Was the moon landing for real ???

[gn0stik]

I cant tell if you r being sarcastic or not.

Anywho, all the proof I need to say that the first mission to the moon was faked is to simply look at the video link i posted. Its like a smoking gun.

devilzangel
..

They stage every other mission, and every action they perform on those missions 100 times before actually doing it. And this is proof of a hoax?

During the first moonshot, there were multiple interested parties that would have loved to use radio telemetry to prove we were not actually there. During the fostering of the cold war, do you think the USSR would have actually withheld that information? Do you think they would actually not done due diligence, and tried to intercept radio transmissions? And in doing so, known where they were coming from?

The very minimum is that we orbited the moon, on the first mission. This fact completely invalidates the Van Allen belt "impossibility" BS.

What blows me away here the most, is that the US govt is supposedly hiding FE technology, UFO technology recovered from Roswell, or Nazi Germany, maintaining relations with alien intelligences, and is simultaneously technologically incapable of achieving a moonshot.

What?

There was a huge flap in the 50's 10 years after Roswell and the end of WW2 (if you prefer the Nazi UFO reversing theory), that many conspiracy theorists say is evidence that we had reverse engineered the crafts from Roswell, and the moonshot was 10 years AFTER that.

Which is it? Did we reverse UFOs and gain massive knowledge from alien technology or not? If we did, then a moonshot with "60's" technology would have been child's play.

The bottom line is this, all you need to land on the moon, is a good understanding of Newtonian physics, and enough money, and time to prepare, and make it feasible. Hell, they could have put the Eiffel tower on the moon with enough money and time to prepare. Even in the 50s.

Hoagland, and his ilk are the intellectual equivalent of semi thawed fishsticks. Just because some conspiracies have merit, does not mean they all do. There is a technology conspiracy intended to keep us in the dark so that we remain powerless to the energy cartels. It's no different than the Gutenberg press. They are just trying to keep the serfs from being able to read. However all this Hoagland stuff, and Alex Jones stuff, and Zeitgeist crap is easily picked apart, people... As someone else has already said, think critically. Research the opposition's arguments, and THEN draw conclusions.

The populace is like the sea motionless in itself, but stirred by every wind, even the lightest breeze.
   
-   Titus Livius

Rich

[gn0stik]

Koen, not to shoot you down or anything, I see where your coming from, and what your line of logic is here. However it just doesn't work that way. Adding payload to an existing mission simply does not happen. Putting a base module on the moon would be a mission completely independent. That mission would have to be designed from the ground up to do specifically that to ensure success, and the cost would be an exponential growth due, not only to additional fuel costs, but engineering costs, training, staffing, etc. etc. etc. Chances are a saturn 2 couldn't even get the additional payload there without serious modifications. It could be done, by simply launching an extra large LEM, which detached from the ERV which we would come back home in, leaving the LEM behind. So that on successive missions, we keep adding on.


This is precisely what they plan on doing on Mars, and hopefully upcoming moon missions that have been announced, but very little detail is known about the strategies of those missions.

Now, all that being said, playing devil's advocate.. what they COULD have done, is figure out a way to bring the Apollo CSM to the surface, and leave THAT behind. since it went into orbit with them, it should be possible for them get it down with some extra fuel and drawing board time. Detaching and launching from on top of it would be problematic, however, not insurmountable. The best reason for NOT doing this, is that they had no reason to at the time. Apollo were fact finding missions.

We simply did not know enough about the moon's environment or resources back then. Bringing a huge HAB with us on a fact finding mission, was simply not wise, back then, when we didn't really have the ability to send probes to find out what we have to work with once we get there. Think of the Apollo missions as the equivalent to our Mars probes. Back then we had to go there, we couldn't just send robots.

Rich

[Freezer]

However all this Hoagland stuff, and Alex Jones stuff, and Zeitgeist crap is easily picked apart, people...

Thats a pretty bold statement.  Care to back it up with any actual evidence?

[gn0stik]

However all this Hoagland stuff, and Alex Jones stuff, and Zeitgeist crap is easily picked apart, people...

Thats a pretty bold statement.  Care to back it up with any actual evidence?

It would take volumes. I've started on the Hoagland stuff here already, just because that's what this thread is about. I've done my research. I can say this, however, without derailing. I do find the fed. reserve part of the Zeitgeist pseudo documentary to be at least compelling, and historically correct. The other two parts of it however are fraught with intellectual dishonesty, major time line errors which invalidate their arguments, and sometimes outright lies. So the Fed. Reserve stuff is naturally on shaky ground, due to the badly formed arguments of the first two parts.. The information is widely available, and it wouldn't take much to see other things I've posted on other sites, that I and others have written regarding them. The Alex Jones stuff is widely refuted, with very good arguments. The general rule of thumb is, whenever you see someone make a logical leap, they are reaching for fact where there is none. They are willing it to be true. And although they believe it, wholeheartedly, and therefor pose very convincing arguments, passion alone is not a substitute for fact.

In short, there's plenty of evidence out there already if you have the initiative to look at views that do not agree with your own. However many people don't do this before they become emotionally invested in one view or another so it becomes difficult for them to look at opposing views objectively. That's all I'm encouraging.

Perhaps if I have time, I'll repost some of my arguments on those other things. However, it would derail this thread.

[Elvis Oswald]

Hoagland is a nut - or a disinfo agent.   Alex Jones is a patriot... and he never makes a statement that he can't back up.