Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 42
67
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snakey

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by DoctorMobius
 

The Russians were doing the same "bad things" in space that the Americans were, weaponizing it, militarizing it. The Russians did not employ a bogus manned moon landing program cover as part of their nefarious activities, obviously did not have to. But they knew we did not land and had no reason to speak up about it. They were doing they same stuff, militarizing space, and covering their mischief, with similar, though not identical pretended peaceful manned space program nonsense.

Eh no really.

Eh no really you say? www.ufoevidence.org...

The space age weaponry was incorporated into the Soviet version of SDI. Dr. Avramenko also confirmed for us that the Russians knew UFOs were from somewhere else as early as 1959. The Americans knew that too, he said, because both sides had the same type of satellite defense warning systems.

keyholepublishing.com...

Scientist Romilyav Remenko, one of the chief designers of the Russian Star Wars program, says the Soviet Government knew UFOs were from somewhere else since Day One of the Space Race



The Russians were caught in the deceit like much of everyone else an later would not want to admit it.

What kind of deceit are you refering to? Do you have any link to prove your point?


They may know more about the Allen Belt and may have burned a bunch of astonauts there.

The Russians reportedly lost some Cosmonauts out in space during the early days of the space race, yes, frozen dead Cosmonaut body still moving away from this solar system...


Very few people participted in the Russian space program.

How few people are you talking about? Any link to prove your point?


The russian revoution was fianced from Wall Street. Lend-Lease was a costly transfer.

Are you able to prove it? Any link to prove your point?


The whole soviet propaganda was built on lies.

Prove it.


Enough to keep Russians quiet if needed.

What part of russians were told to keep quiet are you refering to? www.ufoevidence.org...

Another of our meetings put us across the table from the Ministry of Defense official who is in charge of the current study. By agreement, we are not yet able to make his name public, but we can give the name of the study, "Thread-3." One illuminating section of those papers contains details of UFO sightings by Soviet cosmonauts. Unlike American astronauts' reluctance to talk about the subject, Soviet references to UFOs were reported from the very beginning, with Yuri Gagarin himself. In the documents, Gagarin is quoted as saying UFOs are real, they fly at incredible speeds and that he would tell more about what he had seen in orbit - provided he be given permission to do so.

During the Soviet era everything was secret in the Soviet Union and Soviet citizens were told to keep quiet about many things, yes, and there could be a good chance that even Gagarin could have been told to keep quiet about the UFOs he reportedly witnessed during his spaceflight.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Snakey
 



Most of the stuff around the Apollo is speculation. I have learned nothing about the moon gravity despite 6 missions to the moon. That is not speculation. We already knew about the moons rotation cicles and what we didn't we could speculate from the laws of physics. These speculations, especially those concerning the moons gravity and the lack of athmosphere and how a man would behave in such environment.hoped to be resolved with the Apollo missions. The evidence was hoped to be presented in form of interaction of the astronauts on the moon in its specific conditions. The medium were videos and written reports of the astronauts themselfes. Seat back and take a look what has been given. An Astronaut did spread some dust, threw a golf ball and hammer and they all did some modest bunny hopping back and forth. All very obscure and unconvincing. 6 missions to the moon and my knowledge of the moons gravity is the same as it could have been without the missions.


What did you expect to learn about the Moon's gravity? What else is there to know? As for the information gleaned from the Apollo mission, there are volumes of instrument readings both of the astronaut's metabolic rates and the lunar environment. The rock and soil samples continue to be analyzed to this day, and new papers are constantly being published about them. What am I missing here?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


For the record, the Italian brothers' recordings are believed to be a hoax. Even if they are real, the orbits of the spacecraft would have decayed by now. The early orbital spacecraft were in very low Earth orbit.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Snakey
 


What did you expect to learn about the Moon's gravity? What else is there to know? As for the information gleaned from the Apollo mission, there are volumes of instrument readings both of the astronaut's metabolic rates and the lunar environment. The rock and soil samples continue to be analyzed to this day, and new papers are constantly being published about them. What am I missing here?


So tell me why they never wanted to show people how the moons gravity works. I repeat again. 6 MISSIONS. You are on the camera. You are in the moons gravity. Billions of dollars spent. #less Risks. Then what you do? You are just bunny hopping from place to place and spray some dust around and shout "hey, look like this dust fly on the moon" But even the dust refused to impress, not that it could impress much. You need bigger and heavier objects to show how they behave on the moon. Throw them, up, forward, rotate them. squeze. Show it clearly to the camera. Describe it in you reports. Jump high. Lets forget the jumping part. You will say it was too dangerous to jump and so forth. Kidergarden kids would have thought of better ways to impress people on the moon and show how the moons gravity works. Why NASA never consulted a kindergarden?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Snakey
 



So tell me why they never wanted to show people how the moons gravity works. I repeat again. 6 MISSIONS. You are on the camera. You are in the moons gravity. Billions of dollars spent. #less Risks. Then what you do? You are just bunny hopping from place to place and spray some dust around and shout "hey, look like this dust fly on the moon" But even the dust refused to impress, not that it could impress much. You need bigger and heavier objects to show how they behave on the moon. Throw them, up, forward, rotate them. squeze. Show it clearly to the camera. Describe it in you reports. Jump high. Lets forget the jumping part. You will say it was too dangerous to jump and so forth. Kidergarden kids would have thought of better ways to impress people on the moon and show how the moons gravity works. Why NASA never consulted a kindergarden?


Got it. You wanted NASA to spend billions of dollars not to collect scientific data, but to do tricks to entertain kindergarten children. Sorry. Perhaps this video will entertain you:




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Snakey
 



So tell me why they never wanted to show people how the moons gravity works. I repeat again. 6 MISSIONS. You are on the camera. You are in the moons gravity. Billions of dollars spent. #less Risks. Then what you do? You are just bunny hopping from place to place and spray some dust around and shout "hey, look like this dust fly on the moon" But even the dust refused to impress, not that it could impress much. You need bigger and heavier objects to show how they behave on the moon. Throw them, up, forward, rotate them. squeze. Show it clearly to the camera. Describe it in you reports. Jump high. Lets forget the jumping part. You will say it was too dangerous to jump and so forth. Kidergarden kids would have thought of better ways to impress people on the moon and show how the moons gravity works. Why NASA never consulted a kindergarden?



Got it. You wanted NASA to spend billions of dollars not to collect scientific data, but to do tricks to entertain kindergarten children. Sorry. Perhaps this video will entertain you:



errr, thanks, I more like expected to see some solid large objects, even a football would do. It wouldn't cost billions to transport a football to the moon. The bag's shape shifting and all, I quess it may do, beggars can't be choosers. Do you know what kind of bag is that. Exact dimensions and material it was made from, best to see a copy of the product. Is the other formless object he chucked in straight line horizontly also a bag? Why didn't he throw it across the camera so the throw and how far it went could be seen better. Sorry to be a pain.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 



Like i previously said, i just know what he was thinking.


In that case, I just know that most natural satellites are tidally locked. End of discussion.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
In that case, I just know that most natural satellites are tidally locked.

Nope, you don't know that... But, i tell you what, why don't you ask NASA to let them built a spacecraft that is able to travel very close to every natural satellite in this solar system, so NASA scientists finally can determine how many natural satellites that are 'tidally locked' to their planet ?
edit on 12-8-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snakey
errr, thanks, I more like expected to see some solid large objects, even a football would do. It wouldn't cost billions to transport a football to the moon. The bag's shape shifting and all, I quess it may do, beggars can't be choosers. Do you know what kind of bag is that. Exact dimensions and material it was made from, best to see a copy of the product. Is the other formless object he chucked in straight line horizontly also a bag? Why didn't he throw it across the camera so the throw and how far it went could be seen better. Sorry to be a pain.

I think i understand your frustration and doubts... www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Q: Did our astronauts really go there? AC: I know there has been a lot of talk about this. Many of the pictures that you have seen from the surface of the moon were faked, because the actual pictures showed that there was "stuff" all over the place. Yes, they did go, but there was manipulation of the result involved.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
One More Time...

Hi People,

There have been a few Staff Requests for posters to remain civil in their debates/discussions.
So...a reminder.

Please keep things focussed on the topic - rather than eachother.

All good to be passionate with your viewpoints, not so good to be poisonous with them.


Keep it chilled please.



Cheers



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


from your link:


The astronauts were told to shut up and not say anything. Morenae has told me that the gravity on the bottom of Copernicus crater is equal to that in Chicago, Illinois. Apparently, it is not the rotation of planets that creates gravity, but some aspect of solar radiation.


say what??? this is news to me but "some aspect of solar radiation creates gravity"?? what the heck is he on about?? you seem to know what he is thinking so maybe you can help me here... actually i dont even know why he says rotation was not what creates gravity, that i didnt even know neither.. as far as i know mass creates gravity anything with mass has gravity.. i dont know what solar radiation or rotation has got to do with it, rotation might be able to reduce it in places but it would be nearly insignificant.

also Cassini–Huygens visited titan which is tidally locked with saturn.. nearly all moons are tidally locked with their respective planets.. and observations of these moons is easier than observations of mercury.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
say what??? this is news to me but "some aspect of solar radiation creates gravity"?? what the heck is he on about?? you seem to know what he is thinking so maybe you can help me here... actually i dont even know why he says rotation was not what creates gravity, that i didnt even know neither.. as far as i know mass creates gravity anything with mass has gravity.. i dont know what solar radiation or rotation has got to do with it, rotation might be able to reduce it in places but it would be nearly insignificant.

I understand your confusions about this, look i know that a lot of what Alex Collier says sounds so far out that makes you wonder. www.abovetopsecret.com... en.wikipedia.org...

The gravity of Earth, denoted g, refers to the acceleration that the Earth imparts to objects on or near its surface. In SI units this acceleration is measured in metres per second per second (in symbols, m/s2 or m·s-2) or equivalently in newtons per kilogram (N/kg or N·kg-1). It has an approximate value of 9.81 m/s2, which means that, ignoring the effects of air resistance, the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 metres (about 32.2 ft) per second every second. This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g (in contrast, the gravitational constant G is referred to as big G).

There is a direct relationship between gravitational acceleration and the downwards weight force experienced by objects on Earth, given by the equation F = ma (force = mass × acceleration). However, other factors such as the rotation of the Earth also contribute to the net acceleration.

Furthermore, the net force exerted on an object due to the Earth, called "effective gravity" or "apparent gravity", varies due to the presence of other factors, such as inertial response to the Earth's rotation.

It states that "effective gravity" varies due to response to Earth's rotation, and in that Moon and Mars Lecture Alex Collier said >>Apparently, it is not the rotation of planets that creates gravity, but some aspect of solar radiation. I know this flies in the face of what you have been told, but it is a fact.Now, while Alex and I are each in telepathic contact with different commanders from different Andromeda Council flagged biospheres; my five (5) contacts, including Tania, the Vice Chairwoman of the Andromeda Council itself, they are on the primary Andromeda Council biosphere where many of the formal Andromeda Council, advisory board & sub-committee meetings are held. Please see the page 2. of this web site regarding the composition of the Andromeda Council: www.andromedacouncil.com/about.html And; Moranae, Alex Collier's now primary contact, because as Alex has said Vassaeus has transcended to the next dimension of life, Moranae is the commander of a different Andromeda Council flagged biosphere where Alex has visited. Therefore, our information, the information he receives, the information I receive, it is segmented.>We were told we would see America come and go



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


yes yes i know how gravity works.. i even know that a planets rotation should reduce gravity of the planets but this reduction is neglible.

what i dont get is how mass of the planet is not what causes the planets gravity but solar radiation causes all planetry gravity.. maybe even all gravity..

so technically, according to you and Alex Collier, if we were completely shielded from solar radiation.. there would be no gravitational effects?

also what about Phobos.. it is tidally locked to Mars. we've studied it enough to know its orbit is decaying and that in about 11million years it will impact Mars.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
what i dont get is how mass of the planet is not what causes the planets gravity but solar radiation causes all planetry gravity.. maybe even all gravity..

so technically, according to you and Alex Collier, if we were completely shielded from solar radiation.. there would be no gravitational effects?

Not according to me, but according to 'Moranae' as Alex Collier claim to be in contact with, who reportedly "tell" Collier that solar radiation cause gravity, so you have to ask Alex Collier that question.


also what about Phobos.. it is tidally locked to Mars. we've studied it enough to know its orbit is decaying and that in about 11million years it will impact Mars.

Are you sure Phobos is tidally locked to Mars? Remember, those interpretations are still based on theories. I don't think observations from satellites are good enough. I still think NASA need to built a spacecraft that is able to fly and stop very close to every moon to see how many moons that are actually "tidally locked" to their planet. Do you think Phobos will impact Mars in about 11 million years? Remember, the scientists determine that the Moon moves about 3.8 centimeters away from Earth each year, and they use mirrors placed on the Moon's surface by the astronauts to measure the distance between Earth and Moon.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegagefather
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.
edit on 17-5-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)


Awsome post....

I've talked to a lot of people. Everyone just thinks we went to the moon no matter what you say. I have a theory on it. Like say your a kid and your parent constantly is teaching you some lie. You grow up with that lie. Then later as an adult you start to realize that everything points toward the fact that what your parent told you was a lie. Even still you'll have a hard to breaking away from that brainwashing and recognizing that it was a lie. This is typical with cults.

So most everyone learned about the moon landings as kids. So it's the exact same thing. It's sort of a core value of society. Kinda one of the linch pins. If you remove that then it's start to unravel everything. So a lot of people don't want to believe that there could be anything else that what they hear from main stream media. And they've been so brainwashed that even if you show them evidence like this movie which clearly shows it was a hoax, most still won't believe. It's too much of a mental leap.

It really has nothing to do with evidence at this point. It has more to do with psychological deprogramming.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 



I've talked to a lot of people. Everyone just thinks we went to the moon no matter what you say.


You mean no matter what you say. Quoting information "channeled" by beings from Andromeda just won't pursuade some people. Imagine that.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I think the astronauts were on a holly wood set. But meanwhile before and after they were inside a sophisticated MKultra experiement. It tricked them into thinking they were on the moon.

WATCH THIS.... Darren Brown shows you it's possible....

edit on 20-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snakey

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Snakey
 



So tell me why they never wanted to show people how the moons gravity works. I repeat again. 6 MISSIONS. You are on the camera. You are in the moons gravity. Billions of dollars spent. #less Risks. Then what you do? You are just bunny hopping from place to place and spray some dust around and shout "hey, look like this dust fly on the moon" But even the dust refused to impress, not that it could impress much. You need bigger and heavier objects to show how they behave on the moon. Throw them, up, forward, rotate them. squeze. Show it clearly to the camera. Describe it in you reports. Jump high. Lets forget the jumping part. You will say it was too dangerous to jump and so forth. Kidergarden kids would have thought of better ways to impress people on the moon and show how the moons gravity works. Why NASA never consulted a kindergarden?



Got it. You wanted NASA to spend billions of dollars not to collect scientific data, but to do tricks to entertain kindergarten children. Sorry. Perhaps this video will entertain you:



errr, thanks, I more like expected to see some solid large objects, even a football would do. It wouldn't cost billions to transport a football to the moon. The bag's shape shifting and all, I quess it may do, beggars can't be choosers. Do you know what kind of bag is that. Exact dimensions and material it was made from, best to see a copy of the product. Is the other formless object he chucked in straight line horizontly also a bag? Why didn't he throw it across the camera so the throw and how far it went could be seen better. Sorry to be a pain.


Wow, 1920's hollywood special effects. I wonder what they could do by the 70's? oh ya.... Star Trek!
edit on 20-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
67
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in

join