Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The moon shot did not return a profit.

It did, for the contractors involved. As, to this very day, government contracts provide profits to the contractees. The government made no profit because, as I said, it is not the business of the government to return a profit. It is their business to spend other people's (us) money. In this case it was money well spent. A lot of very good tech resulted.

It was done for the glory of the collectivist confiscatory centralized government.

What was confiscated? What does any of this have to do with whether or not the landings occurred?

The money that paid for the cold war was confiscated by inflation and taxation. The moon shot was public relations for the cold war.

The moon shot was not a subunit of the moon shot, the moon shot was the whole thing. The moon shot did not return a profit and was not capitalistic. Socialism always takes the surpluses from capitalism for granted.

Everyone working in the defense industry could be working somewhere more capitalistic, like making that rocket pack we were all supposed to have by now.

Or a Moller Skycar. The skycar was said to get better milage than a surface vehicle because it essentially goes up, then down, once per trip. No starting, stopping, slowing and speeding up repeatedly. Just once up and down.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The money that paid for the cold war was confiscated by inflation and taxation.

No. No confiscation. The profits went into the pockets of the contractors. The costs went into R&D and materials.

The moon shot was not a subunit of the moon shot,

What? But, yes, as near as I can parse your meaning, the point was

to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Everyone working in the defense industry could be working somewhere more capitalistic, like making that rocket pack we were all supposed to have by now.

Great. People are stupid enough driving in two dimensions, who needs three?

I'm with Bill Clinton, most likely it was a hoax (My Life). I have looked at skeptics' evidence, and there is nothing there to disprove the moon landings (that I can tell anyway)- but I wouldn't expect anything less from Kubrick (and $25 billion). My main reason for skepticism is just the idea that we sent 7 missions to the moon (let's face it, that's an incredible distance) - all made it back with no one dead (including the 13 miracle) - 45 years ago, where nobody has come anywhere close since. We've seen the video of Armstrong crashing the test lander - is there any video of NASA actually getting that piece of junk to work? Then when I see the melancholy return presser, later on the cryptic statements of Aldrin, and how Armstrong became a recluse, it makes me raise an eyebrow. I have no evidence to suggest Apollo was a hoax, but hoax seems more plausible than sending and returning 20+ men to the moon. I think the movie "Interstellar" was right, the Russians were far more advanced in space travel than we were, so we had to make it seem like we had caught and passed them, hence the hoax.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

We've seen the video of Armstrong crashing the test lander - is there any video of NASA actually getting that piece of junk to work?

Have you looked? My guess would be no. There were well over 100 successful flights of the LLRVs.

I have no evidence to suggest Apollo was a hoax, but hoax seems more plausible than sending and returning 20+ men to the moon.

With such a statement, my guess would be you know very little about the Apollo program. Like most hoax proponents, who care little about evidence.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I'm with Bill Clinton, most likely it was a hoax (My Life). I have looked at skeptics' evidence, and there is nothing there to disprove the moon landings (that I can tell anyway)- but I wouldn't expect anything less from Kubrick (and $25 billion). My main reason for skepticism is just the idea that we sent 7 missions to the moon (let's face it, that's an incredible distance) - all made it back with no one dead (including the 13 miracle) - 45 years ago, where nobody has come anywhere close since. We've seen the video of Armstrong crashing the test lander - is there any video of NASA actually getting that piece of junk to work? Then when I see the melancholy return presser, later on the cryptic statements of Aldrin, and how Armstrong became a recluse, it makes me raise an eyebrow. I have no evidence to suggest Apollo was a hoax, but hoax seems more plausible than sending and returning 20+ men to the moon. I think the movie "Interstellar" was right, the Russians were far more advanced in space travel than we were, so we had to make it seem like we had caught and passed them, hence the hoax.

The Russians made big rockets because their technology was all hand made. Russia had no background level of technology, no toasters or TV sets.

We made small rockets, just big enough to throw a warhead, so that we could make more of them, to insure that some would always get through.

Manned space flight was a side effect of defense spending, both sides used it to sell big government. It would follow that big governments tend to like each other more than they like libertarians.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

We made small rockets, just big enough to throw a warhead, so that we could make more of them, to insure that some would always get through.

Yup. Small.
www.lpl.arizona.edu...
Little, itty bitty thing. Just 6.3 million pounds.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

We made small rockets, just big enough to throw a warhead, so that we could make more of them, to insure that some would always get through.

Yup. Small.
www.lpl.arizona.edu...
Little, itty bitty thing. Just 6.3 million pounds.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Notice the difference in payloads,

US Vanguard 23 kg payload

USSR Sputnik 1300 kg payload

a reply to: Semicollegiate

USSR Sputnik 1300 kg payload

Heh.
Saturn V: 120,000 kg.

originally posted by: Phage

So, you made it up.

No, I didn't...

Posted 09 February 2008 - 09:40 PM

Pericynthion said..

"The photos you posted above are too close to the LM and show mostly the areas churned up by the crew. The brightened area is large, diffuse, and subtle. To see it clearly, you need to look at images showing a larger area around the LM:"

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

When you asked me for a source on the quote, I explained to you why it was not a quote.
When I told you I was paraphrasing someone from memory, you accused me of making it all up.

When you first attempted this, I'm sure you never thought you'd be the one playing the fool...

It suits you well, I'd say...

originally posted by: Phage
I could. But there would be no point.

I never expected you to have a point, but I do appreciate you admitting to it.

a reply to: turbonium1

When I told you I was paraphrasing someone from memory, you accused me of making it all up.

Since you did not provide a quote when requested. Yes, I did make that accusation. You have now provided a quote from a single person, 7 years ago (you seem to carry a heavy chip). So, one person said that to you. I suppose one person can be considered to be "they." But it was good of you to provide the link so that the full context of the conversation can be seen.

I never expected you to have a point, but I do appreciate you admitting to it.

I said I could, but the point would be wasted, as you are known to relocate the goalposts upon being shown to be wrong. On a very consistent basis.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

USSR Sputnik 1300 kg payload

Heh.
Saturn V: 120,000 kg.

That would throw 14 9-ton Rods from God.

They might have a bigger one now.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

They might have a bigger one now.

Sure.
Launched from where?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

They might have a bigger one now.

Sure.
Launched from where?

I don't know where, the Saturn V is 50 years old. China or India would appreciate benefits of the relatively low tech requirements the most.

Rods from God are an economical and low tech first strike. And cut reaction time in half if sortied from orbit.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
Do you think such a vehicle would be capable of sending a manned payload to the Moon?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: CB328
One of the most compelling conspiracies to me is the Apollo Moon Missions. I have seen a lot of information on different theories of how or why they could be fake and here is my take on it. Granted some of these are circumstantial or opinonated, but as they say where there's smoke there's fire and with this much smoke there has to be a fire somewhere.

1. Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...

Lost and then recreated. Sorry, that's suspicious to me.

2. NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.space.com...

3. Why would they lose moon rocks? Maybe because they're fake?

Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...

4. Nasa didn't provide a feed of moon landing video, the news media had to film it from a TV screen! This is very suspicious to me, very controlling.
www.apfn.org...

5. There are no flaws in the moon pictures. Going through radiation, heat and subzero temperatures yet the film all made it back in pristine condition? There aren't even some blurry pictures that you might expect. Extremely suspicious.

www.apfn.org...

6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.

7. Astronauts differing accounts of viewing stars from the moon.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

8. Strange moon pictures. I am not a photographic expert, but it sure looks to me like the background and foreground on many of the pictures are two different pictures spliced together, or made with a backdrop, like Stanley Kubric is famous for using in 2001 a Space Odessey. In this picture you have the foreground, then you have a mountain in the background that looks like it was filmed from 50 or 100 miles away. Maybe it was, filmed from a probe and then that photo used as a backdrop in a studio?

www.google.com... korea.co.kr%2Farticle%2F2295%2Fspace-exploration-korean-government-aiming-launch-its-own-space-vehicles-2020&ei=td28Ve33INC2ogSQw7qYBQ&bvm=bv.99261572 ,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNERhRjC09ETpFNfWigoV14p4z0W3w&ust=1438527290960423

9. Disney has a giant moon surface set that the descent could have been filmed with. The capsule descent footage sure looks like a model to me. I can't find a link to this but I saw a video once of the huge moonscape with a camera boom in front of it for filming moon footage.

10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed?

11. My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick’s Widow. You have to admit that the scene where they go to the moon to see the obelisk looks alot like the moon landing pictures.

______beforeitsnews/alternative/2013/12/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow-2838414.html

So...how do you explain the flag and rover and all the stuff still sitting on the moon that have been photographed by amateurs with high power camera equipment over the years?

Do you know what type of camera lens, shutter speed or exposure time, the amateurs used ?

originally posted by: Phage
Since you did not provide a quote when requested. Yes, I did make that accusation.

No, I didn't provide a quote, you wrongly believed it was, and then requested a source for it.

That's when I told you I was paraphrasing someone who said it.

You accused me of making it up, and that's when I proved you were wrong.

I didn't think you'd have the integrity to apologize for your false accusation, being that you started this whole attack in hopes of making me look like a liar.

Karma's a bitch, as the saying goes...

originally posted by: Phage
You have now provided a quote from a single person, 7 years ago (you seem to carry a heavy chip).

No, I just have a good memory. It comes in handy when someone like you tries to push their bs on me.

originally posted by: Phage
So, one person said that to you. I suppose one person can be considered to be "they." But it was good of you to provide the link so that the full context of the conversation can be seen.

No, I never said it was one person who said it to me. I said it was the main argument I've heard about it.
A couple of other people made the same argument to me. So "they" is correct, too.

Do you think I'm making that up, too, or have you dug a deep enough hole already?

originally posted by: Phage

I said I could, but the point would be wasted, as you are known to relocate the goalposts upon being shown to be wrong. On a very consistent basis.

You are known to make false accusations, without any attempt to discuss/address the issues. You do not even hold yourself accountable, or can apologize, for your slander campaign.

The thread I started was based on a mistake, which I admitted to. That was not the end of the issue, it still was valid to discuss it afterward. The mods are obviously against the hoax side, and used my initial mistake as an excuse to move the thread to the LOL section. They should not treat their members like that, just because they have 'a chip on their shoulder'. It was not a lie, it was a mistake. I admitted it was, and moved along with the same issue, but from another angle. Which is a valid angle, as well.

If you think you can excuse the problems I've brought up because of mods moving my thread unfairly, you are wrong.

You just make up excuses to avoid the real issues, at any cost.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: CB328

I've seen a theory posted that the landing was real but the pictures and transmissions were faked due to what was found. Who knows. I suspect if any of the conspiracies are true we would never know anyway.

due to no one onboard !

originally posted by: atomadelica
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

You can see the landing site with even consumer-grade telescopes. It is a fairly popular target among even amateur telescope enthusiasts and there are guides to doing it online.

Are those telescopes still on sale ?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So...how do you explain the flag and rover and all the stuff still sitting on the moon that have been photographed by amateurs with high power camera equipment over the years?

thats what the propagandist would have you believe...the truth is that even the best resolution photos of the apollo sites cannot be deciphered without the use of preconceived suppositions ...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CB328

How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days and still being used by scientists today ?

Unmanned missions, like thr USSR missions with laser retroreflector