Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
More moon "news" Project blue beam is real too!
Here is NASA telling everyone about it!
Project Blue Beam in action




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

quoted by ajmusicmedia

By the way, you do realize that the moon is so close that if there were a road, most cars would be able to drive right to it? Going there was brute force, period. The rockets did exist.


I usually just laugh when I hear statements like these, but i had to call you out. Do you even use google?
Distance from earth to moon
So if your Prius holds 15 gallons and you get about 15,926 Miles per gallon, you could make the 238,900 mile road trip EASY. Unless NASA went ahead with that Geosync orbit 7-Eleven they were talking about. Then you can fill up after the first 22,500 miles.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Raulken because: ...
edit on 19-1-2013 by Raulken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
All i will say is this..... NASA sent astronauts to the Moon using less computing power than you will find in a modern family car – we’re not even talking top of the range models here either!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
not that i believe either way.. but I will say this. You do realize that the military and gov technology is vastly superior to the tech that we have on our daily lives.. People say anywhere from 40-60 years ahead of us in tech that is not available and some may never be available to us.. .



In answer to your claim above PEOPLE SAY


That must be in the top ten of conspiracy cliches the military are 40-60 years a head.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by ckno1
 




the technology to fake it didn't exist


This is totally false.

With the Optical Fibers you can do it.

But I belive that we were going to the Moon with Apollo missions.
But many of Video/footage/images are clearly faked.
NASA Astronauts actually did land on the Moon, but they fear of what they could find at their arrival.

Then the BIG question is "Why": why they faked images of a real event?

edit on 19-1-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)


Care to explain how it would work



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Boring video that proves nothing.

We didn't land on the moon & play golf in 1969 (we were so primitive back then that the calculator was only invented 2 years prior) and we probably don't have the technology to do it now (where technology has advanced a 100-fold).

Get over it sheeple...it DIDNT happen.


Plenty of evidence we went if you are bright enough to understand it!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by sprtpilot
 



No one, with an IQ over 110, still believes the NASA fairy tale of manned lunar landings. At this point, even NASA has admitted "some" of the evidence was in fact staged.


No one with an IQ above 60 would make that statement without providing a link to a NASA source that admits that some of the evidence was staged.



DJW001 you are being far to GENEROUS with that IQ for them!!!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by ckno1
 


I wish he would have explained how they got that shot of the guy coming down the ladder well lighted while the wall of the spacecraft was in shadow.

I think that the answer is that some of the really early stuff might have been shot in the desert on earth and then when they really did get to the moon that stuff is real. They could have shot film and then streamed it as the live from the moon video. We lost all the original recordings of that stuff by the way. All that is left are bad copies now.

The other video that looked strange to me is the blast off of the luner module. It just kind of floats up, no dust storm, no blast at all. No crater in the sand after.

Good video though.



Fill in light, sun light reflects of the surface of the Moon.

Why would it leave a crater surface taking off as the base is left behind DOH!




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raulken


I usually just laugh when I hear statements like these, but i had to call you out. Do you even use google?
Distance from earth to moon
So if your Prius holds 15 gallons and you get about 15,926 Miles per gallon, you could make the 238,900 mile road trip EASY. Unless NASA went ahead with that Geosync orbit 7-Eleven they were talking about. Then you can fill up after the first 22,500 miles.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Raulken because: ...
edit on 19-1-2013 by Raulken because: (no reason given)



I suggest you read Newtons Laws of Motion especially this one


Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.


If you don't understand what that means ask some kid that does science at school Oh tell you what I will save you the embarrassment of that.

It means that an object will continue to travel in the same direction and at the same speed until another force acts on it.

So basically once in space and traveling towards the Moon you don't need the rocket you coast there.

He would drive his PRIUS up a ramp in orbit pointed in a direction to get him to the Moon it would fly off at whatever speed it got to and stay at that speed until an external fore slowed it down so what he said is basically correct although a road surface would cause to much friction


The lack of understanding of really basic science displayed on here on a regular basis makes me wonder what the education system WORLDWIDE has be doing in the last 30+ years.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


That one looks real. Which mission was that one from?

I remember seeing another one where it seemed to move very slowly and just did not look right.

Oh well, as I said, I think the later missions were genuine and really only question the black and white stuff from that first landing.

And craters talk'n bout flying that thing in for a landing where they did have to run the engine to set her down. There seemed to be no disturbed area around the lander where the rockets should have stirred up the dust.
edit on 19-1-2013 by kawika because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Just because the technology didn't exist to us doesn't mean they didn't have it. Remember they are always ATLEAST 10 years ahead of us in technology. Recently a picture came out of a nuclear explosion 1 millisecond after detonation that was filmed in the 50's. Did you know they had cameras that could take photos like that in the 50's?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
the simple reality;

it is more difficult to hoax 6 lunar missions and keep everyone quiet than to hit a moving target that has a predictable path

and as far as the "radiation !!!" crowd goes.....

cataracts

lol



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
got to admit he looked very uncomfortable when the guy came in with the bible and said swear on it.........i,m no way religious but someone came in like that to me and said hand on the bible then i,d have done it just to prove the point,unless someone who has supposed to have been there comes out and says we faked it then thats all its going to be....a conspiracy until proved either way.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by taccj9903
 


Because that man is a prick and Armstrong reacted accordingly. I would have thumped him for being so insulting. Only those who "will never believe no matter what" will read more into it.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
take a look a the lunar lander in the smithsonian and i wouldn't go in a swimming pool in that thing let alone space.

could the footage of the landing been fake, its a possibility.

but did they go to the moon and orbit it, that's probably definitely real.

the goal wasn't to land on the moon, it was to beat the soviets there.

it would take an extremely secret and co-ordinated effort.

if it was faked, then neil armstrong and buzz aldrin definitely were in on it. mission control could have been fooled by having fake pre-recorded telemetry fed to their computer just as the moon landing was about to take place, then real life telemetry control given back after they "left".

thus fooling the mission director and mission control in general.

is it impossible, taking the climate of the day, the fanatical loyalty of americans at the time, especially in the cia, the military and government in general.

edit on 19-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I've always thought that the notion of several fake moon landings was a distraction created to keep people from paying close attention to the "big and bad" conspiracy theories... Such as the motives behind the Vietnam War, JFK's assassination, etc. It's funny how 9/11, more than 30 years after the first lunar landing, was such a shoddy, obvious false flag conspiracy, yet the lunar landing "hoaxes" would appear to be so sophisticated and convincingly accurate, as if the government's ability to lie has somehow gotten markedly worse over the decades.

Also, hundreds of technicians and staff members were involved in every aspect of the missions... They must all have the art of deception and concealing secrets down to a science.

Just for fun, here is Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, eager to tell the world about NASA's extraterrestrial cover-up:

mobile.news.com.au...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm open on the moon issue, I can see arguments for and against an authentic landing. However, to say that the technology to fake it didn't exist...but the technology to go to the moon did, is not very convincing.

So we can send a man to the moon but we can't fake the moon landing.


I just had to say it LOL.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazztrance
This is why IT WAS FAKE. Becasue NASA said it was. NASA says they lost the original video and had to recreate another one. Go figure, thats what they said, do with that what you will, but technically speaking, it was fake.
edit on 18-1-2013 by jazztrance because: (no reason given)


Do you seriously think there is only one or a couple "videos" of the moon landings?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of videos plus data tapes of all sorts. So they're all fake?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
not that i believe either way.. but I will say this. You do realize that the military and gov technology is vastly superior to the tech that we have on our daily lives.. People say anywhere from 40-60 years ahead of us in tech that is not available and some may never be available to us.. .



In answer to your claim above PEOPLE SAY


That must be in the top ten of conspiracy cliches the military are 40-60 years a head.

Dude If you look back at the declassified documents, the military has been about 40 years ahead...
I think it's safe to assume they're still ahead.

Fact remains we know for sure they were ahead in the past.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
not that i believe either way.. but I will say this. You do realize that the military and gov technology is vastly superior to the tech that we have on our daily lives.. People say anywhere from 40-60 years ahead of us in tech that is not available and some may never be available to us.. .



In answer to your claim above PEOPLE SAY


That must be in the top ten of conspiracy cliches the military are 40-60 years a head.

Dude If you look back at the declassified documents, the military has been about 40 years ahead...
I think it's safe to assume they're still ahead.

Fact remains we know for sure they were ahead in the past.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join