Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 29
43
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So.. Let me understand your logic. The method by which they came to learn shielding wasn't adequate, ALSO serves as the basis for your assertion that such a thing never happened?

Have you..umm..considered the nature of that argument from a few steps back? It's ..contradictory, as the nicest way I can think to describe it.

The fact they partially cooked some astronauts in the process OF discovering what wouldn't work ...*IS HOW* they can now say that is entirely insufficient to use for future trips beyond low orbit. I'd say the fact the men who went generally lived long afterward attests to their topmost levels of fitness at the time they endured what they did. I'm glad NASA was almost draconian about the screening process I've read those men went through to be selected. "The Right Stuff", indeed!


Are you saying some of the astronauts who supposedly went to the moon were "partially cooked"? What do you mean here?

And the radiation beyond LEO is extremely hazardous to all human beings, no matter how fit and healthy they are. That goes for Apollo astronauts, too! ,




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos

so basically what you are saying is that all those articles you have posted/refering to have unequivocally proven that man cannot land on the moon as of today?


Yes.


Originally posted by choos
strange how all the experts who are/have been reading it have said nothing about how it proves man cant land on the moon?


It is very strange, because you don't understand the reason for their total silence.


Originally posted by choos

and strange how NASA wont even try to hide such articles from being published..


You just alluded to the reason NASA doesn't hide the articles. The experts never try to link their findings to Apollo. If they did, it would obviously crush the Apollo story. So they just mention it briefly and move along.


Originally posted by choos

werent these the tyrants that was able to keep every single person involved in the missions (from manufacturing to the astronauts) quiet until and beyond their deathbeds?


Yes they were. And that's why the experts won't speak about it, or even question it in the least. That's the reason for their silence.


total silence??? the experts have finally broken their silence and exposed NASA and the US gov.. and yet nothing has happened to them or the articles or the sites that the articles have been posted.. see the hole yet?

according to you, the big myth has been unveiled.. yet the big boogey man has done nothing.. the myth has been lifted slightly, sort of like a warning.. yet before it becomes a big deal.. nothing has happened.. where is the big man to come clean up the whistleblowers??.. i mean they were able to keep thousands of experts/people involved silent for over 40 years.. did they retire?


That could be said for most things, couldn't it? For example, a manned Mars mission would be hazardous, but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s). But a manned mission to Mars is not possible today. Nor is a manned mission to the moon possible today. Nor a manned mission beyond LEO. We are making progress towards those goals, but it's not possible today.


your example is contradictory.. you say a manned mission to mars is not possible today but you say that it does not mean its an insumountable obstacle. so what you are saying is as of today's technology it is impossble for a manned mission to mars, but it does not mean its impossible for a manned mission to mars?

being hazardous does not mean impossible.

p.s. its hazardous for children to run near a pool.. so judging by how you say astronauts cant go beyond LEO because its hazardous.. children must be dying as soon as they run near pools
edit on 5-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

total silence??? the experts have finally broken their silence and exposed NASA and the US gov.. and yet nothing has happened to them or the articles or the sites that the articles have been posted.. see the hole yet?

according to you, the big myth has been unveiled.. yet the big boogey man has done nothing.. the myth has been lifted slightly, sort of like a warning.. yet before it becomes a big deal.. nothing has happened.. where is the big man to come clean up the whistleblowers??.. i mean they were able to keep thousands of experts/people involved silent for over 40 years.. did they retire?


They have NOT broken their silence on Apollo being a hoax. They don't actually say it's a hoax, their findings alone reveal it was a hoax, by simply connecting the dots. You aren't willing to do that, however.

What if the experts DID say it was a hoax? Would you accept it was a hoax then? If not, then why not? A lot of people would be shocked to hear it was a hoax, coming from the experts themselves,

Do you see the difference if the experts were actually saying it was a hoax? It's clearly not the same thing, is it?

NASA doesn't care about the experts because they don't say Apollo was fake, period.


Originally posted by choos

your example is contradictory.. you say a manned mission to mars is not possible today but you say that it does not mean its an insumountable obstacle. so what you are saying is as of today's technology it is impossble for a manned mission to mars, but it does not mean its impossible for a manned mission to mars?

being hazardous does not mean impossible.

p.s. its hazardous for children to run near a pool.. so judging by how you say astronauts cant go beyond LEO because its hazardous.. children must be dying as soon as they run near pools
edit on 5-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


Being hazardous can mean impossible TODAY.

A manned Mars mission is not possible today. That does not mean it is impossible. It may be possible in the future, but not right now. Same as a manned moon mission.

No contradiction here.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

They have NOT broken their silence on Apollo being a hoax. They don't actually say it's a hoax, their findings alone reveal it was a hoax, by simply connecting the dots. You aren't willing to do that, however.

What if the experts DID say it was a hoax? Would you accept it was a hoax then? If not, then why not? A lot of people would be shocked to hear it was a hoax, coming from the experts themselves,

Do you see the difference if the experts were actually saying it was a hoax? It's clearly not the same thing, is it?

NASA doesn't care about the experts because they don't say Apollo was fake, period.


again.. you, are able to connect the dots to the conspiracy, but tptb are not able to? they can pull off faking man landing on the moon, but they cant connect two simple dots that you are able to? didnt they have to fudge the results from how much radiation was out there?? yet they dont bother with anything here?

why would NASA not care about the experts?? this is their reputation that is on the line. yet something so small now they will just let it get big before they silence the experts?? do they enjoy the challenge do they?


Being hazardous can mean impossible TODAY.

A manned Mars mission is not possible today. That does not mean it is impossible. It may be possible in the future, but not right now. Same as a manned moon mission.

No contradiction here.


by the way, do you know the meaning of hazardous?

because from what im getting from you, beyond LEO is hazardous which to you means impossible to survive a trip beyond LEO.
so when you say "a manned Mars mission would be hazardous, but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s)."
you are really saying "a manned Mars mission is impossible(hazardous), but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s)"

see the contradiction?

or does "hazardous" now leave the possibility that they could survive beyond LEO?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Poor choice of words perhaps... Of course they were. Even the Shuttle Astronauts had to be very aware of exposure times and conditions for their time in orbit and what they did there. It's a hostile place up there. That doesn't mean Apollo and the multiple landings didn't happen and it's absurd to contend that.

Do you, for instance, believe the Soviet Union was 'in on it' to make the US look better than they and win the 'Space Race' during the very height of the cold war? You can bet the world, Moscow was watching as close or closer than NASA was, for every tiny detail of every single mission. First, to learn without the effort of doing it themselves (a perfectly logical thing) but also to make sure nothing went wrong that America tried to hide or whitewash. I think it would have given Russia a full blown moment of ecstasy to have busted NASA on lying about a failure. Any failure. After all, we never missed a chance to run their nose in the mud on any little glitch they had.

It wasn't just a nation who watched the early stages of the program like hawks, but the entire world. Not just lay people with no basis for knowledge to what they saw or ways to independently confirm it ...but experts and scientists who had every reason to debunk it then, on the spot and let nothing slide.

All these people....to the last person...were in on this Super-Hoax? You realize, it was easier in the end to just go to the Moon than to orchestrate this level of a show and cover-up without a single major error or set of big loose lips?
edit on 5-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Here's an interesting one.

China has lots of money, so does Russia.

Can we really believe these 2 countries haven't yet caught up to the level of NASA 1969 moon landing technology.

10 years late in developing this technology is embarrassing. 20 years late, what can you say?
But to still not have the technology 44 years later is more than a little strange.

Although, not strange at all if said moon landing technology never existed and there never was an appropriate way to shield the astronauts.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Except the only reason for going to the moon at the time was propaganda really. There hasn't been a reason to go back until now, and even now people don't want to spend the money and go back. Until very recently, Russia didn't have the money to spend, they were barely able to keep their military functioning until a couple of years ago.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


That's an interesting point. I wonder why that is the case?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Here's an interesting one.
China has lots of money, so does Russia.
Can we really believe these 2 countries haven't yet caught up to the level of NASA 1969 moon landing technology.

This is not exactly the case. Soviet Union abandoned their Moon program as soon as it became obvious they can't put the first man on the Moon. There is a book titled "Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration" and some other sources which contain a lot of facts. For example, I learned that Soviets built and even tested their own lunar module. The main differences were it had room for one cosmonaut only, and the landing platform was detachable and had no engine of its own. Instead it had a hole in the center through which the same engine provided thrust for landing and takeoff. But the most interesting part was the precautions they had to take to allow for the mission to be successful. First of all, they planned to first send an unmanned rover with a reserve oxygen supply and a reserve takeoff module in case the main module gets damaged upon landing. The only cosmonaut (propably Alexey Leonov, since he volunteered) would have to use a lead umbrella during his stay on the moon surface. This was an obligatory requirement. Basically the well-known Soyuz vehicles were first designed to be used in the Soviet Moon mission. The only real problem the Soviets got back then was the N-1 rocket. But after the news that the U.S. supposedly made it, the Soviets decided to abandon that project. However, there is one more reason why it ended despite so much tech was developed, the death of the lead designer Sergei Korolev. He even had plans to go to Mars. And taking into account the fact that he was the main figure behind putting the first human into orbit, who knows... Anyway, the mission was considered very risky, about 50/50 chance of success. Leonov offered to risk his life, but was denied this opportunity.
edit on 6-5-2013 by mrkeen because: spelling and other minor edits



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

again.. you, are able to connect the dots to the conspiracy, but tptb are not able to? they can pull off faking man landing on the moon, but they cant connect two simple dots that you are able to? didnt they have to fudge the results from how much radiation was out there?? yet they dont bother with anything here?

why would NASA not care about the experts?? this is their reputation that is on the line. yet something so small now they will just let it get big before they silence the experts?? do they enjoy the challenge do they?


I didn't say tptb weren't able to connect the dots. They run the whole thing. What don't they know, for that matter?

NASA cares about the experts, for sure.

Why do they allow the experts' findings when it's clashing with the Apollo story?

Because the experts - all of them - are completely silent about it. And if the experts don't come forth, who cares if anyone else doubts it? All the experts surely know more about it than you or I do, right?

No need to silence the experts because they already ARE silent. Not one has ever said a word. It makes no sense unless there's a gag order, or the like.


Originally posted by choos

by the way, do you know the meaning of hazardous?

because from what im getting from you, beyond LEO is hazardous which to you means impossible to survive a trip beyond LEO.
so when you say "a manned Mars mission would be hazardous, but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s)."
you are really saying "a manned Mars mission is impossible(hazardous), but that does not mean insurmountable obstacle(s)"

see the contradiction?

or does "hazardous" now leave the possibility that they could survive beyond LEO?



Your quote was - 'hazardous does not mean impossible' - to paraphrase from memory. So what?

A hazard can be impossible to overcome today, that does not mean impossible for all eternity.

The quote means nothing on Apollo, or anything else, for that matter.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Poor choice of words perhaps... Of course they were. Even the Shuttle Astronauts had to be very aware of exposure times and conditions for their time in orbit and what they did there. It's a hostile place up there. That doesn't mean Apollo and the multiple landings didn't happen and it's absurd to contend that.

Do you, for instance, believe the Soviet Union was 'in on it' to make the US look better than they and win the 'Space Race' during the very height of the cold war? You can bet the world, Moscow was watching as close or closer than NASA was, for every tiny detail of every single mission. First, to learn without the effort of doing it themselves (a perfectly logical thing) but also to make sure nothing went wrong that America tried to hide or whitewash. I think it would have given Russia a full blown moment of ecstasy to have busted NASA on lying about a failure. Any failure. After all, we never missed a chance to run their nose in the mud on any little glitch they had.

It wasn't just a nation who watched the early stages of the program like hawks, but the entire world. Not just lay people with no basis for knowledge to what they saw or ways to independently confirm it ...but experts and scientists who had every reason to debunk it then, on the spot and let nothing slide.

All these people....to the last person...were in on this Super-Hoax? You realize, it was easier in the end to just go to the Moon than to orchestrate this level of a show and cover-up without a single major error or set of big loose lips?
edit on 5-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


A "Cold War" with a "Space Race", right?

Apollo-Soyuz ijoint mission in 1975, or just three years after Apollo 17.

'Hey, let's give a ring to the evil Commies and ask 'em if they'd like to link up in space!'

Mortal enemies my ass. It's just a show, in so many ways.


The JFK issue reveals it was all a sham. What enemy goes silent for such an atrocity? It's all a farce.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
A "Space Race" would be a race into space. There wasn't a "Moon Race".

The Soviets won the Space Race, being first in space , first man in space, etc/

There wasn't even a race to the moon in its title,



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Actually, in point of fact, there was a very real moon race. The efforts of the United States to land on the Moon may have been more meaningful and lasting, had it not been for the flat rush to be first and best, to avoid being trumped yet again in a major space-related first achievement.

The Soviets pulled a pee-wee herman to define the concept afterward, in brushing off the accomplishment, as if to say 'We meant to do that' ..and so, lost the race for that one. However, that doesn't re-write history to suggest they hadn't been busting out all effort to do it. They had.


Quite close, according to Piers Bizony: "Those who imagine Apollo had the Moon race to itself are wrong," he says.



The USSR was using a rocket called the Proton which is still in use today. The Soviets were sending payloads into space with a view to putting a cosmonaut into a so-called circumlunar flight which would take him around the Moon and straight home again without going into orbit.

They had flown an unmanned mission a few months before Apollo 8 that had taken just such a trajectory around Earth's natural satellite.

The Soviets had also built their own Moon rocket (known as the N-1) and their own lunar lander.
Source

^^ That's the short, MSM version. The following is the much more in-depth and 'Smithsonian' type account of the actual history where American and Soviet efforts are concerned. It's a real interesting read.

[19.4] SOYUZ IN DEVELOPMENT / SOVIET MANNED MOON FLIGHT PLANS


* The USSR had effectively started the Space Race, and established an early lead in "space spectaculars" due to the heavy ICBMs the USSR had developed. By placing the Apollo program on the fast track, Kennedy had raised the stakes.

The Soviets had actually included manned Moon missions in their long-range plans as far back as 1956, envisioning the use of atomic-powered rockets to do the job. That was little more than an item on a wish-list, and it wasn't until the early 1960s that more definite plans began to take form. Korolyev's OKB-1 was considering what to do after the first series of Vostok flights, and one option was to use an improved Vostok capsule as a core element of an assembly or "complex" of separate pieces launched by an R-7 derivative booster. The "Vostok complex", known as "Sever (West)" in the later phases of its development, would be able to perform a range of missions, including satellite inspection and interception, placing payloads in geostationary orbit, or performing a manned circumlunar expedition.
Source

That is basically a whole book, online and available for reading on the ins, outs and specifics of how each stage of both nation's space programs developed in isolation but in parallel. It might have been very interesting if the Soviets had gotten there first. I'm thinking it may well have compelled the U.S. to shoot for Mars as the next and last realistic milestone to be first on. It may have forced advancement where stagnation came to be the norm.
edit on 11-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Oh... I tried mightily..but can't resist including the last chapter of the online text, cited above.


[26.4] MOON HOAX?


In the end, the arguments of the CTs had no credibility, since they were based on a highly implausible premise. To pull off such a hoax would require a conspiracy involving the full knowledge of hundreds or thousands of people, including Mission Control, top NASA and government brass, all the astronauts, and whoever set up and implemented the fake movies. The idea that such a secret could be kept by such a large group of people for decades is hard to believe. Claiming there's an elephant in the room is one thing; saying it's invisible is another. Those asserting the existence of such a huge conspiracy provided no concrete specifics of its organization -- who gave the orders, what orders were given and when, and who carried out the orders -- as if no paper trail for or well-placed witnesses to such a complicated operation ever existed.
Source

It's obviously more than that one paragraph...but that sums it up pretty well for that one text's look at this aspect of the Moon landings and one of Man's greatest achievements.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

I didn't say tptb weren't able to connect the dots. They run the whole thing. What don't they know, for that matter?

NASA cares about the experts, for sure.

Why do they allow the experts' findings when it's clashing with the Apollo story?

Because the experts - all of them - are completely silent about it. And if the experts don't come forth, who cares if anyone else doubts it? All the experts surely know more about it than you or I do, right?

No need to silence the experts because they already ARE silent. Not one has ever said a word. It makes no sense unless there's a gag order, or the like.


but they are not completely silent.. these reports, according to you, unequivically prove that any biological thing cannot survive beyond LEO. these experts have publish a report in full view and with complete backing by NASA that they any living thing can survive beyond LEO. how is that complete silence?

p.s. how do you see the words of russians?? if the russian were able to send man or something back in the 60's-70's beyond LEO would you take that as true? or would they be lying?


Your quote was - 'hazardous does not mean impossible' - to paraphrase from memory. So what?

A hazard can be impossible to overcome today, that does not mean impossible for all eternity.

The quote means nothing on Apollo, or anything else, for that matter.


you are right the quote has nothing to do with apollo, but more to do with the word hazard.

tell me, in your opinion, if something or someone was exposed to something hazardous can they or can they not survive?
edit on 11-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
but they are not completely silent.. these reports, according to you, unequivically prove that any biological thing cannot survive beyond LEO. these experts have publish a report in full view and with complete backing by NASA that they any living thing can survive beyond LEO. how is that complete silence?


They are completely silent on what it means for the Apollo story. They don't say their findings prove Apollo was a hoax, or even raise the question. That's why NASA doesn't care about their findings, because the experts don't relate those findings to Apollo.

You've already proven I'm right on this. The experts published their findings, but they didn't connect the dots to Apollo. When I connected the dots to Apollo, you don't accept it. Because I'm not one of the experts, it holds no weight to you. But suppose the experts DID connect the dots, and state Apollo was a hoax - would you accept it coming from them? You'd have a big problem trying to dispute the experts then, wouldn't you?

Do you understand the point I'm making here? The experts would have to actually SAY that Apollo was a hoax to convince you (and the public in general), because their findings alone obviously aren't enough to convince you of it.


Originally posted by choos

p.s. how do you see the words of russians?? if the russian were able to send man or something back in the 60's-70's beyond LEO would you take that as true? or would they be lying?


This is all specuative, of course. The USSR didn't try a manned moon mission, but if they did, they'd most likely have to fake it - like Apollo - because they lacked the required technologies to do it, just like we lacked them.


Originally posted by choos

you are right the quote has nothing to do with apollo, but more to do with the word hazard.

tell me, in your opinion, if something or someone was exposed to something hazardous can they or can they not survive?
edit on 11-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


Obviously, that all depends on what the hazard is, and what protection there is against that hazard.

If a hazard was severe, someone would not survive that hazard unless they had adequate protection.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
They are completely silent on what it means for the Apollo story. They don't say their findings prove Apollo was a hoax, or even raise the question. That's why NASA doesn't care about their findings, because the experts don't relate those findings to Apollo.

You've already proven I'm right on this. The experts published their findings, but they didn't connect the dots to Apollo. When I connected the dots to Apollo, you don't accept it. Because I'm not one of the experts, it holds no weight to you. But suppose the experts DID connect the dots, and state Apollo was a hoax - would you accept it coming from them? You'd have a big problem trying to dispute the experts then, wouldn't you?

Do you understand the point I'm making here? The experts would have to actually SAY that Apollo was a hoax to convince you (and the public in general), because their findings alone obviously aren't enough to convince you of it.


but they are already hinting at the prospects, and that is not complete silence. according to you its impossible for any living thing to survive beyond LEO. why can such experts say such a thing which could become a major thing and yet live?

also you havent proven your point.. you only believe that because you only see what you want to see.. you dont actually realise that they are only saying there is an increased risk in an already risky mission. that in no way suggests that it is impossible. thats why everyone is still alive. the only reason you believe it to be the final nail in the coffin for NASA is because you believe that when someone says beyond LEO is hazardous, it must mean without a doubt that it is impossible to survive beyond LEO.

heres a definition for you
haz·ard·ous :
Adjective
Risky; dangerous.

the mission was full of dangers already. you should try to find out all the hazards on board. actually you should find out all the hazards for the space shuttle missions too, might scare you into thinking those were faked also. why not go further, driving a car when its been snowing/raining is very hazardous too better not drive at all.




This is all specuative, of course. The USSR didn't try a manned moon mission, but if they did, they'd most likely have to fake it - like Apollo - because they lacked the required technologies to do it, just like we lacked them.


actually lemme change it, what do you consider the words of russians?? are they credible or liars? like if they were to send some living thing beyond LEO it must be a lie right?



Obviously, that all depends on what the hazard is, and what protection there is against that hazard.

If a hazard was severe, someone would not survive that hazard unless they had adequate protection.


and so beyond LEO is a severe hazard?? where does it say that??
mountaineering is also a very hazardous activity.. how do people survive that?
edit on 12-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-5-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 
Your interpretation of these "experts" findings is speculation based on your bias of what you want them to say. You have taken speculation and are trying to make it an absolute. This just doesn't work.

You have contradicted yourself on your definition of "hazardous" and yet still want to claim that these "tptb" are trying to say that Apollo was fake without them actually saying this directly. choos has called you on this and pointed out that according to your own definition, they are saying it is impossible to send anything living beyond LEO. However, it has been shown in this very thread, that even amateur HAM radio operators were able to triangulate and Apollo's position and eaves drop in on their conversations.

You have proven nothing, except that you are biased against facts that prove you wrong. There is too much secondary evidence which proves Apollo Moon landings to have taken place. Here are a couple to get you started:

Lunar Eavesdropping
Parkes Observatory



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
With proper shielding its not a problem by today's standard, even Dr. Van Allen says the Moon landings happened. So That is one Expert that says you are wrong.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
thanks for posting, there are some things they need to answer for, but im on the fence on weather its a hoax or not.




new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join