Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

In that case mate, I do apologize.

Now, since you have seen it, and firmly belief that it is indeed "twaddle", might you possibly elaborate a little upon it? I bookmarked this to view later, but, if it is indeed BS, I do not want to waste my time.

vvv

Dont you love people who have such firmly grounded beliefs and stances on topics, but never divulge what makes them so sure?

This is especially prevalent among celebrity liberals. They have such left leaning stances on topics like war, immigration, gun control, welfare, but when you start asking specifics they change the subject and call you rascist. Got to love it.

Astronauts would of loved listening to this on the way to the moon .

Well done to all the astronauts who lived the dream
R.I.P to the lost brave men and women who tragically lost there lives for their country .

ENJOY

Originally posted by Vandettas
I would say that there is the same amount of evidence on both sides.

THAT is my problem and THAT is why it won't die

reply to post by intrptr

Each of these lunar modules was a unique one shot, throw away type deal and yet attention to the slightest detail and the skill of the people who assembled each of these by hand, plus the subassembly contractors for all the switches, and connectors, etc. is just mind boggling. There was not a lot of redundancy nor any room for error in assembly, test or inspection of these myriad functions required to simply descend and ascend from the surface of the moon (not simple).

One loose wire jarred by launch, one moist contact deep in a switch or relay, and some critical function is the reason why the whole mission comes crashing down, so to speak. This never happened with all the LMs and that is just amazing to me. It also is indicative of the kind of well trained and highly skilled personnel back then.

Reading the Apollo 16 mission report, it is hard to imagine how they got to the Moon and back. The report reads like a Laurel and Hardy script, things breaking, failing, falling off. The astronauts patched things up with adhesive tape and wire.
From the Apollo 16 mission report:

Following insertion into Earth orbit, there was quite a bit of debris floating around
the cabin. This contamination consisted of small screws, fasteners, ends trimmed from wiring,
and general trash. The quantity of this cabin debris remained constant throughout the
mission.

Then the vacuum cleaner failed in an attempt to suck up the trash. You'd think the contractors could have given the thing a good vacuuming before delivery. The astronauts were amazingly lucky that none of that trash gummed up the works of such delicate and intricate craft.

reply to post by AlonzoTyper


i will tellyou what - pick you one " best peice " of " evidence " for your allegations that the appollo program was a hoax - and i will show you why its wrong

Originally posted by MarkJS
This conspiracy again.... Some countries are sooooo jealous that they weren't first.... And so it goes.

linea segundo

Well, it's up to you really ....

It's either of two ways

A. You, and current NASA engineers are MORONS. The NAZIS were the master race, and you managed to get a piece of junk to land on the moon, and bipass all space dust, because the German scientists were superior. Flying on top of a advanced V2 rocket, that really couldn't take that much payload, but balanced by Mr. genius himself, Werner von Braun. Which also explains why NASA has hardly even managed to drop a ball on Mars, and why NASA is still a bunch of nincompoops who thing the Earth is a constant, created by God, and we're floating on shells, navigated by Nohan. And why such enormous man power is spent, searching for the "God element".

B. The average "success" rate of NASA has been more or less constant, where the moonlander didn't really succeed any better on the moon, than it did during testing. Which also explain why such landing methods, are generally "abandoned", and why the "drop a ball" on alien worlds is preferred. Mr. Werner von Braun was no magician, and the entire NASA has been romatised by movies, just as the US did with the war effort. With "fake" heroes like Bruce Willy's and John Wayne. Which helps to explain why "the movie industry" has been the biggest success and advancement. After all, the movie industry, computer technology has advanced enormously ... while "space travel" technology has virtually stood still. With the "Russian" proton rocket, still being the best alternative.


If you really wanna continue to say A, then it's really fine by me. Because the only thing it will lead to, is that people like those who currently are running NASA, will be "outsourced" to China ... and Russia.

Happy job hunting ... hope the "master race" helps you out there.

Me, personally ... I laugh at this "master race". And I don't really care who claims this Master race status, wether it's the American public, German nazis or people of Israel. It's equally absurd, so I say "B".

Amen.

reply to post by zorgon


then both of you are incapable of critically evaluating evidence , and fatally ignorant of basic science

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Vandettas
I would say that there is the same amount of evidence on both sides.

THAT is my problem

and THAT is why it won't die

It won't die, because the American public are brainwashed turds. They grew up reading "Iron Man" and "Superman", and they live the dream of "Superiority". They are the NAZI DREAM, the self imagined "Master race".

They want to believe ... and it won't die, because Americans are just as religous fanatics as the muslims are.

And on our side, the problem is ... we haven't been there either, so we are arguing with fanatics. If you say, the sky is black on the moon, so stars should be visible ... and the claim of "sunlight" appears, its futile to try and point out the atmospheric luminating constant into the fact. Because it's not a question of argument ... it's a question of belief. Take radiation as a factor, when it suits Americans then radiation is deadly ... when it suits them, Armstrong and his companions just went through zero protected space, and came back and lived to be a hundred afterwards (metaphorically speaking).

The American people, seriously and sincerely believe they are the Master race ... and contradicting an American, is like trying to argue with a retard.

reply to post by SeanU

 

I think everyone relying on the motor to return them to Earth would have preferred that the motor that they were flying with could have been tested. They couldn't test fire it... adding an element of risk to a key piece of equipment required to return them home. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me over the point I was making that was not addressed to you in the first place. No need to reply... I'm done adding to this tin foil hat thread.

Thanks for your reply. Pucker factor was way up when they threw the launch switch I am sure. That was their only egress option, like you said. And there are never any guarantees.

Each and every time it worked. That is amazing to be sure. And how could they know that until they felt the sudden onset of G's push them into their seats (mine might have been squishy). After all, maybe some Q.C inspector misplaced their glasses back at the cape and forgoed that last page of the procedure. Or maybe some hoist operator accidentally set the LM down a bit hard on its bottom just prior to loading into the Saturn 5 payload chamber. These people were good so I overlook the human element, mostly. But the rigors of launch and staging, now that is a grey area. Rivots, solder connections, and chafed wire harnesses are acts that even God spared every single Moon launch. The alternative of sitting there and slowly running out of breathable air on live TV (launch camera), would be unbearable.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
If you say, the sky is black on the moon, so stars should be visible ... and the claim of "sunlight" appears, its futile to try and point out the atmospheric luminating constant into the fact. Because it's not a question of argument ... it's a question of belief.

Well NASA says... if you eliminate 'the atmospheric luminating constant' from Earth skies THIS is what the sky would look like

If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini.

apod.nasa.gov...

So if that is what the sky should look like from Earth without the atmosphere effect, then why is it pitch black with no stars on the moon?

Can't have it both ways

Google Video Link

reply to post by zorgon

If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this

"Something like" that, but not quite, and only if it were during a total eclipse as the Sun is in the composite. The point of the image was to show the location of the Sun amongst the background of stars at the solstice. APOD is a PR site afterall.

Here's what the guy who made the composite said about it.

A total solar eclipse is the only time you could glimpse other stars in the sky with the Sun.

www.astropix.com...

Take away the atmosphere and this is what you see.

What concerns me most about this video is who was responsible for burning the poor dog to death!
As for the hoax theory I am on the fence. To me it makes more sense that they did go to the moon but they also recorded fake footage incase they had problems while recording in space due to radiation. So a true landing with fake footage. Hence why the argument will never end but I don't know and probably never will.
Or maybe there are Aliens on the moon controlling these events. Maybe we were told to make a fake moon landing so people don't question our progress in technology.
Or maybe you all live in my head and there is no moon and my intelligence is failing hence everything I have created is becoming more confusing and jumbled.

reply to post by zorgon

So if that is what the sky should look like from Earth without the atmosphere effect, then why is it pitch black with no stars on the moon?

And that is what the Sun should look like from space? Find me a picture that looks like that. Not 1 in 40+ years of manned space flight?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

3.) The flag waving in the wind where there's supposed to be no wind. There are scenes where nobody is touching the flag, yet it is moving. Very curious and suspicious.

Because the flag was attached to a springy aluminium pole which when driven into the lunar ground would
vibrate for up to several minutes giving appearence of "waving"

People still don't believe we went to the moon?

Goddamnit, people are so gullible when it comes to YouTube videos.

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
If the moan landing were a hoax the Russians would have been quite vocal about it by now, instead of congratulating NASA for it.

Unless, as the film suggests, they were both in on it, separating the nazi rocket scientists up between themselves for the benefit of spy satellites and intelligence.

Actually I really enjoyed the video, I'm no scientist but the radiation argument is interesting, including the fact the camera film wasn't altered in any way from radiation present on the lunar surface.

Don't pass it off as not worth watching, it's quite a history lesson and not just your usual fake photo's argument imo.

reply to post by zorgon


That film of the astronauts Zorgon, they seem very fidgety and unsure about the question, I would even go as far to say that they look like they arent sure what to say.
Would have thought they would remember if there were stars in the sky, wouldnt it be the first thing to look for? Very Very Strange.

reply to post by blaenau2000

Would have thought they would remember if there were stars in the sky, wouldnt it be the first thing to look for?

Not me, I'd be looking at the surface of the Moon. After all, I've been looking at the stars all my life.
But the statement is quite clear that they could see no stars while on the surface.

They were photographing the solar corona while in orbit, on the night side.

Seriously, all you people should refrain from commenting. You guys spend half the time in conspiracy forums and yet you don't know the basic Modus operandi of the people you research. You guys go around in circles discussing left vs right while the truth is neither. It's all distraction meant to keep you going around in circles missing the whole point.

Have you ever heard the words "cover story"? Well, in every topic of major importance in the world there's the real truth (for the few people up top) and the cover story for the sheeple. The # you see on TV is just BS propaganda to keep you distracted while your taxes are being used in covert operations or really big projects.

Besides, if you think the US would just go to the moon and send a live broadcast to entire world without inspecting every inch of the moon first you are either out of your mind or don't have the slightest clue how the real world works.

That's the reason those moon videos are fake, it's not because they never went there. It's because they can't show you what's really there. I don't know if it's UFOs, or just big piles of gold. I don't really care because I would only be speculating. Whatever it is you can rest assure that the guys in charge are taking full advantage of it and probably using it or will use it against you. This is basic Intelligence Agencies tactics and they rule the show.

Now if you ask me how they got there, I would say with flying saucers. The Nazis were two years away from finishing the research on them when WWII ended. The US took those scientists in "Operation Paperclip". Two years later flying saucers started appearing all around the US and still continue to this day. Flying saucers are perfect to go to the moon and beyond because they generate their own magnetic field which is much stronger than that of the Earth. Such magnetic fields protect against any form of radiation from the Sun so is pretty simple to go to the Moon.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by blaenau2000

 

Would have thought they would remember if there were stars in the sky, wouldnt it be the first thing to look for?

Not me, I'd be looking at the surface of the Moon. After all, I've been looking at the stars all my life.
But the statement is quite clear that they could see no stars while on the surface.

edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage are you serious? I have followed a lot of youre posts and you always impress me with youre wisdom, but are you serious that if you went to the moon and stood there for a good while, you would not remember if you could see stars. These individuals are space crazy, studied the stars, NASA`s top men ? I find that very strange, coupled with the body language, it just suggests something is not right to me.