit, as well.

Lindbergh started off in one place and ended up in another...and to get there, he had to cross the Atlantic. Therefore, we can assume he did cross the Atlantic. The interim journey isn't important.

If I left my house and came back to my house and that was seen as proof that I drove my car somewhere I claimed, that would be different. All you know for sure is I started and ended at my house. Just because I claim to have driven to Disney World doesn't mean I did.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
So, because Nasa/Gov posted documentation and photo's of them going to the moon, your going to believe them ??But yet,a reporter can confront Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong and not get one answer .Seems like good ole Neil would of put his hand on that bible and good ole Buzz would of answered some questions nicely instead of throwing punches ! Wake up and smell the folgers !



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
i am in possession of countless hours of footage collected in the early nineties covering
usa,russian and european programs. footage goes back to white sands proving grounds v2 'boomerang'
near-miss! up to bayerundfunk broadcasts of arian 5 launches from kourou.

i've heard and read the arguments of fake this and fake that regarding the moonlandings. my honest
opinion is the usa succeeded in landing and returning. the apollo program was studied over and over
and over. the LM orbit footage right through to Bean and co rock shopping.

what may interest readers is R.C.Hoaglands' account of what happened at the JPL Von Karman Auditorium
around 22nd July 1969. Frank Bristow, head of JPL press office was seen by Hoagland etc walking around
the press present with an unknown individual who was handing/placing a handout on seats and to the
press reporters. according to Hoagland the handout consisted of a mylar American flag and some
pages of text. the text claimed that the Apollo 11 lunar landing was faked on a soundstage in Nevada.

So the head of the press office at JPL assisted someone around the auditorium whilst this individual
dropped/gave pamphlets claiming the program was faked.
now why would he do that, if that is what happened? why would the head of the press office allow
his unknown sidekick to distribute these items?

perhaps the decision makers needed to embed this in the minds of those attending to deflect others
away from what Hoagland says is a coverup on a massive scale. that coverup being artifacts apparently
found on the moon that could shake current world institutions to the core.

other nations with assets to study the lunar terrain may be privy to this but time will tell if they
follow the official line or go rogue with their findings. it will be interesting to see images from
forthcoming lunar orbiters as to whether they back up Hoaglands claims, turn out to be doctored or
simply nothing is found.

i expect J.O. is hanging around this thread but i doubt any diamonds coming this way.no offence Jim.
regards fakedirt.

btw @liejunkie, i was perusing the apollo images yesterday on various nasa affiliated sites and
got some strange behaviour from my terminal.did you check you temp folder for gremlins?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I take it then you have no evidence of a rover ?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 



they got there but not with that equitment the saturn rocket would have to be 7+ times bigger


Would you back this figure up with something other than your opinion?


what they found freightened the beejezzuz out of them just listen to the tapes


Which tapes? It's certainly not any of the ones of the Apollo missions.


the moon is hollow proved & rang like a bell for more than 30 minutes


No, it is not hollow. It did reverberate after the LM hit it, but it was simply a metaphor that it "rang like a bell!


not long ago loads of film were found dumped at a empty macdonalds in the trash bin outside


What does that have to do with anything? What film are you talking about?


astronomers for hundreds of years have reported THINGS going on lights & movment on the moon


This is true, but the reports began to trickle off after astronomers started using film and CCDs instead of their eyes!



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ViP3r
 



?But yet,a reporter can confront Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong and not get one answer .Seems like good ole Neil would of put his hand on that bible and good ole Buzz would of answered some questions nicely instead of throwing punches !


That man was not a reporter, he was a religious nut who repeatedly stalked the astronauts and shouted "liar" at them. He is lucky that he only got punched.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by superman2012
 


The evidence is all in the public domain. If you are not equipped to evaluate the evidence and come to the inescapable conclusion that we did in fact go to the moon that is not my problem. It's yours.


I will, however, give you this as a start:

www.nasa.gov...
edit on 5-9-2011 by wasco2 because: add link


I have seen this start that you have listed. I have read through alot of the propaganda. I notice your "proof" that was listed before, is now completely abandoned after reading my "proof".



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Ok, religious nut/reporter or not , seems like if i was Neil or Buzz i would answer whomever it was and not avoid. Obviously they have something to hide .



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by superman2012
 


I take it then you have no evidence of a rover ?


No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 





No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.


Can I ask exactly what evidence you are looking for?

I see evidence all over the place. Why don't you?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ViP3r
 

What Neil should of done was : put his left hand on the bible and said "Hi, I'm Neil Armstrong and i DID land on the moon " ...BUT instead his little buddy was tryng to get the guy to leave...here's the link again for those that have not seen it !
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by superman2012
 





No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.


Can I ask exactly what evidence you are looking for?

I see evidence all over the place. Why don't you?


I like to question things they try to spoon feed me. You don't. It isn't a fault, we are just different. If something seems fishy to me, I want to try to understand it, that is why I am asking for solid, credible proof, because I don't have any for either side.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViP3r
reply to post by ViP3r
 

What Neil should of done was : put his left hand on the bible and said "Hi, I'm Neil Armstrong and i DID land on the moon " ...BUT instead his little buddy was tryng to get the guy to leave...here's the link again for those that have not seen it !
www.youtube.com...



The guy is a pest.....Look at how he approaches them and walks around them. He is too confrontational. The dude is an azzhole.

How would you react in a real world situation like that. I have seen guys get their azz whipped just for looking at a dude wrong



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by superman2012
 


I take it then you have no evidence of a rover ?


No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.


sooooo

if the mirror wasn't placed with a rover, and the rocks were not brought back with a rover, the only logical explanation is the apollo misisons, correct ?

surely you don't dismiss every space flight since garin , right ?

or is it only the prestigious historical and beloved US manned missions you have a problem with ?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by superman2012
 





No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.


Can I ask exactly what evidence you are looking for?

I see evidence all over the place. Why don't you?


I like to question things they try to spoon feed me. You don't. It isn't a fault, we are just different. If something seems fishy to me, I want to try to understand it, that is why I am asking for solid, credible proof, because I don't have any for either side.


I think that thinking like this will get you no where.

What is credible evidence in your opinion? You say that the photos are all photoshoped or done in a studio or whatever......Any photo can be manipulated.....That is a fact.......so with that being said, you will not be able to accept any photo as evidence, you are stuck in a rut until you actually go there yourself I guess.........Hundreds of thousands of employees working for a common goal of landing a man on the moon is also a fact.........

One more question. Does the movie Capricorn One have anything to do with your views on the moon landings?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ViP3r
 



Ok, religious nut/reporter or not , seems like if i was Neil or Buzz i would answer whomever it was and not avoid. Obviously they have something to hide .


You are neither Armstrong nor Aldrin, so you have no idea what you would actually do, do you? You are interpreting their actions to confirm your own prejudged conclusion. If I were Armstrong or Aldrin, I would have filed a restraining order against him... but then, I'm not them.
edit on 5-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join