Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by snowen20
Moon structures, anecdotal or otherwise are in my opinion infinity cooler than the idea of a freaking moon hoax.


Yeah, welcome to the garbage bin of conspiracy theories. From ALL such theories, the "structures on the moon/mars" theories are IMO the dumbest, worst researched and argued. The internet is full of claims about "structures", all it takes is usually JPEG/pixel artifacts with the rest classic cases of pareidolia...add "reputable" (lol) people like Hoagland etc. and you have the bottom of really, really bad pseudo-science.



I know right. I used to be a jerk on here and troll the mars structures threads years ago. I just admitted to it now.
While I dont discount the possibility that there may be structures on mars crafted by means other than nature, I certainly have never seen anything in the realm of even soft evidence let alone solid. The moon on the other hands seemed to yield slightly different results. I say that while laughing..

The moon hoax debate, I always felt was just too bland of a conspiracy topic so I avoided it until today. I'm still open to possibilities, but I accept nothing until the strongest evidence presents itself. Ultimately I think it comes down to your personality type. Do you have a propensity to believe in things counter to accepted truth, or are you a mainline personality? Whatever the answer will determine your fate as it were.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.


You really worked for NASA?
Thats really neat

So whats the deal? I know its so compartmentalized, so you might not have any exclusives...but still any good alien stories?
Don't listen to me. I don't want to get you killed. Lol. Thanks for joining the conversation though...and adding your own opinion to the thread.n



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.




Yeah, tell us about moon structures and how we couldn't go to the moon because of aliens not allowing it. Or sending us back after we had been there forcing us to hoax it... Whatever, just include "moon structures" in your story and I'll read it!
edit on 30-9-2012 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 

LOL. Yah, it seems its all a distraction designed to pull your mind from the more important issues before the world.

Filters on.

And by the way... (snicker) the launches and assembly building were holograms, tee hee hee.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Moon/ Mars believers ~ 9/11 believers -They are cut from the cloth. I



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Who really knows, i believe that today we can go to the moon, not sure back then. Its easy to see why the government would feel the need to do such a thing since it was a battle with Russia to see who would get there. Russia has so many more man hours put into this they had a lot more experience yet they just seem like they weren't able to.

The van Allen belts are another issue that i wonder how that worked out even back then when not much was known about it. But people getting too close to it would report bright lights even if they closed their eyes since apparently radiation would penetrate the eyelids and go directly in to the brain (who knows if true or not). Many miles of radiation all around the earth, not sure how they made it through considering they did not have the protection to deal with it.

Speaking of radiation while on the moon makes me wonder how the astronauts dealt with space radiation/debris/micro rocks and the temperature of the sun that at such capacities could melt film not to mention boil them inside the suit.

Overall its just the amount of discrepancies that go alone with the whole mission. Too many things that even if an explanation are eventually given ( even if they don't fully satisfy the inquiry) just seem to pop out and hurt the credibility of the mission.

I would bet that most likely they did make it there but simply could not film or it was not sufficient for the public so they filmed stuff for people to watch that was not on the moon or just as likely it dident happen. I mean we haven't been been there in 40years how come?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.


WOW ARE YOU SERIOUS???

Oh man that's crazy! That's very interesting! Interesting to hear your prospective for sure. So you were you privy to anything that led creedence for or against that you found in your time there?

Well I just sort of go by the money trail. When I see people who can put together a nearly similar video for a few thousand, and yet the budget on the apollo project was 100 billion, to me it just doesn't add up.

There' another thing that seems so obvious to me. When they went to the moon the photos and the videos look stagged. The reason being that the video camera never moves in any significant panning, such as doing a 360 or pointing up. I've never seen even once them do that. That's classic hollywood. When you watch a movie and are filming a scene they don't do a 360. Why? because you'd see the film crew and lighting obviously. That's exactly the same with the moon landing.

Another example of the 360. I was at the burningman festival. I did a full 360 many times. My camera was up down round and round. Anyone watching my video would know that was a true video. And there's a gazillion videos like this.

Another example Someone's at a camp site. They have the video camera. They're filming and keeping the camera rolling... They point this way to show the lake, then pan this way to show the friends, they walk over hear pan this way to show the tent, pan another way to show there jeep, another way to show the mountains. It's not a movie shoot where they can only do one little area and then ALWAYS HAVE TO TURN OFF THE CAMERA. Like it's so obvious they had to turn off the camera after every scene because it's a movie shoot. That's exactly how you film a movie, scene by scene. Heck even most movies they pan around more than they did with the appollo scene.

And if you watch some of these moon hoax documentaries they're talking about hundreds of issues that aren't properly explained as to how they pulled it off. some I'm sure they could have an explanation perhaps but I've never ever heard anyone explain all of them. And NEVER from a 3rd party scientist. It's always some paid NASA hack doing the explaining. And there asnswers are usually half azz.

The other thing I hav a big problem with is this. When they ended the program why would they dismantal "everything". Like everythign was cut up, gotten rid off etc etc. That makes ZERO SENSE! That only makes sense if you want to hide something. My thought is wouldn't they put everything away in a safe place, just in case at some point one day you might want to go back? Like if it was real and that's the earths ONLY VEHICLE to go there you wouldn't destroy it. You'd save it for a rainy day.

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now...and Thanks for sharing.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager.


I don't buy ONE BIT that someone is working for NASA for a decade while being skeptical of their missions as being "real". Sorry, I don't buy this. Try harder.


Why is that hard to believe. It happens ALL THE TIME. Someone joins a big company and in time becomes privy to enough information and enough conversations with insiders that they start to find out top secret information, or at least get much closer to the truth. So they start to form opinions based on that. Does that mean they're gonna quit there job and go live on the street? NO. Not many would give up there career even if they found damning evidence. They worked way to hard and long to be where they're at. And then often many won't say much either online or offline in fear that if it gets back to there boss they could be fired for just having that opinion. Like your gonna be very tight lipped. No different that I'm sure the culture in the see-eye ah, 5tagon and other big secret organizations.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I don't get it. Why would NASA fake the moon landings? Although I can't personally start a space program, it doesn't seem like it's difficult to do, just expensive as hell. So expensive that the US are the only ones that could afford to do it many times.

I just don't see the point of why NASA would fake it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamusic

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.


You really worked for NASA?
Thats really neat

So whats the deal? I know its so compartmentalized, so you might not have any exclusives...but still any good alien stories?
Don't listen to me. I don't want to get you killed. Lol. Thanks for joining the conversation though...and adding your own opinion to the thread.n


All this talk about grades in her post leads me to think it's an authentic account. NASA has academic types working there obviously so they'd quickly gauge there peers based on intellect. so when they'd run into people who don't seem like they would make the grade they might stand out in that crowd. Like "how did you get in here anyway"?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
Moon/ Mars believers ~ 9/11 believers -They are cut from the cloth. I...


See look this person was just about to reveal top secret intel when it looks like they probably got black bagged!



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CesarO
Who really knows, i believe that today we can go to the moon, not sure back then. Its easy to see why the government would feel the need to do such a thing since it was a battle with Russia to see who would get there. Russia has so many more man hours put into this they had a lot more experience yet they just seem like they weren't able to.

The van Allen belts are another issue that i wonder how that worked out even back then when not much was known about it. But people getting too close to it would report bright lights even if they closed their eyes since apparently radiation would penetrate the eyelids and go directly in to the brain (who knows if true or not). Many miles of radiation all around the earth, not sure how they made it through considering they did not have the protection to deal with it.

Speaking of radiation while on the moon makes me wonder how the astronauts dealt with space radiation/debris/micro rocks and the temperature of the sun that at such capacities could melt film not to mention boil them inside the suit.

Overall its just the amount of discrepancies that go alone with the whole mission. Too many things that even if an explanation are eventually given ( even if they don't fully satisfy the inquiry) just seem to pop out and hurt the credibility of the mission.

I would bet that most likely they did make it there but simply could not film or it was not sufficient for the public so they filmed stuff for people to watch that was not on the moon or just as likely it dident happen. I mean we haven't been been there in 40years how come?


The claim is that they'd only be in the van allen belt for a few hours. And they'd have sheilding (not the half foot of lead that they'd need) but some other sheilding? Who knows what really. That would protect them to some degree. So they claim the exposure would be minimal. Seems outrageous to me. At 70 rad you got the runs at 120 rad your puking. At 200 you'd be incapacitated. One solar flare gives off something like 950 rad. It would kill them instantly. But yet they dodged the flares, got threw the van allen, managed not to run into any solar flares on any mission. and also didn't run into any other radiation that is surging threw space coming from all over! Amazing! They did it, they're hero's hurrayy hurrraaw!! Sounds like a movie. And ya there's hundreds of discrepencies that they somehow overcame, crazy. To me that makes me think it's why they now only do rover missions. Which I think are faked in area 51 or something. Less to have to explain.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
both russia and china didnt have the tech to track spacecraft at that time. the yanks would have easily gotten away with pulling this off.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
both russia and china didnt have the tech to track spacecraft at that time. the yanks would have easily gotten away with pulling this off.



That's a good point. All the evidence basically point to "Shakainery!"



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I have spent a lot of time delving into this subject, over the course of many years. I started looking into it because I too thought they could have been faked. But after all the time and research, there is no doubt in my mind that we did indeed go to the moon. There is just too much evidence confirming this, not to mention the tens of thousands of people who were involved with these missions in one fashion or another. For instance, there were companies who designed and built a working lunar module, command module, spacesuit, etc., etc., and all of these things worked after the bugs were removed.

There were the programmers who worked tirelessly creating the operating system for the computers inside the spacecrafts, and there are countless stories involving thousands of people that just cannot be faked. And they would have had to have been faked if we didn't go to the moon. And there would have to have been a LOT of people in on the action. Something like this could not be done without much help.

The American people could have been fooled more easily than the engineers and other experts associated with the space program at that time, and out of all those people, there would be many instances of people claiming the moon landings were faked. Instead, what we have is many people who get offended when people who believe this nonsense try and detract from the ingenuity and hard work of those involved.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
both russia and china didnt have the tech to track spacecraft at that time.


WTF? you have no clue at all, amateur radio operators were able to track it, why do you think Russia and China could not have done it? Source for the claim they could not track it please..

Why do you ignore the Venera, Zond, Lunokhod etc series of Soviet missions?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
both russia and china didnt have the tech to track spacecraft at that time. the yanks would have easily gotten away with pulling this off.

I emplore you to google a bit more about your claim sir the russians allready had a probe
on the moon the capabilites were there..

Here, this took me two minutes to find sir.
Read carefully please:


A series of Soviet Moon probes, including orbiters, landers, and sample-return craft, launched between 1959 and 1976. Lunas were the first manmade objects to reach escape velocity, crash into the Moon, photograph the Moon's farside, soft land on the Moon, automatically return lunar surface material to Earth, and deploy a rover on the Moon's surface. Following the success of the first three Lunas (known in the West as "Luniks"), was a gap of three and a half years while the Soviets developed a more sophisticated strategy for lunar exploration. This involved placing a probe in a temporary parking orbit around Earth before firing a rocket to put the craft on a lunar trajectory – in principle, a more accurate method than direct ascent (that is, shooting straight at the Moon from the ground). However Lunas 4 through 8 all failed, for various reasons, in their attempts to soft-land. Success came again with Luna 9, the first spacecraft to send back photos from the lunar surface. Lunas 10-12 and 14 were orbiters, designed in part to provide detailed photographic maps and collect other data that were essential to the Soviet manned lunar program. Then came a sudden shift in emphasis. With the Moon Race lost to the Americans, the Soviets began launching much larger Lunas – three times more massive than the earlier craft-requiring the more powerful but less reliable Proton rocket. Several of the new generation of Lunas (though not officially named as such) were left stranded in Earth orbit before Luna 15 was successfully placed on a lunar trajectory just two days ahead of Apollo 11. Its audacious mission, to upstage Apollo 11, ended when it crashed on Jul. 21 just as Armstrong and Aldrin were preparing to leave the Moon. Subsequent heavy Luna's, however, were for the most part highly successful, returning several samples along with other valuable data and delivering the first automated rovers to explore another world.


www.daviddarling.info...
edit on 1-10-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
both russia and china didnt have the tech to track spacecraft at that time. the yanks would have easily gotten away with pulling this off.

I sum this up in two words Ham - radios, also you may like to read this link
So the general public are in on this conspiracy too??

www.svengrahn.pp.se...

400thousand people i.e engineers, general public too?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
Moon/ Mars believers ~ 9/11 believers -They are cut from the cloth. I

'Oh ye of little faith sir, "please read the links in my posts on here..



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
neil said it best



"People love conspiracy theories," Armstrong replied. "I mean, they are very attractive. But it was never a concern to me because I know one day, somebody is going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left."



What an arbitrary declaration by Neil.

Would be nice if it were true...but, since we now know that Mars is the new Moon, and the Moon lost it's appeal to NASA for some reason, they will not be going to the Moon for some time...if ever. So this proof Neil speaks of, will most likely never be picked up by a human hand. Even if somebody goes up there again, who will it be ? A NASA astronaut or you and me ? And if it's some kinda astronaut...you think he would report back all puffed up...: "Hey people, I just landed, and there is no trace of the rovers...!?!?"

doubt it...

This statement from Neil is nothing more than a taunting a legless horse with a carrot..."sure it's up there...when you get there you will see it"...great, Neil. Thanks.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join