Originally posted by JulianAlien
reply to post by trig_grl
...The reason they faked it was they could never get past the Van Allen belt...
Why does it have to be 100% one way or the other? All that picture shows is that the tracks CAN BE covered by dust falling back out of the wheel.
The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be,
Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?
Originally posted by WWu777
Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Originally posted by Gregorian
This might be a good time to consider the relationship between the Apollo mission science fiction moon hoax and the 9/11 terror hoax. Stanley Kubrick Productions was the sole designer of the Apollo moon mission in the spirit of his sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey." That elaborate sci-fi exercise emboldened those responsible for 9/11 to follow their lead - of course, using Stanley Kubrick as the producer director.edit on 27-11-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)
Then how did they "of course" use him as the producer and director?
Smurfy's image shows a rover IN MOTION
dust can therefore get deposited in front of the tire because of dust getting trapped in the tire as it is turning.
My image shows a rover wheel IN A LAB, its moving much slower to demonstrate that dust CAN fall out of the tire.
As the rover moves around on the surface it CAN collect dust, when the rover stops the dust will pour back out.
The narrator mentions only one project is still up and running - the mirrors.
"In 33 years no one has stood up, no one has come and talk to us." - Narrator: Gerry White would welcome a visit from the conspiracy theorists. From 1969 til present, they have been firing the laser to the mirror. The laser hits the reflectors...blah blah... I'm just quoting the video...which is supporting my claims.
Now on to the spot where think you have your gotchya moment: The ruby laser fired on the moon that sent a signal back. Well, the moon is mostly glass, which is pretty reflective (ever notice how bright it is?), yet there is one intriguing factor about this experiment done in 1966 - the need for ultrasensitive electronic equipment. If you have equipment sensitive enough, yes, you can see a multitude of light signals reflecting off of the moon (which acts as a giant weak mirror, it IS mirroring sunlight back to us, after all).
If you fire a laser at the reflective mirrors on the surface - there is no need for the "ultrasensitive" equipment, and the signal is markedly stronger when using a much less powerful laser. In short, we made the requirements for sensitivity of our apparatus on Earth lower because it is cheaper to build less sensitive equipment.
Think - just think.