Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

Wow, the British really blow the lid off the joint with this one.
I learned quite a bit I hadn't before.

Even if you aren't typically into documentaries, I recommend this one, especially if you're an American.

It will shock you, and with good reason.



Edit: I didn't post "part 1" because it's only 6 minutes long... But honestly, It's worth watching.

reply to post by thegagefather
Your link isn't working...ah, you fixed it.

Originally posted by 1yearning2bfree
reply to post by thegagefather

 

Your link isn't working...

My bad. Fixed!

Second liiiiine!

reply to post by thegagefather


thanks, will try to find some time to watch it later
in the meantime, feel like summarizing some of the main statements?
just asking because i'm curious to find out what makes this docu different?
i've seen others, wasn't convinced all the way (made me think, but didn't buy the credibility of some folks)

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


i can sumarise it :

the same old lies , ignorance , missrepresentation , pop psychology , psuedo science and tawddle that goes into all moon hoax ` arguments `

Can't watch it at the moment..

But I'm looking forward to sitting down with a beer & watching

S&F

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes

 

i can sumarise it :

the same old lies , ignorance , missrepresentation , pop psychology , psuedo science and tawddle that goes into all moon hoax ` arguments `

Don't judge before you have seen it mate.

Its this type of preconceived judgement, that is just absolutely absurd. Have a look at it first ffs, before just jumping on the ridicule bandwagon.

vvv

i love this documentary. its one of the ones that started my passionate hate affair with nasa lol.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


do not assume what i have , or have not done

that film is several years old - i have watched it before - thus - do not need to watch it again today to know that it is utter twaddle

all i needed was 5 seconds to recognise the narrator - and identify the film

reply to post by ignorant_ape


In that case mate, I do apologize.

Now, since you have seen it, and firmly belief that it is indeed "twaddle", might you possibly elaborate a little upon it? I bookmarked this to view later, but, if it is indeed BS, I do not want to waste my time.

vvv

I watched it again about a couple of weeks ago, it does everything that it should, it will give anyone who believes in the fake missions, a wealth of information and a few new questions to ask. For the people who believe the official line, they won't even watch it, but will feel that they are capable of countering any points raised in it. The main problem with threads like this, is that they will soon be visited by the five usual suspects, who will bring up off topic arguments to derail and " Debunk " any points raised, they manage to post very large posts which only go in circles, star each others posts and make fun of anyone who holds different opinions than thiers. I suppose believers will always believe, and disbelievers will always believe everything that NASA tells them to believe and post.

So the moon landings were done during the 11 yr cycle. At the peak of it? Yet those photos were so clear, without any radiation damage. Using unprotected cameras? Plus they detonated a nuke there and caused another belt, like the Van Allen belt?. Its a good documentary and Im not sure about all the info. But it does throw into doubt their claim, of NASA landing on the moon as they said.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


i guess you saved me some time
i was indeed wondering if this was a new docu
seems it's not?
I'll give it 5 minutes and decide what to do next

tnx

Just watched the entire thing...very good. Really an amazing film.

Just found the full docu part 1 included
www.youtube.com...

Shocking ,these days, is a big word, still watching though, never know what's gonna come.
Untill now, the most 'shocking' part, the fake 'first man in space' mission. I will have to look deeper into that part.

What year was the docu made?

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

In that case mate, I do apologize.

Now, since you have seen it, and firmly belief that it is indeed "twaddle", might you possibly elaborate a little upon it? I bookmarked this to view later, but, if it is indeed BS, I do not want to waste my time.

vvv

Perhaps you need to think for yourself and not let others tell you what to watch, the ones who want to hide something are the ones that shout " Nothing to see here " loudest, people often seem happy enough to be told that there is nothing going on, they don't need to use their brains to think for themselves. Research is often a great waste of time, because there are many false leads and dead ends to navigate, but is often worth taking the time to do.

The internet age is full of people believing that typing THE HOLY GRAIL in to wikipedia will not only tell them where it is buried but how to dig it up. Research which is only a few computer clicks away, will not in any way compare to good honest hard work, although it can help in uncovering the more obscure connections, asking a nameless, faceless, computer persona if it is worth your while checking up on something, is giving up free will and freedom of choice.

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
Just found the full docu part 1 included
www.youtube.com...


Untill now, the most 'shocking' part, the fake 'first man in space' mission. I will have to look deeper into that part.

What year was the docu made?

In 2000 and had a re-release in 2010 I believe.

It took 5 years in filming and research, not just a knock-up job.

reply to post by thegagefather


I'm American and I understand that's a lot of questions to ask regarding space fight ps i watched the whole thing. I will also agree that to some people this isn't arguable just as 911 isn't questionable even with documents detailing false flag operations by our government before 911 but that's kind of off topic. I guess the people who question will always question like us while the rest of society blindly except the information given even if it contradicts it self at a later time due to the public becoming more aware and informed about its science. I know if i told my mother about this she would laugh at me saying I'm crazy because she witnessed it as a child.

But i will be honest in saying I do not have the technical knowledge, mathematical skills,biological understanding to truly look into the claims made by the video and conclude if they are true or not. That is why most people laugh at others for claiming it's fake, A: they don't have the skills to fact check B: Most of the people who claim its fake are taking someone word for it C: its basically the same thing as excepting the original story unless you can back up the claims with your technical knowledge.

All Moon Landing Hoaxes can be summed up in two forms of arguments:

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted.
(3) Therefore, nobody landed on the moon


AND

.ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) The moon landing was a hoax.
(2) [Scientist's counterargument]
(3) Yes it was.
(4) [Scientist's counterargument]
(5) Yes it was!
(6) [Scientist's counterargument]
(7) YES IT IS!!!
(8) [Scientist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, the moon landing was a hoax.HARUMPH!

reply to post by thegagefather

I didn't post "part 1" because it's only 6 minutes long... But honestly, It's worth watching.

This film is over three hours long! Tell you what, over the next few days or weeks, I will watch the film and post my comments, starting with Part 1. It sure looks professional. Look, there's a man with a British accent sitting behind what looks like a newsreader's desk. He must be important and know what he's talking about. He says he has startling new information. Good thing he told us that it's startling and new, because otherwise we might think it was old and silly. And he promises us whistleblowers. I sure hope he's found real whistleblowers, because if he dredges up Bill Kaysing or Ralph Renée we'll know he's already spinning.

What's this? Werner von Braun himself? In 1959, von Braun told Congress that man wouldn't be able to orbit the Moon until 1969, and not land until a few years later. That proves it, right?

No. Here is a picture of the sort of rocket von Braun thought was necessary in 1959:


Von Braun and his colleagues developed a methodical plan to lay the logistics for long term exploration and settlement of the Moon. It required reusable spacecraft constructing a permanent manned space station that would be used as a base for lunar exploration. The gigantic landing craft would be built at this space station.






Von Braun thought all this was doable in fifteen years. As it turns out, a cheaper, faster system was used. No orbital infrastructure was required. Nothing was reusable. If von Braun thought all this could be done in under twenty years, just building a single purpose system could easily be done in ten. Unfortunately, this faster, cheaper approach is the one that was settled on, which is why Apollo's legacy is historic, rather than ongoing.

The omniscient narrator then tells us that defense contractors in 1959 thought that only unmanned probes would be able to explore the Moon untilthe early 1970s.I guess he hopes we won't remember that most of the Moon landings took place in the early 1970s!

The next whistleblower is... Bill Kaysing. Oh dear. Kaysing worked at Rocketdyne, a defense contractor, as a writer. He was not involved in research and development. He left the company under a cloud, probably related to substance abuse given his later history. Nevertheless, let's hear what he has to say:

In 1959, Rocketdyne did a statistical study that showed a probability of "something like" .0014 that man could land safely on the Moon. Assuming that Kaysing didn't simply make this story up, what he is claiming is that in 1959, before men had actually been placed in orbit, when the success rate for US launches was something like one out of three, before probes had mapped the radiation environment or sent mapping images back from the Moon, a committee sat down and plucked figures out of the air. In 1959, they had no solid facts, only speculation.

Three minutes into the film, and its already establishing its baseline of "fact" on the ignorance prevalent in 1959. It is clear that they are going to rely on the viewer being unable to tell the difference between fact and opinion. It is a fact that people in 1959 were of the opinion that it would take decades to get to the Moon. The fact is, their opinion was wrong.

To be continued.