Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

reply to post by PsykoOps

You might be right about crosshair issue, or whatever else you said not sure. I think you are far to dismissive of evidence pointed out on the site though.

I can direct you to several more sites but whats the point? You state the same thing, "it just plain sucks"

I dont dismiss evidence. I did read that site ages ago and considered what it had to say. I then looked up the facts about the issues that interested me and after that I dismissed it as garpage.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I then looked up the facts about the issues that interested me

It would be helpful if you could direct me to the sources you looked up facts. What were the issues?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FX44rice

 

Maybe it'd be easier if you asked pertinent questions as to what's bothering you about the Lunar missions.

I was born in 1973. I assume you are elderly now and alive at the time of the supposed lunar missions. I was not or at least not old enough to be aware. So, I'm to believe it just happenned? No one has been able to generate a good argument either. Only able to regurgetate second / third hand information originating from the gov't itself.

Unless you have independently properly investigated the claims, you are simply supporting what you were told is fact.

Also, you continually bring up TECHNICAL points that may make you knowledgeable of TECHNICAL issues. However it is a diversion spin you use to try and fend off opponents to the lunar landings.

It would be like me rattling off all types of technical issues on submarines. That proves nothing of my knowledge of a discovery of "Atlantis" Even if I saw the boat submerge, and continue to submerge until no longer able. Then suddenly on Audio and Visual through all of our TV's they are there and find it.

You are intelligent on the technicals, but that does not bridge the gap I see.

reply to post by FX44rice


"So, I'm to believe it just happenned? No one has been able to generate a good argument either. Only able to regurgetate second / third hand information originating from the gov't itself."

400,000+ employees worked on the project. The Russians, British, etc., tracked the vehicles from Earth orbit to the moon. The signals from Tranquility Base were triangulated by independent tracker and confirmed as coming from the Moon. If the Russians had been able to prove the landings were fake don't you think they would have done it?

reply to post by FX44rice


Well...if you think 52 is 'elderly'!

I respect you for being inquisitive, but the best way to explain the reality of actual space travel (as displayed publicly by NASA) IS to be technical.

I didn't learn how to fly over 30 years ago by 'imagining' it...it is a technical, demanding skill set. Experience is built, not only 'tech' knowledge, but muscle memory, hand-eye coordination and so forth.

Space exploration is a long-term process. What is seen is the result, the 'successes'. What is not seen is the ground training, hundreds of thousands of hours, and experiments, all done to work out as many potential problems as possible before commiting to launching people. Safety was, of course, the ultimate goal. The Astronauts, being test pilots at heart, would acknowledge acceptable risks, but they weren't suicidal, nor were they stupid.

At the risk of repeating, HollyWood SFX have likely done a disservice to people's understanding of real spaceflight.

Now...a 'possible' explanation for certain (not in this OP's case, sorry mike:roll instances of what people have seen as 'airbrushing' is: There was a 'presence' on the Moon. A non-human presence. I am open to this, though we only have circumstantial evidence. Still, it should be brought into the discussion.

See? A few hints of something to hide, and an entire 'cottage industry' of a greater "Hoax" develops. It's like, "I've got a Secret" multiplied a hundredfold.

reply to post by FX44rice


You haven't even "regurgitated" anything. You haven't provided anything, just a link to a website. Well, here's one back atcha: www.clavius.org...

But all the logic and facts in the world won't make a bit of difference to you will they?

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by ngchunter

 

-A rocket launching. That = Moon Landing??

-Pictures of a craft blazing through the upper atmosphere. That = Moon Landing??

You don't seem to realize that the entire missions were followed by amateurs on the ground, start to finish, that's the point. Funny how you demand third party proof and then ignore it entirely when it's given to you on a silver platter. At no point could they have gotten away with faking anything - the spacecraft really went to the moon because astronomers saw it go to the moon and heard the radio transmissions from the moon (which, by the way, were used by high schoolers in Italy to measure the distance to the moon just by analyzing the sound files as part of a school project - they not only found it was correct, but they could see the effect of the moon's eccentric orbit over the course of a mission - i'll dig up the link if you think I'm bluffing).

I am not the one claiming an outrageous feat. You in fact are. The obligation of proof lies upon you, not me.

And I already provided it, it's now your job to prove we didn't go by refuting every point of evidence and providing evidence of your theory, thanks.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by FX44rice


I cant remember the sources. This happened so many years ago, try badastronomy or something. There's plenty of information out there.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Now Weed I really respect the genuine response you are starting to offer. I am beginning to see that you may (or do I could say) possess the "real" not "want to be" knowledge it takes to convince a "hoax believer" like me to listen more. JRA and yourself may be able to convince non-believers as I into agreement.

I agree with you regarding technical aspects being the critical points providing evidence of capability, execution, and successful completion, in concert with an understanding of political, populace control, and financial aspects you may succeed in converting me.

It is the "want to be" knowledgeable crowd that keeps us in disbelief.

reply to post by Phage

Thank you for nothing contributed other than the desire to spew......

reply to post by FX44rice


Surely....

Please don't discount the knowledge Phage brings out of hand.

and, as noted, jra and ngc are fonts of knowledge, and they have more at their ready fingertips than I.

PsyK recommended 'badastronomy.com' I had forgotten that one, it's a goody!! Enjoy seeing the other side.

Speaking of the 'other side'....there are two prominent idiots on utube who are swamping the site with BS Moon hoax 'theories'. One is greenmagoos, the other, WhiteJarrah. IF you see any of these blokes' videos, prepare to keep a good assortment of salt handy.

Also, if you ever see the junk put out by Ralph Rene' (who I understand has recently passed) or Bill Kaysing, then by all means watch. But, all of their claims are easily refuted. As to these utube buffoons, well....their nonsense is easily put to rest, when you see science put them in their place.

Moon Hoaxes come and go....but a solid dose of intelligence will shut them down.

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

I think you are focusing on the "humor" aspect of my post. Which is avoiding the essence of my position.

I prefer you to apply your ample wisdom to the actual point of my question I posed. Which is:

Despite the depth of knowledge one can obtain on the NASA moon missions, and rocket science applications; is it possible in your mind that the hierarchy presenting the knowledge and facts or (alleged facts) could be presenting a story of facts not actually performed? As the only facts we are able to learn are the ones given to us by the ones claiming them legit.

Also I think you were trying to imply that in some way my avatar implies that I believe spacecraft are to look "cool." Quite a menial aspect for someone so discerning as you to focus on rather than the point I offered.

oh settle down

I didn't mean to offend you, and I think I can help you

OK, so you are very anti - establishment and believe everybody in authority lies and no data from nasa can be trusted

fine

go to the mcdonald observatory in texas and ask them about the lunar laser range project. If you can't make the trip, call them. They can tell you how we have been bouncing lasers off of the mirrors armstrong placed since he was on the moon

that proves we were there, we left something behind

go to one of the nations we gave the 135 moon rocks to, friend and foe alike, and ask them about the lunar rocks we brought back

don't you think they would examine them to see if they were legit ?

maybe they would call a press conference to expose the hoax ?

that also proves we were there, we brought something back


left something behind, brought something back

proof

physical, tangible proof that exists today, right now, that can be verified by not only neutral parties, but hostile parties to nasa

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Very well. As I am getting blasted from all angles here, I will have to try and bring some damning evidence back to the table here. I'll look into the suggestions as well.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by FX44rice

 

"So, I'm to believe it just happenned? No one has been able to generate a good argument either. Only able to regurgetate second / third hand information originating from the gov't itself."

400,000+ employees worked on the project. The Russians, British, etc., tracked the vehicles from Earth orbit to the moon. The signals from Tranquility Base were triangulated by independent tracker and confirmed as coming from the Moon. If the Russians had been able to prove the landings were fake don't you think they would have done it?

Let me ask you something and I'm being serious.

The Russians, Brits, and even us. Have you ever seen the leaders of the countries go to war with one another? This may not seem on topic but it will come around. I'm not talking old republics, but since space flight. Have you ever seen one leader of another country have a fight with another leader from a different country. Two men with only the fists on their bodies?

I ask this because, while it seems very difficult for this to be pulled off, it isn't. You will notice the leaders are all friends. When they end war it is with a hand shake and a peace treaty and a little on the back end if you know what I mean.

You don't notice how in every great empire, that right at the time of war, a big humanitarian effort goes forth also or a "New" disease becomes a problem? Takes care of surplus

Have you ever read Kennedy's think tank on how to have a war less society? Space was the number one goal to end war, but it became a money laundering scam. Johnson let him make his claims to the world, then killed him and used his Idea to dump money into companies that he owned or was a part owner in such as Bell Helicopter. Same with Bush now a days who owns part in Bradley Tanks and most other Leaders. Unlimited spending. No wonder Bushs defense spending has nearly broken us only he ain't worried. He already pulled his big "shock and awe". War is Business, Space is Entertainment so that you don't look at the business being conducted in war.

In the batters box....Barak Hussin Obama. What's barak going to champion? What do you know....Back to the moon, only this time with Killer sets and believable graphics. CG I just like all the other stuff. Sure a shuttle launches, but it comes right back down. Remember that 747 they piggy back it on and can launch it in the air from?

Launch cape Canaveral and land in Africa, stay at the CGI ISS a few weeks then Piggy flys up in the air and we all make believe we just sent men to space. I mean for god sakes, every experiment they need "micro gravity" for could be done in a modeling computer at 1/100th the cost.

Best part is, it is government and they don't need to answer to anyone, you guys know that

I also had asked about scientists still doing experiments that made something proven or a law. I believe once a Journal has been released it is put on the shelf, therefore "all of the scientists" are operating off of nothing more then passed on notes, not understanding the actual concepts except for on paper. We can't fly paper to the moon, only about 100ft... Tony Benet sang it, Disney produced it, and America Paid for it. Go back over the list of mobile units for the Vietnam war alone...Trillions of dollars, washed clean for the cost of 2001 at the most. I think someone had said 10 million for that movie..NOTHING compared to the TRILLIONS to be made by just "saying we did it, but not really doing it"...."What? all you guys need is some camera footage at a backlot called 51? No worries filming starts tomorrow, don't worry no one will bug us, we will just say it was aliens. After all we've got Dr. Mitchell". The only astronaut to swear on the bible, after telling the interviewer "sure I will, I don't believe in it anyway". Every other astronaut when offered 5000 dollars to their favorite charity if they would swear on the bible that they went to the moon refused siting horrible taste of the interviewer. He just offered them 5 grand for their favorite charity, but the interviewer is in bad taste. Bad taste to not swear on a bible if it is true for 5 grand to go to lukemia children or someone who needs it? Weird, but they didn't want to ruin their integrity at the cost of a organization that could use the money, when what they supposedly did they can't stand up for. I think Seibriel was the interviewer. I know he is controversial amongst the NASA circle, but his question was strait forward and there is no reason the "true" astronauts shouldn't of been able to swear and say it is true, yet they would not, only Mitchell.....Judas of the twelve.

Ding, ding, ding, come and get it boys. Government contracts for everyone, oh yeah, sorry America....um....get back to work.

Ike was serious and it was that close of a threat when he said, " the military industrial complex". JFK repeated this, but with him gone, his worst fears came true

I'm not saying the 400,000 employees aren't real, but I've heard that before without a shred of fact to back it up, but even if, how many employees does the Government employee currently at NASA and really, how could anyone actually verify that other then someone saying it or a piece of paper saying it. No real evidence mainly because you are asking people that already don't believe the moon missions happened to believe figures and calculations, number of employees, distances, volumes of pressure, capsule design, Saturn rockets (I want my EMPTY V), rock samples no average person can test, Movies that are so fake that 2001 and starwars look more real and believable, and astronauts making inside jokes they think no one gets while walking around on the "moon". You can actually see them zipping each other up. In another video, and I will find it on monday...my service is down and I'm borrowing a friends laptop...but you can see he holds a rock up to the camera and his thumb can be seen through a hole in his glove to help him grip things because of the bulky suits prohibitive movement.

And guys you're grown men, don't tell me the movies where the astronauts fall down flat on there face and then miraculously rebound with out even pushing up from the ground that looks.

Plus if the moon is held by earths gravity, then why isn't the gravity on the moon the same? If the earth is holding it, then what is generating it's gravity to be 1/6th? Wouldn't it be 1/6th the mass of the earth, so the moon would provide the 1/6th, so then, where does earths gravity play seeing as how it is strong enough to hold the moon. Wouldn't the moon be 1/6th gravity PLUS the gravity's hold of the earth boosting it from 1/6th plus the loss ratio from the earth's own gravity in ratio to distance?

1/6th can't be, because on the moon it is 6/6ths or 1 gravity atmosphere equivalent to the moons mass, but again where does the earth gravity go? Not strong enough to increase the moons gravity, but strong enough to hold it? Makes no sense.

Always,

Ltru

[edit on 3-5-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


You aren't really typing this in seriousness, are you?

Because, if someone wished to display a blatant lack of scientific knowledge and embarass themselves, I can think of no better way to do it.

Take a moment, have some coffee (it is early AM there) or...maybe you had too much???

Read that stuff you wrote, and then tell us you actually believe it!!!

*SIGH*....IF one cannot even understand how the Moon stays in orbit around the Earth, then there is simply no hope. If one truly does not understand the simplest basics of celestial mechanics, gravity, mass, velocity and, not to mention, photography, geology...the list goes on.

IF one is unable or unwilling to actually open one's eyes and learn, then that person will NOT find it here, on a web Forum. It would take years, it would seem, of one-on-one tutoring to get an education into the cracks that have developed in that person's skewed understanding of reality.


How about an educational video to share?



[edit on 5/3/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by FX44rice


Concerning the laser reflector that is cited as proof of man landing on the moon;

Such a mission could have been accomplished using an unmanned spacecraft.

The collection of 850 pounds of lunar regolith could also have been performed via unmanned space craft.

Now:

Has anyone ever seen this 850 pound load in one place? Is there any photos of it on a scale?

How much moon rock can be found in any one place?

Who has the most and are there any photos of their collection?

*Carefully selected samples from various locations around the earth could be combined to imitate lunar regolith;

By propagating the notion that the Moon was formed as the result of a collision of an object with the earth, NASA is able to set the conditions under which such manufactured samples would be accepted as being actual moon-rock.

This results in the sort of circular logic commonly found in academia: The moon rocks are considered real because they have the properties predicted by the collision hypothesis. The collision hypothesis is then considered validated because the moon rocks appear to have originated from the earth.... and so on, and so forth.


However forging moon rock would make the unmanned spacecraft hypothesis to be redundant insofar as it would be unnecessary. Still, I wouldn't put anything past NASA; that dastardly military organization.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Wrong, wrong and wrong again, Exuberant-san.

There was NO UNMANNED probe to set a reflector on the Moon.

The Lunar samples are NOT all in one place on Earth!!! The approximately 880 lbs total is derived from adding up the amounts from each of the six missions.

AND...880 lbs is what they weigh in a 1G environment. Think about it...

AND, NO!!! The rock and soil samples are impossible to 'fake' using anything found on Earth.

AND NO!!! The samples were not 'collected' by unmanned probes and returned to Earth! Wanna make that claim, then find a reference to the missions involved.



I guess the 'unmanned' robots left boot printss around the reflectors, huh?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FX44rice

 

Well...if you think 52 is 'elderly'

!

I respect you for being inquisitive, but the best way to explain the reality of actual space travel (as displayed publicly by NASA) IS to be technical.

I didn't learn how to fly over 30 years ago by 'imagining' it...it is a technical, demanding skill set. Experience is built, not only 'tech' knowledge, but muscle memory, hand-eye coordination and so forth.

Space exploration is a long-term process. What is seen is the result, the 'successes'. What is not seen is the ground training, hundreds of thousands of hours, and experiments, all done to work out as many potential problems as possible before commiting to launching people. Safety was, of course, the ultimate goal. The Astronauts, being test pilots at heart, would acknowledge acceptable risks, but they weren't suicidal, nor were they stupid.

At the risk of repeating, HollyWood SFX have likely done a disservice to people's understanding of real spaceflight.

Now...a 'possible' explanation for certain (not in this OP's case, sorry mike:roll

instances of what people have seen as 'airbrushing' is: There was a 'presence' on the Moon. A non-human presence. I am open to this, though we only have circumstantial evidence. Still, it should be brought into the discussion.

See? A few hints of something to hide, and an entire 'cottage industry' of a greater "Hoax" develops. It's like, "I've got a Secret" multiplied a hundredfold.

Weed you are making more and more sense...God job friend

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Wrong, wrong and wrong again, Exuberant-san.

There was NO UNMANNED probe to set a reflector on the Moon.

You are misrepresenting the contents of that post, in which I stated:

"Concerning the laser reflector that is cited as proof of man landing on the moon;

Such a mission could have been accomplished using an unmanned spacecraft."


In any case, you are wrong about the reflectors :

"Three more reflectors have since been left on the Moon, including two by later Apollo 14 and 15 missions and one (built by the French) on the unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover. Each of the reflectors rests on the lunar surface in such a way that its flat face points toward the Earth"
(source: www.jpl.nasa.gov...)

*What do you hope to achieve by perpetrating this misrepresentation?

AND NO!!! The samples were not 'collected' by unmanned probes and returned to Earth!

More misrepresentation...

I explicitly stated:

"The collection of 850 pounds of lunar regolith could also have been performed via unmanned spacecraft. "


*Again, What do you hope to achieve by perpetrating this misrepresentation?


[edit on 3-5-2009 by Exuberant1]