Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
You can show them where there are errors in their arguments, you can show them data, you can debunk the pseudo-science behind their half baked theories and they will continually ignore and ignore and ignore what you are saying. This subject particularly usually attracts the kind of person to whom 'research' means watching a youtube video.


As well as the moon hoaxers, that exact same comment also applies to birthers and truthers.

They are just not at all interested in the real world, they seem to prefer a fantasy world, where only they have some secret knowledge that very few other people know aboutt.




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Wasn't Helium 3 the background story for that movie Moon...it was directed by Bowie's son?


Iron Sky also involved helium 3....



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Why today did the mainstream media decide to reveal to the public the 'ingenious' moon simulator?
Why today? What was the purpose of this article today?


The book this article summarizes was published in 1995. I know for a fact that LOLA has been brought to your attention before. For example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why today? What is the purpose today? Perhaps James Nye has a quota of articles to fill. He seems to have exhausted the Petraeus Affair, so he moved on to something he remembered reading somewhere. It's not news, but at least it's copy.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
It makes me wonder why the moon model had to be so exact in detail? So no one could discern the real moon from a fake one in pictures? Even the lighting was matched?


Historically it would be expected. Early visual systems for flight simulation existed in the 1950s.

Some of them got quite elaborate, with closed circuit cameras filming lit terrain models that was then shown to the pilot sitting in a cage that was being mechically manipulated to simulate pitch and yaw.

They really wanted to get it as close to the real experience as possible, and I believe the moon landing was probably the most important flight the USA has ever embarked on.

So again we are at the catch-22 of our hoax problem ... It provides (yet another) way it could have been faked, but if the simulator wasn't there it would be further evidence of over confidence and thus a hoax. Can't win.

Further readings.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Wow in this day and age, it is hard to believe there are still people out there who believe that there was no moon landing.

Stop being gullible(conspiracy theorist) and actually use common sense people...
edit on 27-11-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I CAN



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Wow in this day and age, it is hard to believe there are still people out there who believe this BS.

Stop being gullible(conspiracy theorist) and actually use common sense people...


Common sense dictates that there was no moon landing.

The probability of each stage of the mission being successful was too law



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Wow in this day and age, it is hard to believe there are still people out there who believe this BS.

Stop being gullible(conspiracy theorist) and actually use common sense people...


Common sense dictates that there was no moon landing.







So your version of common sense says that the entire world was in on the hoax?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by QQXXw

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Wow in this day and age, it is hard to believe there are still people out there who believe this BS.

Stop being gullible(conspiracy theorist) and actually use common sense people...


Common sense dictates that there was no moon landing.







So your version of common sense says that the entire world was in on the hoax?


was the entire world on in the 9/11 ?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw
was the entire world on in the 9/11 ?


So you think 9/11 was a hoax... what, with holographic people, planes and buildings....



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by QQXXw
 


Oh your one of those people...time to get over it..it was a terrorist attack nothing more.

Not some evil plot by the government to start something. Youtube videos are not proof of anything.

No more from me...can't talk with people like you...where common sense is never used..



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
As with all moon landing 'hoax' threads, Ill ask my question, and wait for the answer that will never come:

If we havent been to the moon, how can we reflect lazers, from earth, off of the reflective surfaces that were left behind?

I wont hold my breath for an answer.

i dont think for one minute that the moon landing was hoaxed
but wouldnt some of the laser beam light reflect back anyway?

i think what happened was they did land on the moon and filmed it
but when they got back the footage was messed up by radiation
so they had to mock the footage up

lets face it there was a space race with ussr and if they thought for one minute that
it was faked they would be shouting it from the rooftops



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by QQXXw
 


Oh your one of those people...time to get over it..it was a terrorist attack nothing more.

Not some evil plot by the government to start something. Youtube videos are not proof of anything.

No more from me...can't talk with people like you...where common sense is never used..


Yes I am one of those people

When the odds of something happening a certain way are too low to be explained by chance, such as 9/11 and the moon landing, I get suspicious



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by QQXXw
was the entire world on in the 9/11 ?


So you think 9/11 was a hoax... what, with holographic people, planes and buildings....


What do you think? It was a bunch of Al-Qaida with box-cutters defying the laws of physics?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw
defying the laws of physics?


No laws of physics were defied.... Just like all the moon landing hoax claims have been shown to be just crap
edit on 27-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I think there is a hell of a lot more to the moon than we have been led to belive.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I sense it's getting close to when the moon landing hoax is finally revealed.

Why today did the mainstream media decide to reveal to the public the 'ingenious' moon simulator?
Why today? What was the purpose of this article today?

dailymail.co.uk

I believe it's drip feeding the public the truth. Obviously they can't handle it in one fell swoop, so here is an article laying the ground work for eventual disclosure.

Plant the idea that it could have all been a simulation. It will make the truth so much more palatable when it comes to pass.

What will that day be like?


It's already revealed by the fact that they aren't sending rovers to the Moon to take pictures.

That would put them in an awkward situation. It would look suspicious if they put a rover on the Moon and didn't put it near one of the Apollo landing sites to take pictures.

Think about it. All this excitement about rovers on Mars, yet no rovers on the Moon.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
It would look suspicious if they put a rover on the Moon and didn't put it near one of the Apollo landing sites to take pictures.


Why would they put it near the Apollo sites? They have already documented and photographed the area around those sites.

Anyway, even if they did land one and photograph a Apollo site you would just claim it was done in a studio.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Mercurio
It would look suspicious if they put a rover on the Moon and didn't put it near one of the Apollo landing sites to take pictures.


Why would they put it near the Apollo sites? They have already documented and photographed the area around those sites.

Anyway, even if they did land one and photograph a Apollo site you would just claim it was done in a studio.


I'm talking about real photos from the surface. Not tiny pixels on an image taken from an orbiter camera that they tell us are the landing sites.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
August, 1966. The United States successfully launched the first LunarOrbiter, which took pictures of both sides of the Moon as well as the firstpictures of Earth from the Moon's vicinity. The primary mission of theOrbiter program was to locate suitable landing sites for Apollo, the manned spacecraft program.COMMENT: The landing sites selected for the Apollo missions turned out to be some of the most featureless, arid, desolate locations on the Moon,and were in proximity to the lunar Equator. There is no publicly available evidence that either the Soviets or the Americans even sent a television camera into, say, the craters Plato or Aristarcus otherwise known for copious lunar anomalies, some of which are described as being quite lush.Between May 1966 and November 1968, the United States launched seven Surveyors and five Lunar Orbiters to photograph and map the Moon.COMMENT: However, it seems that none of the photographing and mapping included any areas noted for their anomalies.Also in 1968, NASA released its Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events.The catalog listed multitudes of lights and other phenomena taking place incertain quite large lunar craters.NASA never published any follow-ups on the lunar anomalies, eventhough it might have done so by virtue of the enormous amounts of information derived from the Surveyors and Orbiters.When the manned Apollo crafts DID finally arrive at the Moon, all ofthe locations selected for the touchdowns were far distant from any of the sectors that had always yielded high incidence of anomalous activity.

Taken From - Penetration- By Ingo Swann



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 



August, 1966. The United States successfully launched the first LunarOrbiter, which took pictures of both sides of the Moon as well as the firstpictures of Earth from the Moon's vicinity. The primary mission of theOrbiter program was to locate suitable landing sites for Apollo, the manned spacecraft program.COMMENT: The landing sites selected for the Apollo missions turned out to be some of the most featureless, arid, desolate locations on the Moon,and were in proximity to the lunar Equator. There is no publicly available evidence that either the Soviets or the Americans even sent a television camera into, say, the craters Plato or Aristarcus otherwise known for copious lunar anomalies, some of which are described as being quite lush.Between May 1966 and November 1968, the United States launched seven Surveyors and five Lunar Orbiters to photograph and map the Moon.COMMENT: However, it seems that none of the photographing and mapping included any areas noted for their anomalies.Also in 1968, NASA released its Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events.The catalog listed multitudes of lights and other phenomena taking place incertain quite large lunar craters.NASA never published any follow-ups on the lunar anomalies, eventhough it might have done so by virtue of the enormous amounts of information derived from the Surveyors and Orbiters.When the manned Apollo crafts DID finally arrive at the Moon, all ofthe locations selected for the touchdowns were far distant from any of the sectors that had always yielded high incidence of anomalous activity.

Taken From - Penetration- By Ingo Swann


Of course they selected the most level and boulder free areas for their landings! The idea was to land safely and return, remember? As for not landing robotic probes in Gamma Reiner or Aristarchus, those areas could only be justified in terms of "pure science." Unfortunately, pure science was not a priority during the "Space Race." Now that thoughts are turning towards long term habitation on the Moon, I can assure you that Gamma Reiner will be among the first objectives.





new topics
top topics
 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join