Have a look at this:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=7913514132856020129
well everything from NAZA related to the moon is hoax
they are probably base on the moon but its not related to the naza :)
Here's a link to some film of the apollo 11 astronauts faking being half-way to the moon.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-73731341583788062&q=moon+landing+hoax
The guy who discovered it in the nasa archives featured this in a film called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." You might find it online too.
After making that movie... he went and interviewed astronauts and confronted them with the truth... those interviews are in a film called "Astronauts Gone Wild" - Even without the shadows that are from more than one light source... and even without the van allen belts... and without this discovered film of Armstrong faking the shot from half-way to the moon... all you have to do is watch the look on the faces of these guys when they are confronted to know that the whole thing was fake.
It's interesting to note that Cheney and Rumsfield were advisors to Nixon... so you see there are the same cast of shady characters involved in all of this.
It's also funny that the program started under Nixon... and that he ended it abruptly before he left office.
Some people laugh and say - "well is EVERYTHING a conspiracy?" and I suppose that everything can't be... and the odds against so many things being "not what they appear" are slim... UNTIL you see that these are the same people, the same gang of thugs involved in every one of these things:
JFK... Moon hoax... Watergate... MKULTRA... abducted children... Iran/Contra drug running operation... pedophile rings... NAFTA and the American Union... 9/11... PATRIOT ACT... bio-terrorism... Invasion and occupation of Iraq... and the civil unrest in Iraq - all the same people. The Bush Krime Family.
Google Prescott Bush and discover how he profited off of concentration camp labor while supporting the nazis in WWII
and then research Operation Paper Clip... and see how the CIA was infiltrated by nazis
and then research what the CIA did in Iran in the '50s... Operation Ajax.
And then tell me we are not seeing the fourth reich emerging
And for our friends in the UK... you should examine 7/7 - that was british intelligence.
I was told the first U.S. landing was faked, but the remaining U.S. landings were real.
Paul Lowrance
I saw a dokumenar film about this things.
They make a intervie with Rumsfield and he really said on TV that the film and photos are maked in a film-studio !!!
Because they needed it for the promotion . And so they maked this film and photos what are in every school-book.
Very creacy ! And whats also (not) funny, the most of the people which maked this fake films and photos are died on mystery way. I don't know how many of these 5 or more people how make the film were killed, but Rumsfield (he was the chef of this nice films & photos) life and make other really films in other countrys like Irak.
The landing was thrue, said Rumsfeld ! But I can't believe it really !!
Was another state (Russia) every time on the moon landing ??? I don't know, if not, than all of the moon projekt is a nice fake.
In the internet you can also read, that most of the astronauts saws "UFO"s and that we are not bewelcome on the moon. And I also read that they (Armstrong and other) have saw big ships on the moon. Perhaps it's thrue.
At the last Nasa mission (Atlanta) they must change the landing for 2 days because the astronauts saw also UFOs.
The Nasa think it was only some thing of the Atlanta shuttle or a simple plastic bag !!! - really plastic bag - I must laught !!! But perhaps really a plastic bag of Hofer or Wall marked.
Here 2more powerful evidences, that man did not yet go to the moon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2739885818689004&q=moon+landing+hoax
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280164630927881599&q=moon+landing+hoax
Quote from: Dellemann on October 22, 2006, 02:48:07 PM
I saw a dokumenar film about this things.
They make a intervie with Rumsfield and he really said on TV that the film and photos are maked in a film-studio !!!
Because they needed it for the promotion . And so they maked this film and photos what are in every school-book.
Very creacy ! And whats also (not) funny, the most of the people which maked this fake films and photos are died on mystery way. I don't know how many of these 5 or more people how make the film were killed, but Rumsfield (he was the chef of this nice films & photos) life and make other really films in other countrys like Irak.
The landing was thrue, said Rumsfeld ! But I can't believe it really !!
Was another state (Russia) every time on the moon landing ??? I don't know, if not, than all of the moon projekt is a nice fake.
In the internet you can also read, that most of the astronauts saws "UFO"s and that we are not bewelcome on the moon. And I also read that they (Armstrong and other) have saw big ships on the moon. Perhaps it's thrue.
At the last Nasa mission (Atlanta) they must change the landing for 2 days because the astronauts saw also UFOs.
The Nasa think it was only some thing of the Atlanta shuttle or a simple plastic bag !!! - really plastic bag - I must laught !!! But perhaps really a plastic bag of Hofer or Wall marked.
That film was a mocumentary which was actually making fun the the whole idea that the moon landing were faked, by stanley kubrik.
Man went to the moon. We monitored aliens along the way, or more accurately they monitored us. They have bases on the moon, which lie on the back side. We had to edit footage and photos which is why some of it looks faked. NASA has been editing their images ever since...NASA isn't the U.S's link to space exploration, its a technology capped, public relations solution. What better way to hide aliens and ufos, then by having control of a mock space program, and secretly study them in the background. NASA can't possibly yeild break-though technology since its public, and of which technologies would be compromised. NASA is one big disinformation giant. They make planets look dead, then 20 years later releasing a picture with streams of water flows :D They have released images in earlier decades with interesting anomolies, only later to release the same image with those anomolies gone. I think if theres bases on the moon, they are going to be mostly underground. Ill never trust anthing NASA tells us.
Some of this sounds so far fetched.
Though we have passed the age of reason.
I think this is the age of drama and conspiracy.
Oddly if you do look to the night sky you see nothing but stars oddly in many pictures where you should see stars you do not it is completely black.
This is one of the other conspiracy theories linked to the smoking gun secret nasa transmissions or something like that also you have the other dr. hosting a project called the disclosure project or something along them lines.
Anyhow I somehow wonder just exactly why so many people see things that are not explainable and record things unexplainable.... Every single recording has an alternate explanantion even credible witnesses may not be creidible they are after all only human.
Where am I going with this.
The age of drama and conspiracy breeds the age of possibility which is we are entering skeptical views are acceptable but keep an open mind.
Some nice pics here.
Enjoy.
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/index.html
Anyone notice something wrong in this photo?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/images/content/68449main_AS11-40-5903.jpg
This image shows that the single lightsource is too close to be the sun. The angle of the reflective rock to the left of the astronaut, the high specular region on the ground floor..
^^ could u please explain; i stared at the image (which is pretty high res) for a few minutes and couldn't figure out what you were getting at.
devilzangel
..
look how bright it is right by the space man .. now look out in the distance, how come its not bright out there in the distance just past the space man ? ( there is a VERY powerfull light right above and just behind the space man , and it sure as hell is not the sun)
well .. true, but there could be many things that can be causing this.
The reflection (white) can be due to upheal of the "soil" from the module landing, possible artificial compacting due to that also. His foot prints provide more evidence that the compacting of the soil in a certain angle is creating the uniform reflection.
looking at the legs, the astronauts left leg is lighted in the inner side due to the reflection from his right leg. some would think that there was light coming in from the astronauts right side. keep in mind that the suit is colored white, it gives very good exposure even when not in favorable lighting.
also when looking at the reflection pic on the helmet, it gives a very wideangle view showing that the surrounding area shows even exposure.
unfortunately, i dont see how this can be confirmed one way or another without going to the moon and testing it.
i do have to admit, it does look weird to have a bright area and then a surrounding matte type area.
devilzangel
..
k maybe this might help .. if your standing in a BIG wide open parking lot..with no cars in it , and your pic is taken during the day(when the sun is out.).....is there a bright light around just you ? ...or is the light consistand all the way acoss the parking lot ? .......now.....if it was dusk and some one set up a light just above you and behind , youll get the same look as in the spaceman pic /cough , i mean the earthman pic :).
I don't know about the photos etc. but for me it's simply a matter of expedience: America simply had to beat the Russians to the moon - it would have been cheaper, safer and guaranteed success if they faked the first one.
What I find remarkable is that so many people really want to believe it really happenned.
What I'd REALLY like to see is telescope photos of the landing sites from an independent source that show the LEM base section, flag etc. etc. : That would at least prove they really went there from some source other than NASA.
Any takers?
What i am thinking is the first was a fake, and when they finally go to the moon they always showed faked video and pic, so you cannot see the structure and skull, spaceship that are already in the moon
Quote from: TheOne on September 03, 2007, 09:56:31 AM
What i am thinking is the first was a fake, and when they finally go to the moon they always showed faked video and pic, so you cannot see the structure and skull, spaceship that are already in the moon
what skull?
know about the structures that were transposed over, etc., and ofcourse the ship on the moon.
devilzangel
..
some of the nasa photo show skull head on the moon, i don't remember if its on mars or both mars and moon! :)
^^ have any link?
found this http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm
is that what u r talking about?
devilzangel
..
yes, also they are some on mars, the mars one are a little different, they talked about it on coasttocoastam
this guys on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/theduderinok
put all coasttocoastam radio show with image, its really cool
What is more plausable?
That the US hoaxed the moonlanding, and accidnetly leaked these films as opposed to incinerating them.
Or that someone made the videos?
I forget which "alleged" moon mission astronaut said this, but when confronted by the evidence of faked moon landing, he responded with something like, "that's interesting, but why would we fake it six times?"
Anyway, I am curious, does anyone here believe in a flat earth? Because if you do, then you absolutely must conclude that the moon landings were fake, because they show a spherical earth.
I saw the FOX special... and even though some of the photos are obviously not from the moon... and even though the film would not have survived the trip, or the temps on the moon... I STILL thought we went. I grew up with that story, ya know? I was about 3 when we went and I one of my earliest memories is of my mom telling me to pay attention because it was something important.
But then I saw a film called "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon." It shows clips of film from apollo 11 where the astronauts are pretending to be half-way to the moon - while they are in low earth orbit. But from those clips, it's hard to see what's happening.
But the interviews with the astronauts are what made me see the truth. Watch the film yourselves. I will post it online. You can watch their reaction to the interview and see for yourself that they are lying. Sweat... stammering... it's obvious.
Anyways... then I saw the entire film from apollo 11. It's on youtube... so you can watch it yourself. You can see that they are putting a transparency with continents on it in the window. then you can see from the blue linght that they are in low earth orbit.
So - here we have filmed evidence of the hoax. And we have the sweaty stammering astronauts.
Besides that - it started under Nixon and he ended it without reason... so it was all under Nixon... AND Cheney and Rumsfield were right there in the whitehouse guiding him - cause by then, he was really off the deep end.
And the world is a sphere. It was the staus-quo that once said it was flat and laughed at those who spoke the truth. And now - atlas... you are defending the status-quo against the truth.
If the man said the earth was flat... you would purr like a kitten in the lap of the man.
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on October 28, 2007, 09:49:06 PM
I saw the FOX special... and even though some of the photos are obviously not from the moon... and even though the film would not have survived the trip, or the temps on the moon... I STILL thought we went. I grew up with that story, ya know? I was about 3 when we went and I one of my earliest memories is of my mom telling me to pay attention because it was something important.
But then I saw a film called "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon." It shows clips of film from apollo 11 where the astronauts are pretending to be half-way to the moon - while they are in low earth orbit. But from those clips, it's hard to see what's happening.
But the interviews with the astronauts are what made me see the truth. Watch the film yourselves. I will post it online. You can watch their reaction to the interview and see for yourself that they are lying. Sweat... stammering... it's obvious.
Anyways... then I saw the entire film from apollo 11. It's on youtube... so you can watch it yourself. You can see that they are putting a transparency with continents on it in the window. then you can see from the blue linght that they are in low earth orbit.
So - here we have filmed evidence of the hoax. And we have the sweaty stammering astronauts.
Besides that - it started under Nixon and he ended it without reason... so it was all under Nixon... AND Cheney and Rumsfield were right there in the whitehouse guiding him - cause by then, he was really off the deep end.
And the world is a sphere. It was the staus-quo that once said it was flat and laughed at those who spoke the truth. And now - atlas... you are defending the status-quo against the truth.
If the man said the earth was flat... you would purr like a kitten in the lap of the man.
I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying all six missions were faked? You must be, because you claim that film could not have survived the trip or the temperatures on the moon, and we have film from all six, I believe.
OK, I watched the Funny Thing video. All I heard was a theory based on the dark shots of the earth, where you could not see the interior of the cabin.
Here is another video which clearly shows a small earth out the window. Look at around 7:55. This is all one continuous shot, and the interior of the cabin is often visible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
I think this was discussed before.
Here is what happened, listen to what Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, andRichard Nixon among others had to say (and did) about that "moon landing"
If you can locate this video, it was on the web last year but appears to have been removed. it's a good one.
The Dark Side of the Moon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3288261061829859642&q=Dark+side+of+the+moon
Watch and draw your own conclusions. A true eye opener.
Also here:
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
Sunday November 16, 2003 at 10PM ET/PT
repeating Sunday July 24, 2005 at 10pm ET/PT
How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_161103.html
.
Atlas - if the camera was in the window filming the earth, then whose arm gets in the way?
Regardless of that - this was edited before broadcast.
The uncut video of the apollo astronauts - with time stamp - shows them faking the shot of being halfway to the moon.
You can see them shoot some with the earth shaped like an egg... then they try again and do a better job. Then you see that they are far away from the window and that the "blue" color of the earth is actually light shining in the window. There's one point on the film where the window is visible for an instant - you can plainly see the light shining in. It's BLUE light... and that means it's the earth's atmosphere.
Sorry - but an edited broadcast does not trump video with timestamp that shows them faking the shot and then plainly showing bright blue sky outside the window.
Apollo 11 was fake. The proof is there. I take the reaction of the others has proof that their missions were fake as well. And why not fake all of them?
How many people needed to be involved? Not many. The signal from the missions came to earth and was recorded by one of three stations - and then it was broadcast to another government facility before it was relayed to mission control.
Only the astronauts, and whoever was monitoring the signal to catch any giveaways would have to know.
Nixon shut it all down. They had stolen $$ from the taxpayers and given them nothing.
It's no secret that Nixon was Prescott Bush's boy... and that Prescott was part of a plot to overthrow our government here and institute fascism. He helped Hitler during WWII.
Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex. Do you think he was a nut too? Who do you think he was talking about?
He was talking about Prescott Bush and others... and I'm sure he knew Nixon was part of it.
So would they kill JFK... steal money by faking the moon landing... fake the cold war and the war on terror to steal more money and to erase the constitution?
Damn right they would.
And it's the same people. The Bush Krime Family.
Cheney and Rumsfield and Kissinger and Bill and Hillary and GHWB and GWB - all thugs, all nazis, all new world order scum.
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on October 29, 2007, 02:13:19 PM
Atlas - if the camera was in the window filming the earth, then whose arm gets in the way?
Regardless of that - this was edited before broadcast.
The uncut video of the apollo astronauts - with time stamp - shows them faking the shot of being halfway to the moon.
You can see them shoot some with the earth shaped like an egg... then they try again and do a better job. Then you see that they are far away from the window and that the "blue" color of the earth is actually light shining in the window. There's one point on the film where the window is visible for an instant - you can plainly see the light shining in. It's BLUE light... and that means it's the earth's atmosphere.
Sorry - but an edited broadcast does not trump video with timestamp that shows them faking the shot and then plainly showing bright blue sky outside the window.
Apollo 11 was fake. The proof is there. I take the reaction of the others has proof that their missions were fake as well. And why not fake all of them?
How many people needed to be involved? Not many. The signal from the missions came to earth and was recorded by one of three stations - and then it was broadcast to another government facility before it was relayed to mission control.
Only the astronauts, and whoever was monitoring the signal to catch any giveaways would have to know.
Nixon shut it all down. They had stolen $$ from the taxpayers and given them nothing.
It's no secret that Nixon was Prescott Bush's boy... and that Prescott was part of a plot to overthrow our government here and institute fascism. He helped Hitler during WWII.
Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex. Do you think he was a nut too? Who do you think he was talking about?
He was talking about Prescott Bush and others... and I'm sure he knew Nixon was part of it.
So would they kill JFK... steal money by faking the moon landing... fake the cold war and the war on terror to steal more money and to erase the constitution?
Damn right they would.
And it's the same people. The Bush Krime Family.
Cheney and Rumsfield and Kissinger and Bill and Hillary and GHWB and GWB - all thugs, all nazis, all new world order scum.
You forgot to mention the part about how Truman's administration lied about the Holocaust and how NASA is still lying to us about the Earth being round. Dude, you are beyond help - you'll believe anything as long as it makes the government look bad. Go on and believe whatever you want. Good luck making your way in the world, and get some good tinfoil - you'll need it.
There is obvious evidence man has been on the moon; but there is no definite evidence this occurred on the first trip. In fact there is evidence to the contrary; that the first trip was a fake. Trips afterwards (maybe not all of them) to the moon are real; because, by then secret orgs within the govt already knew of antigrav and had already reverse engineered the dang things; shoot, there is a good chance the govt had went to the moon even before the Apollo missions. It is a definite fact that NASA (along with its contractors) has been doctoring images available to the public for decades. No point in pretending when NASA and secret govt orgs are already doing this for us.I don't have a long neck and I hate playing ostrich. NASA and other collaborators cant hide or lie anymore when so many insiders are coming out and spilling the beans.
@ shruggedatlas, i dont think any serious reliable insider or researcher has ever said that ALL moon missions were faked. Remote viewing was also used to map out and confirm alien presence and structures on the moon. There is a good chance that these "aliens" have been on the Moon and Earth for a very long time. Who knows .. only time will tell.
devilzangel
..
So,
was the Van Allan belt still so strong, that the radiation would
have killed every astronaut over there going through it ?
What about the Mars probes which went through the Van Allan belt ?
Were they better protected against the radiation ?
Okay, no human on board there,
so what is the latest word on the
Van Allan belt ?
Could it be passed in 1969 already with the small
thickness steel ? capsules of the Saturn rockets ?
without killing the astronauts ?
I still believe that all moon landings were faked.
The moon landing capsules was much too unstable to land
at all on the moon.
This was already shown earlier with tests on earth...
it tilted back and forth and never made a stable landing...
had to be hold on strings to get it back safely to the gound...
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 30, 2007, 01:52:18 AM
So,
was the Van Allan belt still so strong, that the radiation would
have killed every astronaut over there going through it ?
What about the Mars probes which went through the Van Allan belt ?
Were they better protected against the radiation ?
Okay, no human on board there,
so what is the latest word on the
Van Allan belt ?
Could it be passed in 1969 already with the small
thickness steel ? capsules of the Saturn rockets ?
without killing the astronauts ?
I still believe that all moon landings were faked.
The moon landing capsules was much too unstable to land
at all on the moon.
This was already shown earlier with tests on earth...
it tilted back and forth and never made a stable landing...
had to be hold on strings to get it back safely to the gound...
Regarding the Van Allen Belt, here is what the Wikipedia has to say:
"Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation."
It seems like the Van Allen belts can cause harm to certain electronics under certain circumstances. Why do you believe it is fatal to human beings?
On the moon landings, why would they fake it six times? On one hand we have tons evidence from six separate moon missions - video transmissions, photographs, audio recordings, moon rocks, and of course the testimony of hundreds. On the other hand we have your opinion that NASA's best engineers were never able to solve the landing problem. How do you know they never solved it? Just because we have videos of failures does not mean success was never achieved.
Also, the Wikipedia article below contains many convincing refutations of the most popular reasons for believing the Moon Landings were staged, from the waving flag, to Van Allen belts, to missing stars, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on October 30, 2007, 01:18:22 PM
Regarding the Van Allen Belt, here is what the Wikipedia has to say:
"Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation."
It seems like the Van Allen belts can cause harm to certain electronics under certain circumstances. Why do you believe it is fatal to human beings?
Because the radiation is much higher than said in Wikipedia !
The small size capsule metal would not shield it enough !
Quote
On the moon landings, why would they fake it six times? On one hand we have tons evidence from six separate moon missions - video transmissions, photographs, audio recordings, moon rocks, and of course the testimony of hundreds. On the other hand we have your opinion that NASA's best engineers were never able to solve the landing problem. How do you know they never solved it? Just because we have videos of failures does not mean success was never achieved.
Show me a video of a sucessful test on earth of the landing module!
When I saw as a kid in 1969
already the first start from the moon back into orbit,
I already wondered, how good they got this transmitted to earth and that the camera
zoomed up to the sky catching the landing module flying upwards
and it did not show any rocket?s exhaust and looked like being pulled up by a string !
It made me already think with being 8 years old that something was wrong here...
I never forgot about this..
Quote from: shruggedatlas on October 30, 2007, 02:14:50 PM
Also, the Wikipedia article below contains many convincing refutations of the most popular reasons for believing the Moon Landings were staged, from the waving flag, to Van Allen belts, to missing stars, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations)
I hope the upcoming Japanese moon mission will
show photo evidence of this ,but maybe these photos will
also be manipulated ?
I also don?t believe, that Hubble could not get at least some small zoomed up
images of the landing site...
I guess it is a lie, that it can only take resolution of up the 60 Meters objects...
If it would be such a low resolution, how can it catch galaxies outside our own milkyway
galaxy ?
Have a look at this video,
if they still have today these problems
by crashing landers, do you think NASA
was able to do it in 1969 ??
http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=071029xpc07_ng_llc_summary
Also I saw a video were a guy was going to a NASA museum and
measuring actually in an old landing module there on display and said,
that the entrance room of the lander module was so small, so that the astronauts never could
change out of their suits and oxygen tanks on their back there...
I consider myself an intelligent individual (this has yet to be decided! ???) but one thing I have come to learn is peoples willingness to believe in things contrary to what they are told. I think there is a little conspiracy theorist in all of us. Any free thinking individual SHOULD question EVERYTHING they are told.,,,,, Even conspiracies.
This being said. I had to question the evidence presented here.
It seems to me that what has been presented is in fact a plausible explanation. but that does not mean its the only explanation!
I have my own theories, but I will not state them, because I do not have an agenda ( people will do doubtedly claim I do!)
I would though encourage you to see the evedance, and consider not only what is presented, but also consider all possible outcomes that this evidence leads to.
Life is not always black and white, right or wrong.
Do a mental experiment, considering what you have seen. And "knowing" its not a fake, try and prove the conspiracy "nuts" wrong. Its just as easy.
Does this make your knew hypothesis correct? not really. Not at all. Its a crap shoot.
That being said. What the hell happened on 9/11?????????????????????????????
You have to be absolutely blind to believe the "official" story! We live in the age of information!
nough said.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 30, 2007, 10:16:17 PM
Have a look at this video,
if they still have today these problems
by crashing landers, do you think NASA
was able to do it in 1969 ??
http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=071029xpc07_ng_llc_summary
Also I saw a video were a guy was going to a NASA museum and
measuring actually in an old landing module there on display and said,
that the entrance room of the lander module was so small, so that the astronauts never could
change out of their suits and oxygen tanks on their back there...
Harti
This is an "armature" challenge presented for new ideas, the modules presented are by independent contractors. Too many variables to make sound judgement.
Most of the video links are dead...
does anyone have working video links to all the vids named in the posts of this thread?
Quote from: armagdn03 on October 30, 2007, 10:25:47 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 30, 2007, 10:16:17 PM
Have a look at this video,
if they still have today these problems
by crashing landers, do you think NASA
was able to do it in 1969 ??
http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=071029xpc07_ng_llc_summary
Also I saw a video were a guy was going to a NASA museum and
measuring actually in an old landing module there on display and said,
that the entrance room of the lander module was so small, so that the astronauts never could
change out of their suits and oxygen tanks on their back there...
Harti
This is an "armature" challenge presented for new ideas, the modules presented are by independent contractors. Too many variables to make sound judgement.
Yes, but please show me a video ofthe actual landing capsule tested on earth which did work !?
I did not find anyone !
And surely it must have been tested prior to going to the moon,
right ?
So show me a video, where the actual moon landing capsule starts and goes up at least 50 Meters on its own
and is not supplied on a string for holding it straight and is stable in the air.
Thanks.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on October 30, 2007, 01:18:22 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 30, 2007, 01:52:18 AM
On the moon landings, why would they fake it six times? On one hand we have tons evidence from six separate moon missions - video transmissions, photographs, audio recordings, moon rocks, and of course the testimony of hundreds. On the other hand we have your opinion that NASA's best engineers were never able to solve the landing problem. How do you know they never solved it? Just because we have videos of failures does not mean success was never achieved.
Why not fake it six times? When a con works and makes you millions of dollars AND you get away with it... why not?
I hate to disagree with you - but what ton of evidence are you talking about? I believe you are not thinking logically. Let's forget me proving they were fake... let's see what evidence you have.
video transmissions... how do you prove they were from the moon? You can't.
photos... audio... same thing - could have been from anywhere. You tell me how you know they were taken on the moon.
moon rocks? well IF they are moon rocks... and how do you prove that - then how do you know apollo astronauts picked them up and brought them home?
Testimony of 100's of people?? NASA sent these men up in a rocket into orbit. After that - they only saw and heard what was relayed to them. The ONLY people who know FOR SURE what they did in space are the astronauts... and whoever else was required (on a need to know basis) to participate in relaying transmissions to NASA.
And please take special care to read this:
Your last statement sort of explains where you are coming from. You simply believe the moon landing were real because you were told they were real. And that's ok - if you don't mind being fooled from time to time.
But I don't appreciate you saying I'm "out there" because I demand proof. And I just made a list of the ton of proof - and none of it is real proof.
the only shred of evidence is when an astronaut says he went to the moon. And I'll ask you again to watch them interviewed and then tell me how you would vote if you were on a jury after seeing the reactions to questions.
And how about telling me what I got wrong about the nazis that are still trying to take over the world... instead of just calling me a nut.
What do you guys think about these two photos, imposed. Not only does it show the flag not waving, but it would be impossible for this to occur on Earth.
they are wind on moon too anyway. so putting a hacked flags that does not move prove nothing
The bases should be of peoples' interest.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/99895-moon-0
http://www.sys-con.com/read/450055.htm
Quote from: TheOne on November 01, 2007, 10:43:58 PM
they are wind on moon too anyway. so putting a hacked flags that does not move prove nothing
I realize English is probably not your first language, but I must ask for clarification. Are you saying there is wind on the moon? How is that possible without atmosphere?
In addition, the furling flag is a big argument by the proponents of the fake moon landing theory. Either the flag was real and furling, or it was fake and not furling, not both.
Also, what about the reflector array in the Sea of Tranquility that is used by scientists to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon and also the Moon's rotation and orbit?
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/lunar-laser.html (http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/lunar-laser.html)
they are a tiny atmosphere on the moon, john lear talked about that many time, NASA = disinformation, dont believe any word they say....
I think it was all set up and the whole fiasco was faked. Not just the evidence but the whole NASA/American hubris thing that they are the first , the best, the blah blah blah etc. The usa has to appear to dominate everything and be the big school yard bully - they are still up to it now but thank god for the internet we are a lot better informed. The thing stinks - i am pretty sure hubble can locate the spot. also the astronaut interview on youtube looks like these guys are so uncomfortable with questions. i just hope neil armstrong et al gets the guts up to tell everyone before he dies. america will be even more of a laughing stock that it is now with a brain dead idiot president. imagine the embarrassment lol. IT WILL BE REVEALED IN TIME - what a joke it will be.
They go on moon, have base, go on mars, the thing is they dont tell us the thruth because they dont use the old rocket crap technologies anymore, they used NASA (front) to hide what they are really doing, they are using technologies stoled from the german WW2 (saucer technologies) and free energy
Quote from: TheOne on November 01, 2007, 11:09:26 PM
they are a tiny atmosphere on the moon, john lear talked about that many time, NASA = disinformation, dont believe any word they say....
Atmosphere on the moon? I see now who I am dealing with. No wonder no one takes you guys seriously.
Tsk Tsk shrugged, are you ignorant.
You should read more posts in the overunity forum, obviously you don't, otherwise you would have read this:
Quote from: bowser03 on October 28, 2007, 08:19:17 PM
The actual secret of Free Energy is given as the power of "Vril' which is caused by two rotating magnetic field's interaction. This is what my Father, the real Hitler used to have German Astronauts travel to the Moon and discover cities and life there in the 30's. He used Vril saucers. Vril can be produced by a series of 2 electromechanical disks in a homopolar like, full flux design, or it can be produced by rotating two magnetic fields with field coils in a toriod using a solid state methodology. i have attached a drawing of a successful vrillian free energy circuit which i tested today. Please don't take this lecture i am giving you too lightly, since i have 6 Phd's and 4 Nobel Prizes under alias names and no other human on this earth has ever had more than one Prize per person.
Not only atmosphere, CITIES. By now they are probably run by Nazis. That is why they had to fake the flag on the moon, they could not very well show the swastika flags flying there.
So catch up with the enlightened ones here and study http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3538.0/topicseen.html It will do you good. :-)
Hans von Lieven
You should learn to address the topic shruggedatas. Your behaviour strikes me as weird, maybe this is an european thing I don?t know. You come tell us all kinds of lies? haha??? What are you the open source development sadist?
"No wonder no one takes you guys seriously."
This is an Insult!
Why are you posting insults Mr liar?
Is there something wrong with talking like a normal person? That so hard for you?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 02, 2007, 02:20:41 AM
Tsk Tsk shrugged, are you ignorant.
Hans it's your own account, we all know that by now.
It didn't even have an email address, what was you thinking?
The cameras the astronauts used had crosshairs engraved on the lens. NASA claimed, the company that made the camera was most insulted by this lie. They said they made the most expensive camera on the world, NASA even modified it. You only get crosshairs if you want them on the film. The only reason to want them on the film is to be able to do good edits.
The 2001 space odyssey set camera couldn't even go low enough to fake a single chest cam shot.
There is not one photo that could have been made from the chest.
Different locations on the moon have the same hills
Then there are even moon UFO photos where the studio lights are clearly visible.
Big round spotlights.
But I guess you can still argue that's the sun right!
ROFL!!
Quote from: darchorse on November 01, 2007, 11:15:58 PM
I think it was all set up and the whole fiasco was faked. Not just the evidence but the whole NASA/American hubris thing that they are the first , the best, the blah blah blah etc. The usa has to appear to dominate everything and be the big school yard bully - they are still up to it now but thank god for the internet we are a lot better informed. The thing stinks - i am pretty sure hubble can locate the spot. also the astronaut interview on youtube looks like these guys are so uncomfortable with questions. i just hope neil armstrong et al gets the guts up to tell everyone before he dies. america will be even more of a laughing stock that it is now with a brain dead idiot president. imagine the embarrassment lol. IT WILL BE REVEALED IN TIME - what a joke it will be.
I think what really makes you mad is that we brought a car. How American!
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 02, 2007, 03:49:31 AM
Quote from: darchorse on November 01, 2007, 11:15:58 PM
I think it was all set up and the whole fiasco was faked. Not just the evidence but the whole NASA/American hubris thing that they are the first , the best, the blah blah blah etc. The usa has to appear to dominate everything and be the big school yard bully - they are still up to it now but thank god for the internet we are a lot better informed. The thing stinks - i am pretty sure hubble can locate the spot. also the astronaut interview on youtube looks like these guys are so uncomfortable with questions. i just hope neil armstrong et al gets the guts up to tell everyone before he dies. america will be even more of a laughing stock that it is now with a brain dead idiot president. imagine the embarrassment lol. IT WILL BE REVEALED IN TIME - what a joke it will be.
I think what really makes you mad is that we brought a car. How American!
Yeah, and what kind of car! I mean look at that enormous structure there far far away at the horizon, that all came out of a small box.
You cant miss it it's brightly lit and right in-front of the light source. hahaha
Look it's easy to debunk the moon landing.
It works just like you debunk most UFO videos. Take this for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDidNzQ12ZY
Now this is easy to debunk. Think! You are vdeooing 2 ufo's making a crop circle. Would you allow them to fly out of the picture? Would you make no attempt to follow them of any kind? The dumbest camera man would do a better job as this.
Now the moon footage is all shot in one direction. The camera never shows us around but it's always a straight shot. Any newbie camera man would take shots in all directions, never just one. Sure they patch up stuff that looks like it but it's not close to natural camera work. Everyone inside NASA who should know better responds down right hostile. If you listen to their talk it's as if they got brainwashed.
It's just hilariously stoopid people buy this crap. LOL If you have liek half a working braincell you see it's a one big fake. lolzz
I dont find it hard to believe that they faked the moon landing.
They were under huge pressure to beat the Russians.
Now that China has plans to land on the moon... look at recent events:
They are having competitions for people to build working moon landers.
Geez... Why would they need to have a new lander when they already have existing
lander technology? They could do it back then, but cant now???
I have been lurking for a while and this is a great website with brave people but I have to say this..... Its funny how all you argue about landing on the moon but you are swallowing the whole moon thing like sheeple. lol......
Guys, I hate to break it to you but theres no moon. It is all right here..... http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)
So yes the moon landing is fake but lol so is the moon. They just did that so that people would continue to think theres a moon and nasa liers and astronomers could continue to make money.
Funny how you only ever see one side haha! Its cause its flat and its too hard to make it change gradually. And please do not bring up tides, thats funny..........evryone always bring that up first and its so ridicilus. You take a golf ball and put it above a small bowl of water..... does the water rise up? Didnt think so.......
Put that joint out man, you've had enough. dam near spit out my coffee and ruined my keyboard!
Quote from: utilitarian on November 02, 2007, 10:08:11 AM
I have been lurking for a while and this is a great website with brave people but I have to say this..... Its funny how all you argue about landing on the moon but you are swallowing the whole moon thing like sheeple. lol......
Guys, I hate to break it to you but theres no moon. It is all right here..... http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)
So yes the moon landing is fake but lol so is the moon. They just did that so that people would continue to think theres a moon and nasa liers and astronomers could continue to make money.
Funny how you only ever see one side haha! Its cause its flat and its too hard to make it change gradually. And please do not bring up tides, thats funny..........evryone always bring that up first and its so ridicilus. You take a golf ball and put it above a small bowl of water..... does the water rise up? Didnt think so.......
A quote from the adress you gave.
"A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed."
LOL! I'd love to see anyone send PHYSICAL anything through via e-mail. Man UPS and Fed-ex are gonna be pissed!
Hmm. i wonder if that $100.000 exist? ::) I must be bored today.. sorry!!
Quote...I must be bored....
See this :-)
bush on the moon on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=6754)
Quote from: zero on November 02, 2007, 08:28:21 AM
I dont find it hard to believe that they faked the moon landing.
They were under huge pressure to beat the Russians.
Now that China has plans to land on the moon... look at recent events:
They are having competitions for people to build working moon landers.
Geez... Why would they need to have a new lander when they already have existing
lander technology? They could do it back then, but cant now???
Exactly.
Please people, show me a video of the old moon lander, when they tested it successfully
on earth, PLEASE !
I have only seen so far crash videos of it.
This thing never was stable without support lines !
There are just too many convincing arguments, that they just never made it to the moon
and were only in earth orbit and faked all the moon landings...
Thanks gaby. Now i know there IS a moon! i seen ol GW standing on it. :o)
G'day all,
I don't know if anyone actually set foot on the moon, I wasn't there.
One thing I am certain of, they DID fly there! The idea that they never made it out of earth's orbit is ridiculous. There were a number of stations that were tracking the spacecraft as it was on it's way and on the return journey. Many of them outside the sphere of influence of the US.
The Soviet Union would have loved to show that the spacecraft was broadcasting from Earth's orbit. When it comes to the actual surface of the moon we cannot tell where the astronauts were as the Moon orbiting spacecraft was relaying the broadcast from the surface and all signals received on earth could only be tracked to there.
Just my two cent's worth
Hans von Lieven
I dont know why you think there was never a moon landing Hartiberlin.
Firstly, the question is whether they went to the moon, not whether the module was controllable enough to land with.
A. I am sure you know, the moon has lower gravity, so whatever fails on earth doesnt mean it will fail on the moon, the landing mechanisms would need less force to land, and it would be more responsive to control efforts.
B. If the Germans could help US secret projects figure out how to lift off a several hundreds tons rocket into space, I seriously doubt they were having problems trying to stabilize a landing propulsion system.
C. you dont even need a dang module man, we are talking about late 1960s here, USA had FLYING UFOs!!; who gives a flying 'u know wat' if they didnt put their brightest engineers on the landing systems; they knew it wouldnt matter. MAYBE they just took everything to the moon via a UFO,and FILMED it there, and then packed up and came back.
Secondly, there are artifacts left on the moon that relay back scientific information to earth, there is also a mirror on the moon that lets scientists track the moon's distance from earth with lasers. If you want further proof, point any large enough telescope in the direction of the landing sites.
devilzangel
..
Quote from: devilzangel on November 03, 2007, 09:59:11 AM
If you want further proof, point any large enough telescope in the direction of the landing sites.
devilzangel
..
I believe we did go to the moon, and also faked parts. No land-based telescope will have the resolution to image the sites, but Japan has successfully launched a satellite which is scheduled to image these sites. So if all goes well, we actually might get some images, independent of NASA(Never A Straight Answer).
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/selene/index_e.html
at moon's Perigee = 363,300 km
at moon's Apogee = 405,500 km
if a military satellite can image a license plate on earth from 20,000 km, I fail to see your point. With current technology, there is enough ability to get good resolution of the moon. Of course we don't need to see foot prints to find evidence of human activity on the moon.
There are plenty of large telescopes on earth that can give a decent resolution. The largest optical telescopes are in the range of approx. 10meters. Thats huge. If i can get a decent high quality moon image from a 500mm dslr camera, imagine what a 10meter telescope can do.
the question is who is willing to get that funding to rent one of these beauties, and if the govt will even allow this moon pointing in the first place.
devilzangel
..
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html
Here is an interesting discussion of the first released Japanese
"low res" images from the moon:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread308517/pg1
I wonder, why the Japanese couldn?t getter higher res images yet ?
G'day Stefan and all,
I thought the reason for the poor picture quality was obvious. It cost too much to launch the satellite. There was not enough money left in the budget to buy a decent camera so a second hand Brownie had to do. :-)
Hans von Lieven
Here are 4 pages full of photos,
that prove, that they astronauts were still
on the earth when these pics were taken...
http://www.fast-geheim.de/html/apollo.html
Harti, comon man,
If i think about this over and over as i did a few years ago, i realize that all this shadow and lighting evidence is not really definite proof. I did model experiments about this in high school; I found that their are too many variables that can explain the reason for the shadows being in slightly different angles. This is also explained very well in one recent documentary. They even do full scale experiments to show this. Terrain, wide angle, surface reflections, etc.
Maybe the modules did have artificial lighting, I would think thats the first thing they would put on the modules. I am also sure some images have been edited; obviously.
As for the flag waving; It is hard to say, but the best and definite way to prove it one way or another is to do an experiment in a vacuum chamber. Think about it, why would they allow such a video to become official public knowledge if they knew how objects react in vacuum? If it was a filmed footage on earth, they would simply make a flag that was rigid or do a retake!
devilzangel
..
The best examples are the studio lights seen on the ceiling,
the floating shaking plate in the wind at the lander ladder,
the photo of the lander module already away ( who took this photo,
when the astronaus were already gone ??),
the nonstable lander module,who always crashed on earth..
and many more...
You can not discuss these things just away !
The whole thing was a big fake !
Okay,maybe they flew around the moon and then back,
really depends how really strong is the van Allan belt in radiation...
but the videos we saw in those years were definately not
from onsite the moon....
Who took this picture,
when the astronauts have already left the moon ????
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fast-geheim.de%2Fassets%2Fimages%2FApollo16.jpg&hash=998d3e485433f6692d0e96cf765bbea5b6d29214)
Well fellows, If no-one has been on the moon so far where did the moon rocks come from? From an ancient Egyptian tomb perhaps?
The rocks are real, they have been examined by a number of universities around the world and they are different to what we find here on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 05, 2007, 03:55:38 PM
Well fellows, If no-one has been on the moon so far where did the moon rocks come from? From an ancient Egyptian tomb perhaps?
The rocks are real, they have been examined by a number of universities around the world and they are different to what we find here on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
Hans von Lieven
They retrieve moon rocks from the arctic regions all the time. Its easy there to spot them against the white snow. If you find meteorites or these type of rocks, you can sell them for good amounts of money, depending on where they came from.
Afternoon all -
I've done a lot of research into these issues, and according to insiders who would know - they actually did land on the moon.
They just faked the method of transport - and the time of arrival.
Apparently the landing took place in the early 60's using back engineered technology gleaned from numerous alien crashes, which mostly occurred as a result of lightening strikes.
Regards
Hans,
a quotefrom this page:
"Moon rocks in the form of lunar meteorites, although expensive, are widely sold and traded among private collectors."
Well, surely this could also have been faked just giving the university some samples
of a lunar meteorite !
With a fake so big, this would have been the easiest part to have some access to some
lunar meteorites rocks...
Sorry Freezer,
There is no way you could fool a good geologist by substituting a meteorite for the real thing. While travelling through our atmosphere the thing gets white hot and the outer layers vaporise. That leaves its marks. The moon rocks do not show this.
Hans von Lieven
You could crack up a bigger lunar meteorite and extract a sample without the
shell,so it would look like it would be a normal moon rock...
I wonder, how many pieces
and what sizes of the rocks has been supplied to universities at all ?
Maybe they are also just earth rocks from some places.
where the composition of the elements is not common...
who knows...
as all of this is second hand information and we can not verify it
ourselfs, whom are you going to trust on this ?
The photographic evidence and the "ducking" of the astronauts
and the technical circumstances and all the until now
shown mysteries in this thread
are just too much convincing to make it seem,
that the moon landings took never place and just were
a clever made up Hollywood studio production...
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 05, 2007, 04:06:18 PM
Sorry Freezer,
There is no way you could fool a good geologist by substituting a meteorite for the real thing. While travelling through our atmosphere the thing gets white hot and the outer layers vaporise. That leaves its marks. The moon rocks do not show this.
Hans von Lieven
Well, I do actually believe we went there, it just didn't happen like they portrayed. There are many instances of fakery in the images and even video. There are images with the same background, and also video with the same background. Most all the images have the distant horizon looking like it was pasted in. As Cap-Z-ro said, there are existing bases already there, which was the real target. Explain all the inconsistencies of the way we could even get there with what NASA built.. We used our stolen anti-gravity tech only to claim a place already inhabited. :D
I always liked this poor smudge.
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/cgi-bin/clementine/clib/multires.pl?clickres=5&ox=0&oy=0&res=0&size=768&latitude=-70&longitude=137&submit=Use+Lat%252FLong&sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm
Here are PDF files of Lunar rocks samples...
http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm
But only because these are scientifically made must not mean
the rocks were really brought back by the Apollo astronauts...
Quote from: Freezer on November 05, 2007, 04:24:38 PM
I always liked this poor smudge.
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/cgi-bin/clementine/clib/multires.pl?clickres=5&ox=0&oy=0&res=0&size=768&latitude=-70&longitude=137&submit=Use+Lat%252FLong&sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm
(http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/cgi-bin/clementine/clib/multires.pl?clickres=5&ox=0&oy=0&res=0&size=768&latitude=-70&longitude=137&submit=Use+Lat%252FLong&sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm)
Hmm,
that is a real interesting picture.
So that it is not deleted out of the NASA database I am copying it over here.
Here it is.
So what do they might have retouched there ?
A building or a landed UFO ?
Amongst the rocks collected by the Apollo teams there were a number of specimens that had been gathered from the surface.
Perhaps, if you had a very large meteorite, you could split it and pass the core off as the real thing.
With a rock that has been lying on the surface for millions of years on an atmosphere lacking celestial body this becomes quite a different matter. The passage of time as well as the inevitable bombardment with micro particles leave their mark. Here on earth we do not get this as small particles burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface.
On the moon this is not so. These high energy collisions leave traces. It would be impossible to fake samples to such perfection as to fool a really good geologist.
No, I believe the samples are real, as to when and by whom they were collected I cannot say, I wasn't there.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 05, 2007, 03:28:24 PM
Who took this picture,
when the astronauts have already left the moon ????
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fast-geheim.de%2Fassets%2Fimages%2FApollo16.jpg&hash=998d3e485433f6692d0e96cf765bbea5b6d29214)
Well, it must have been bugs bunny. ok kidding.
Seriously though, it could have been a left over camera which could have been remote controlled or timed to take an image and relay back via radio frequency. The quality doesnt seem too great, could be a cheaper camera.
Alot of stuff and equipment was left behind due to the size of the smaller top module as well as the weight it could jettison back into space.
Look to the right of the left over module; you see a shadow of another object left behind.
I would also have to say that image has had a severe loss in quality. Do you notice all the air burshing? For me, examining a close to near original source would allow for better judgement.
who knows, maybe it is the camera crew taking a last few shots from the UFO before leaving.
*****
About the airbrushed object sat image., with proper expertise, you might be able to see a fair amount of what is layered behind the airbrush; it was done as a transparency airbrush, allowing for a certain amount of see through.
If you look over the rest of that image, doesnt it look so strange to see close to 70% of the image kind of airburshed? wow, something big there. (big as in importance as well as size)
devilzangel
..
Whether the number is accurate or not, I've read this is the 3rd go round on this planet for human kind - supported by an article I once read, showing a stainless steel hammer which was reportedly found incased in rock millions of years old.
Regards
Hey guys,
check this video out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k
devilzangel
..
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 05, 2007, 05:12:18 PM
Amongst the rocks collected by the Apollo teams there were a number of specimens that had been gathered from the surface.
Perhaps, if you had a very large meteorite, you could split it and pass the core off as the real thing.
With a rock that has been lying on the surface for millions of years on an atmosphere lacking celestial body this becomes quite a different matter. The passage of time as well as the inevitable bombardment with micro particles leave their mark. Here on earth we do not get this as small particles burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface.
On the moon this is not so. These high energy collisions leave traces. It would be impossible to fake samples to such perfection as to fool a really good geologist.
Ah, obviously it is totally impossible to treat rocks with particle bombardments etc to make them look almost exactly like moon rocks... or is it? ;)
And on top of that, how would we know if a rock was from the moon or not? The only "moon rocks" we know are the ones Nasa shows us... Seems quite easy for them to simply dig up some earth rock, bombard it with high energy radiation to simulate exposure to cosmic radiation, and then present them as "real" moon rocks; after all, who is going to prove them wrong? The Russians? Lol! :)
QuoteNo, I believe the samples are real, as to when and by whom they were collected I cannot say, I wasn't there.
Exactly. You were not there when the rocks were "collected"/"produced". So you can believe all you want, but it is still no convincing proof.
I have seen so much faked or otherwise dodgy footage by Nasa that I would not simply assume they are being honest.
For example, you must have seen the renormalised colour photos from the latest Mars Rover? They very clearly show a 'normal' sand-coloured desert scene, in contrast to the official Nasa pictures which were clearly colour doctored to make everything look very red. (the bright yellow wires on the lander show dark orange on the Nasa pics, and renormalised to yellow the pics show a very normal looking sandy and rocky desert landscape, nothing special. One could even doubt if the pics were not made on earth somewhere, what with the light blue sky and all). So either Nasa is trying to make us think Mars looks a lot redder and less earthlike than it really does, or they have doctored pictures taken on earth to make them look like they were made on Mars.
Rover pictures also show a lot of very unnatural looking chunks of rock, with right angles, square holes, metallic-looking shiny surfaces... either the rocks on Mars look nothing like the moon rocks for reasons unexplained, or they are not actually rocks... Some of the chunks have shapes that suggest they might be constructed. In any case, very odd. Since it seems unlikely for Nasa to plant unnatural looking rocks on a staged set on earth, as that would counteract the entire goal of a staged natural looking Mars-picture, it appears to be more likely that Nasa actually did take pictures on Mars but altered the colour schemes to make them look a lot more red, so they look like the original viking lander pictures.
After all, if people would see a normal patch of earthlike desert, people would probably exclaim "huh? but you guys said it was the RED planet!" or even "why aren't we there yet? It's just like earth, only dryer!". :)
Oh, and what about these vids? This one shows one of the original movie sets where the first couple of "moon landings" were staged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMJugPGGe7E&NR=1 And this one shows some type of craft (crashed?) on the lunar surface, filmed by the apollo crew before landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs.
Of course they could be fake, but then again so could all of the other "official" Nasa footage.
Whatever is really going on, fact remains that it is extremely odd to pump billions into a spacerace lasting over a decade, only to reach the destination, plant a flag, and never go back. That just does not make sense.
If you've managed to come all that way, you would expect them to at least build a base there. I mean, you've already spent all those billions of dollars trying to get there, you can just as well spend another couple of million putting the finishing touches on it. You've researched and developed all this technology, for what? To try if it works and after you figure out that it does... just leave it and forget about it? When in history has that ever happened? They researched and developed nuclear fission so that they could do nothing with it? They developed computer technology so they could leave it to gather dust? They developed radio to not use it? No, of course not! So it would be naive and quite ignorant to assume they would really spend billions on space technology only to do the primary proof of concept test (which was reaching the moon).
So either there is a base on the moon, and it was built by people from earth, and probably built in a spot where we cannot see it, or there is not which would mean there is some very good reason for us (them) not to build it.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 06, 2007, 07:40:23 AM
If you've managed to come all that way, you would expect them to at least build a base there. I mean, you've already spent all those billions of dollars trying to get there, you can just as well spend another couple of million putting the finishing touches on it.
You think a moon base can be built for $2 million? You are seriously deluded.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 06, 2007, 09:47:01 AM
You think a moon base can be built for $2 million? You are seriously deluded.
1) I said "a couple of million". That does not necessarily mean "2 million", it could just as well be 10 million. As long as we're comparing it to the enormous amount of several billion dollars, "a couple" of million can be quite a lot still.
2) It is not at all inconceivable to build a lunar base even for the amount of 2 million dollars. After all, the transport craft had already been developed (using those billions, remember?), and the USAF had a nuclear powered tunnel boring machine in the 60s already... All you'd need to do is get it to the moon and start tunneling, thn seal off the entry point with an airlock, and they could continue to build for as long as they would need to dig out the entire complex.
I assume you thought I was talking about building it on the lunar surface? That is simply dumb. It would get hit by meteorites all the time, and it would be visible, and it would also be a hell of a difficult construction project what with all those construction workers having to stumble around in their space suits. No, obviously if one were to build on the moon, one would build at least the basic living and working areas underground, if not the entire thing. Tunneling inside rock is a much easier way to build a base than actually constructing one on the surface.
Please read and think properly before calling people seriously deluded.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 06, 2007, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 06, 2007, 09:47:01 AM
You think a moon base can be built for $2 million? You are seriously deluded.
1) I said "a couple of million". That does not necessarily mean "2 million", it could just as well be 10 million. As long as we're comparing it to the enormous amount of several billion dollars, "a couple" of million can be quite a lot still.
2) It is not at all inconceivable to build a lunar base even for the amount of 2 million dollars. After all, the transport craft had already been developed (using those billions, remember?), and the USAF had a nuclear powered tunnel boring machine in the 60s already... All you'd need to do is get it to the moon and start tunneling, thn seal off the entry point with an airlock, and they could continue to build for as long as they would need to dig out the entire complex.
I assume you thought I was talking about building it on the lunar surface? That is simply dumb. It would get hit by meteorites all the time, and it would be visible, and it would also be a hell of a difficult construction project what with all those construction workers having to stumble around in their space suits. No, obviously if one were to build on the moon, one would build at least the basic living and working areas underground, if not the entire thing. Tunneling inside rock is a much easier way to build a base than actually constructing one on the surface.
Please read and think properly before calling people seriously deluded.
You are still seriously disconnected with what things cost in the real world of space travel. I think building a lunar base is a $300 billion (with a "B") plus project. You just have no idea of the cost of getting materials to the moon and the cost of building there.
To give you perspective. The U.S.'s share of the International Space Station's cost was $100 billion. And this involves getting materials only to Earth's orbit, and this is only part of the entire cost. So figure it out.
Oh, and now you want to dig up/drill into the moon? Multiply that number by 3, 4? Who knows. How are you even going to get the equipment to drill or dig to the moon? That stuff is real heavy.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 06, 2007, 11:35:09 AM
You are still seriously disconnected with what things cost in the real world of space travel. I think building a lunar base is a $300 billion (with a "B") plus project. You just have no idea of the cost of getting materials to the moon and the cost of building there.
To give you perspective. The U.S.'s share of the International Space Station's cost was $100 billion. And this involves getting materials only to Earth's orbit, and this is only part of the entire cost. So figure it out.
Oh, and now you want to dig up/drill into the moon? Multiply that number by 3, 4? Who knows. How are you even going to get the equipment to drill or dig to the moon? That stuff is real heavy.
Okay, since you apparently have some trouble with logical reasoning I will help you along a bit.
Obviously the trouble with the ISS was that is had to be a construction built to stand the vacuum of space, it had to be high tech, had to be crammed full of labs for testing, and had to be a construction of multiple modules. That meant the modules had to be made on earth because it is simply not possible yet to build them out there in space. The construction of the modules alone already cost billions. That was before anything was ever launched into space, which costs another bunch of billions.
Obviously such a construction project will be extremely expensive.
And obviously a project building a lunar base will be expensive too.
Yet, the most obvious method of constructing any type of habitat or working space on the moon (or mars for that matter) without having to bring tons and tons of building materials is digging (boring) tunnels. This is easiest since the rock is already there, no need to build a structure outside-in, simply hollow out the spaces you need.
Underground bases are nothing new to the US military and air force. Various large tunnel boring machines have been developed and used by these organisations in the past decades. This link claims to show a nuclear one, although I have seen over 5 different pictures of other types too: http://www.stevequayle.com/High.Jump/051107.tunnel.bore.html And please do not think they don't have that type of equipment; they even built a portable nuclear grenade launcher in the late 50s... No lack of funding in the US military-industrial shadow world. :)
In any case, all they would have had to do was to load one of those tunnel boring machines into a rocket and shoot it up to the moon. Once there, it would be a simple matter of switching on the machine and boring as many tunnels as they need. The most complex construction project involved with starting the construction would then be to build the airlock. Energy would be produced by nuclear reactor, which is also nothing spectacular for the military-industrial complex. Lockheed experimental craft for example had nuclear reactors in them, although you will not find any official documentation.
In any case, if one were to build the base inderground, the enormous costs of construction in space, using pre-fab modules built for exorbitant sums of money, would not be necessary. Basic construction could take place inside the hollowed out chambers underground; no need for space suits, no need for special training, no need for pre-fabricated air-tight modules. And as the construction would be carried out by the army core of engineers or some similar branch, it would also not cost as much as a normal commercial construction project would.
Instead of increasing costs compared to in-space connection of terribly expensive earthmade modules, the costs could very well be lower.
And to top it off: it doesn't really matter if it cost them 10 million or 10 billion to do it, for as you have stated yourself the US contributed over 100 billion to the ISS and that hunk of junk was militarily totally useless. It is well known the US spend billions each day fighting in Irak and Afghanistan, and that the US defense budget is a lot higher than any other budget... If they're willing to spend 100 billion on a space station with zero military value, and willng to spend x times more on war than on healthcare, then what makes you think even a few hundred billion would not be spent on a certain military superiority in space?
I think you focus a little too much on money and a lot too little on the significance and wealth of the military-industrial complex in the space game.
Here is a very interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NWR5Dn6QI
1. it seems to show an object on the moon, which puts out some puff of
smoke stack or cloud..
2. This is from Apollo 8, where they just went around the
moon and did not land...
Look at the size of the earth and compare it with the actual
landing and moon photos of Apollo 9 and later missions !
There the earth is much smaller !
So the only conclusion is:
All the moon landing photos and videos are faked ba NASA.
The money is not a concern anyway, they created false war like IRAQ etc.. to put money on other project. Do you really think a air plane can cost billions? common
Those moon buildings are a trip. They remind me of the Ark on ararat, the face on mars and the elephant I saw in the clouds yesterday.
Stephan, the lander's take off performance was not designed for earth gravity or atmosphere, it doesn't behave the same way here as on the moon.
Also, the Lem being gone from the platform can be a radio'd image, or evidence of a previous landing. Think it through.
What I find funny about many of these things, is that the very same sites that say we were never there, many times propose pictures that they took while they were (never)there are evidence that aliens ARE there.
Lighting anomalies are easily explained and replicated.
We went there, and soon, the japanese and chinese will show us pictures. Not that we need them, we measure our distance from the moon at least once a moon by reflecting light off of debris we left behind. (or maybe that's the alien bridge :o
This just in, the space shuttle flights are a hoax. Notice how there are NO STARS in this picture!!!!!
::) 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
..
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 06, 2007, 02:40:05 PM
Here is a very interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NWR5Dn6QI
1. it seems to show an object on the moon, which puts out some puff of
smoke stack or cloud..
2. This is from Apollo 8, where they just went around the
moon and did not land...
Look at the size of the earth and compare it with the actual
landing and moon photos of Apollo 9 and later missions !
There the earth is much smaller !
So the only conclusion is:
All the moon landing photos and videos are faked ba NASA.
Nice find Harti, BUT, the size of an object can be changed simply by changing a few camera settings as well as the distance between the module, moon and earth. One obvious is the zoom function. Another is wide angle or absence of it.
devilzangel
..
@Koen 1, You have to be kidding with building a moon base for two million, even a bridge or some such mundane structure here on earth often costs more than that.
@shruggedatlas
This just in, the space shuttle flights are a hoax. Notice how there are NO STARS in this picture!!!!!
Of course the stars aren't shining, You aren't going to trick me with your conspiracy theories!!!! The simple explanation is that it's probably night time in the neighborhood of those particular stars that would be in the picture if it weren't night time in the neighborhood around those particular stars......
Dammit, this is the last time I'm going to say it!
READ the posts! I NEVER said a moon base could be built for 2 million dollars!
This is something Shruggedatlas made up after incorrectly reading (or perhaps completely misunderstanding) my post where I said that:
after spending billions of dollars on developing technology to get to the moon, a COUPLE of million more for a moonbase (of some kind, I am not talking about huge lunar cities yet, bases can start out quite small you know) would be (relaitve) peanuts. In comparison to BILLIONS, "a couple of million" can be any amount up to tens or perhaps even hundreds of millions. Maybe the large numbers are what confuse you guys...
Imagine you have researched, developed, and built a car. Imagine that cost you $1000 over 10 years. Imagine that it now runs, but has no seats yet. Would you spend $100 on seats? Yes, of course you would. After 10 years of hard work and $1000 to make it all work, what is another $100? If that allows you to finally make good use of your technology and your car, then it's really a no-brainer.
Or maybe you cannot see the enormous potential advantages of a moonbase? It would allow for construction and launch of spacecraft much larger than we can ever feasibly and practically launch from earth. It would save huge amounts of fuel compared to earth-based launches, landing would be much easier than the controlled crashes they would have to do when landing on earth, and astronauts based there would have much less trouble with microgravity-related bone and muscle degradation after (and between) flights. And of course launches could be carried out without the public seeing them, if done on the "dark side".
All these reasons are militarily and tactically extremely advantageous. And all that for the great price of only what? 10% more of what the entire project had already cost? Jackpot. ;)
oh and acp... "night time in the neighbourhood of those particular stars"?? Wtf?!
Are you actually saying that you believe when it becomes "night time" our star goes out, it stops shining?! Coocoo! :)
Did you forget all stars are huge balls of gas with ongoing fusion reactions causing them to emit light all the time?
Quote"a couple of million" can be any amount up to tens or perhaps even hundreds of millions. Maybe the large numbers are what confuse you guys...
No. You are confused. "Couple" when applied in this sense means two. A couple of million= 2 million. You should look up the definition of couple.
Edit.. Haha, erm, well, I
did look up the definition of couple in my oxford english dictionary and one entry for the word is "a small indefinite amount" so yes it doesn't have to mean explicitly two. But on the other hand it doesn't mean tens or hundreds either, that is clearly not a couple.
Quoteoh and acp... "night time in the neighbourhood of those particular stars"?? Wtf?!
Are you actually saying that you believe when it becomes "night time" our star goes out, it stops shining?! Coocoo! Smiley
Did you forget all stars are huge balls of gas with ongoing fusion reactions causing them to emit light all the time?
;)
Quote from: devilzangel on November 06, 2007, 09:09:34 PM
::) 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
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
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 11:54:38 AM
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?
Quote from: Freezer on November 07, 2007, 12:26:54 PM
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 11:54:38 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on November 07, 2007, 03:16:18 PM
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.
I would agree with both of these statements. I would also say that Hoagland never makes a claim that he can't back up.
I Just have a problem with some of the things they back their statements up with. I should also probably say, that some of Alex's stuff I agree with, having not researched it too deeply. However, his take on the 9/11 stuff has been widely and effectively refuted.
As for disinfo agents. Who is worse? Someone who works for the govt and spreads disinfo in the belief that they are doing what's right for their country, or a private citizen who spreads disinfo in the belief that they are doing what's right for the country? They are equally bad, in my opinion, and I don't want to buy either's version of disinformation.
Now, that's about as far as I want to go into derailing this topic.
Regards,
Rich
The internet has armed us all with the ability to disinform the masses.
"Look at the size of the earth and compare it with the actual
landing and moon photos of Apollo 9 and later missions !
There the earth is much smaller !
So the only conclusion is:
All the moon landing photos and videos are faked ba NASA."
Easily explained - - - it was a 'full earth' that nite.
Why there were no stars in the NASA photo - - - easy, they were on the dark side of the moon.
My intent is to inform - not to place onus by pointing out what should have been obvious.
In passing, if anyone is interested in a sure fire investment, I am brokering parcels of land on the sunny side of Tranquility Bay - and the they won't be long going either. :~>
Actually, the guy asking about the stars was being sarcastic, in context of the rest of his posts, I believe.
However, the reason you can't see stars is not because it was the dark side of the moon. A shuttle has never been out that far. The reason is because there is not atmophere in space to refract the light.
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 06:29:10 PM
I should also probably say, that some of Alex's stuff I agree with, having not researched it too deeply. However, his take on the 9/11 stuff has been widely and effectively refuted.
Can you at least give
1 an example of Alex Jones and information which has been proven wrong? You keep saying his statements or information has been refuted, but where are you getting this information?
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 06:54:37 PM
However, the reason you can't see stars is not because it was the dark side of the moon. A shuttle has never been out that far. The reason is because there is not atmophere in space to refract the light.
???
QuoteIn passing, if anyone is interested in a sure fire investment, I am brokering parcels of land on the sunny side of Tranquility Bay - and the they won't be long going either. :~>
I would be interested, but only if you can guarantee they don't flood at high tide :-)
Hans
Well, at least 1 person noticed my tongue was in cheek when I posted.
Not to worry Hans - the beauty of it is there IS no tide anymore.
I understand the land was obtained at a discount back in the weather era, when flooding was a problem.
On a more serious note: I haven't looked into Richard Hoagland, so can't speak to that - but Alex Jones is wrong on some minor points, but dead on when it comes to 911 issues and the agenda of behind the scenes control and manipulation of global events and all world conflicts.
Don't believe me though, look at the evedence and decide for yourself.
Above all, DO NOT let people feed you the information on which you decide what the truth is or is not.
Regards
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 11:54:38 AM
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.
Rich
I have seen plenty of practice runs, what is shown in the video is from an OFFICIAL moon footage release; meaning that NASA claims that footage to have happened ON the moon. Unless the moon has an atmosphere predominantly of Nitrogen and Oxygen, and enough atmospheric pressure to allow for a humanoid to run around without a space suit, I cant see how that footage was taken on the moon. Thats the smoking gun.
Dont get me wrong, i was the first in this thread to point out that secret US groups would have been able to use back engineered UFOs to go to the moon without a hitch. In fact, i believe that secret groups did do this long before the moon race. All I am saying is that the first official landing was not a landing. They launched the rocket, went out to the moon, and came back, and used filmings made on earth to show what they did on the moon.
We had the capacity to land on the moon with all the engineering knowledge and what not, but that doesnt mean who ever is already on the moon ALLOWED us to land!!! It is politically motivated.
What I dont like about NASA and the Govt is them hiding what is actually the truth about the moon. Whatever their reasoning is for hiding the truth, I simply cant align myself to their justifications.
"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us."
George H. W. Bush
devilzangel
..
nm
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 07, 2007, 11:55:10 PM
nm
hehe, I almost went there too. No sense in arguing a point when one hasn't really been made.
Quote from: gn0stik on November 08, 2007, 12:50:36 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 07, 2007, 11:55:10 PM
nm
hehe, I almost went there too. No sense in arguing a point when one hasn't really been made.
I guess that burn was meant for me?
Anyways here's some of their footage from jaxa.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya.swf
Quote from: gn0stik on November 07, 2007, 12:11:56 PM
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.
Oh? Of course, the moon buggy was crucial to the mission, right? ;) And if you can bring an entire buggy, of course you could never bring anything else?
QuotePutting 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.
Yes, probably. But where's the difference with any other space mission?
QuoteChances 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.
Or you could scratch the return flight for a while, leave the guys up there to continue construction, and fly them back a few years later after constructin is finished and actual landing bays / hangers have been built to 'park' and refuel spacecraft... Trips to the moon become a lot more economic if you don't need to get back to earth immediately. And it is no secret that rockets were launched almost every other day for consecutive years at Kennedy center. A lot of them can be accounted for as carriers of satelites and official Nasa missions, but quite a lot are also unclear... Could well have been shipments of cargo...
Quote
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.
Really? Looks more like they were propaganda missions to convince the world population that the US was fantastic and way better than the USSR... After all, what facts did they find during the missions? That moon buggies work? That hopping around on the moon a few hundred feet from the lander is fun?
QuoteWe 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.
And we still can't really... We can barely get a rover to send us a bunch of pictures... But apparently to get some real work done we still need to send manned missions...
Well of course it depends on what you prefer to believe too.
For a government that managed to acquire large numbers of nazi scientists and secret service personnel during operation Paperclip only to incorporate them smoothly into their own military-industrial complex (Werner von Braun was the father of the nazi rocket program, which was simply moved to the US and continued; and many secret service agents of the nazi intelligence network both in Europe and the US simply switched sides to the US and not long after the war got incorporated into the CIA and later NSA), while at the same time developing computer technology (RAM was a german invention), nuclear weapons, and later stealth technology, who had (has) a secret service sub-branch that operates in deep secret and owns (owned) quasi-clandestine companies for independant gathering of funding, is (was) involved in massive drug trafficing, has (had) millions if not billions of dollars at their disposal through such unofficial and often illegal activities (all CIA), spends billions of weaponry and warfare and only millions on national healthcare and social security, and sets up entire nations governments only to take them down when they don't jump when told (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc),
it does not at all seem very difficult to finance and run such a moonbase project secretly... Using the guise of the Apollo and satellite, and possibly later even ISS launches, and keeping the costs out of the books (which is apparently quite easy for the military), not informing the civilian government officials (as is apparently also common practise in deep dark projects), the needed materials and personnel could well be prepared and transported there.
But if you choose to believe there are no such clandestine and deep secret operations and government branches, and that you have been told exactly what has been going on in all honesty, then of course the entire idea is rediculous.
Fortunately nobody is so blind to believe that... right?
Again, I am not saying I am convinced there truly is a base on the moon. But I am saying that it is not at al inconceivable that one was built, and that it is als well possible to do that without us, the greater public, knowing about it. And additional costs would not necessarily have to be a problem, if the project was ran and funded covertly. After all, they would not show up as additional costs on any official government balance sheet... ;)
If it were up to me, after spending many billions already, and after figuring out that the greatest problem in getting things into space is the initial kick out of our gravity well and into orbit, I would have spent a few additional billion to make sure we can have a bunch of guys up there permanently, in a complex that is a bit more livable than the tin cans of the hab modules. Advantages are clear: construction of large space ships without the need to launch them out of the earths gravity well and thereby saving quite a bit of design, construction, and fuel problems,the possibility of undetected launches, and less trouble with the microgravity-related physiological effects so astronauts can actually spend a decade or two in space, rather than the brief periods they can when they have to land on earth again. And of course one could set up radio-telescopes etc to study space without the obstruction of the atmosphere. Basically you could do everything the ISS and the Hubble were/are used for, in the same place, and in greater comfort and more direct control than the other 2. If the ISS and the Hubble are considered important enough to spend hundreds of billions on, then how important would a place be where you could combine all their advantages at comparatively little cost? Is it really that unrealistic? I don't think so. If it were up to me, I would have built a large moonbase to do all those things, and never have built the ISS or Hubble. Unless perhaps I wanted to distract the public, make them think we need to build the ISS and Hubble because we don't have anything like that yet... That might be worth the trouble... ;)
Quote from: Freezer on November 08, 2007, 02:10:37 AM
Quote from: gn0stik on November 08, 2007, 12:50:36 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 07, 2007, 11:55:10 PM
nm
hehe, I almost went there too. No sense in arguing a point when one hasn't really been made.
I guess that burn was meant for me?
Anyways here's some of their footage from jaxa.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya.swf
No, not at all, intersting footage though, I wish I knew what the Japanese words translated to. Awesome how it gets completely black as it travels to the dark side. this footage appears to be stepped down, and accelerated.
anyone know Jaxa's orbital altitude? The fisheye lens can be quite deceptive.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 08, 2007, 06:33:31 AM
Oh? Of course, the moon buggy was crucial to the mission, right? ;) And if you can bring an entire buggy, of course you could never bring anything else?
I thought this was self-evident. Apparently not. The buggy was planned as part of the missions it was on from the beginning. Every ounce is accounted for, and calculated to determine fuel needs and approach strategies.
QuoteOr you could scratch the return flight for a while, leave the guys up there to continue construction, and fly them back a few years later after constructin is finished and actual landing bays / hangers have been built to 'park' and refuel spacecraft... Trips to the moon become a lot more economic if you don't need to get back to earth immediately. And it is no secret that rockets were launched almost every other day for consecutive years at Kennedy center. A lot of them can be accounted for as carriers of satelites and official Nasa missions, but quite a lot are also unclear... Could well have been shipments of cargo...
I don't even know how to address this really, as I prefer not to dwell on conjecture. We can learn a lot more from examining claims and addressing proofs of those claims. The most glaring part of this bit, is that we are working from the assumption that we had the technological prowess to subsist on the surface of the moon for extended periods in the 60's, and then retrieve said astronauts on subsequent missions. There is no evidence that this is the case.
As to the "economy" of not having to come back to earth immediately, that would only be true if we had resources to work with on the moon. Or a having them, had the ability to process them in a meaningful way, and put them to use somehow. Otherwise additional life support requirments, the fuel costs of getting them there, and then having to design and engineer vehicls that are capable of bringing back more people than the appolo erv's were designed for, again adds to the cost of the mission, not reduces it. It likewise does not mean they would get more bang for the buck.
QuoteReally? Looks more like they were propaganda missions to convince the world population that the US was fantastic and way better than the USSR... After all, what facts did they find during the missions? That moon buggies work? That hopping around on the moon a few hundred feet from the lander is fun?
First, your lack of historical knowlege is frightening. The US was better than the USSR, we didn't need a moonshot to tell us that. By the sixties everyone had already read Animal Farm, and Brave New world. We'd already dealt with the bay of pigs, and the cold war was in full swing. The Evils of rampant communism were well known. Duck and Cover were household words, and spies, and assasinations were modus operandi. Second, if you don't see the scientific value of taking core samples on the moon, there is no point in discussing this any further. You are simply too far down the rabbit hole. However, hopping around on the moon was fun, I'm sure, and the buggies went a bit farther than a few hundred feet. Maximum range from the LM of the LRV was 5Km. The longest traverse was like 12.
QuoteAnd we still can't really... We can barely get a rover to send us a bunch of pictures... But apparently to get some real work done we still need to send manned missions...
The mars rovers have performed orders of magnitude better than anyone ever expected. On all accounts the rover missions was a resounding success. It took a couple tries, but was well worth it from the data we've gathered. There are thousands of pictures that have been sent back in many spectrums of light, and tons of data. It will take years to go through everything. And they are still going, they haven't given up the ghost yet, in spite of mechanical set backs and problems along the way.
QuoteWell of course it depends on what you prefer to believe too.
Truth is not subjective to desire. It's not subjective at all.
QuoteFor a government that managed to acquire large numbers of nazi scientists and secret service personnel during operation Paperclip only to incorporate them smoothly into their own military-industrial complex (Werner von Braun was the father of the nazi rocket program, which was simply moved to the US and continued; and many secret service agents of the nazi intelligence network both in Europe and the US simply switched sides to the US and not long after the war got incorporated into the CIA and later NSA), while at the same time developing computer technology (RAM was a german invention), nuclear weapons, and later stealth technology, who had (has) a secret service sub-branch that operates in deep secret and owns (owned) quasi-clandestine companies for independant gathering of funding, is (was) involved in massive drug trafficing, has (had) millions if not billions of dollars at their disposal through such unofficial and often illegal activities (all CIA), spends billions of weaponry and warfare and only millions on national healthcare and social security, and sets up entire nations governments only to take them down when they don't jump when told (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc),
it does not at all seem very difficult to finance and run such a moonbase project secretly... Using the guise of the Apollo and satellite, and possibly later even ISS launches, and keeping the costs out of the books (which is apparently quite easy for the military), not informing the civilian government officials (as is apparently also common practise in deep dark projects), the needed materials and personnel could well be prepared and transported there.
But if you choose to believe there are no such clandestine and deep secret operations and government branches, and that you have been told exactly what has been going on in all honesty, then of course the entire idea is rediculous.
Fortunately nobody is so blind to believe that... right?
Of course there are clandestine operations, and black ops groups, in every country in the world. On the other hand... Wow... Just..... Wow. No words.
QuoteAgain, I am not saying I am convinced there truly is a base on the moon. But I am saying that it is not at al inconceivable that one was built, and that it is als well possible to do that without us, the greater public, knowing about it. And additional costs would not necessarily have to be a problem, if the project was ran and funded covertly. After all, they would not show up as additional costs on any official government balance sheet... ;)
If it were up to me, after spending many billions already, and after figuring out that the greatest problem in getting things into space is the initial kick out of our gravity well and into orbit, I would have spent a few additional billion to make sure we can have a bunch of guys up there permanently, in a complex that is a bit more livable than the tin cans of the hab modules. Advantages are clear: construction of large space ships without the need to launch them out of the earths gravity well and thereby saving quite a bit of design, construction, and fuel problems,the possibility of undetected launches, and less trouble with the microgravity-related physiological effects so astronauts can actually spend a decade or two in space, rather than the brief periods they can when they have to land on earth again. And of course one could set up radio-telescopes etc to study space without the obstruction of the atmosphere. Basically you could do everything the ISS and the Hubble were/are used for, in the same place, and in greater comfort and more direct control than the other 2. If the ISS and the Hubble are considered important enough to spend hundreds of billions on, then how important would a place be where you could combine all their advantages at comparatively little cost? Is it really that unrealistic? I don't think so. If it were up to me, I would have built a large moonbase to do all those things, and never have built the ISS or Hubble. Unless perhaps I wanted to distract the public, make them think we need to build the ISS and Hubble because we don't have anything like that yet... That might be worth the trouble... ;)
Space 1999 baby. remember that show? It'll happen. I have no doubt. I just don't think it has yet. To be honest, I didn't even know that's what we were talking about until now. I thought it was that the moon landings were faked, not that, not only were they NOT faked, but we have bases there. I'm thoroughly confused now. I think I'm done here. What's that old addage about arguing on the internet?
Regards,
Rich
I'll leave you with a little something for your reading pleasure.
http://www.google.com/moon/
Here's some more information on the imager's path. I hope we can get some non-manipulated high resolution images. I wonder if their images go through the same type of processing as NASA's images. There's two videos so far, but I'm waiting for the images.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html
Evening all -
According to the ground sources - NASA is in existence solely to serve as a tool to keep hidden technology which would benefit humanity, in order to further a global domination agenga.
That wood make NASA a rather high budget soap opera to occupy the advanced geek.
With other televised productions geared to capture the interest of every relevant social class, so they won't be so likely notice the slow erosion of society happening all around them.
Regards
Well it's clear they didn't want us to see the dark side. That's why it's all dark.
or maybe its: anti gravity + nuclear submarine 1920-1930 about?
What about this? lol
APOLLO 20 legacy - The moon city, the ship wreck on the moon etc (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=6268)
WTF is on the moon? (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=4761)
There is a lot of news about submarines?
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22nuclear+submarine
"nuclear submarine" - Google News
man o man, some of the stuff i read ::) , I guess its the real journalistic posts that keep me here.
btw NASA has done research into the logistics of traffic and transportation systems when there are commercial / public / personal antigrav vehicles. I find that very interesting. I guess the feds have a plan on how to setup up and control a traffic system once antigrav vehicles become commercially and personally available. Imagine the hoops one would have to go through to get a license for that, hehehe.
obviously, the first uses would come strictly through high volume commercial applications, freight and passenger travel. Personal antigravs would come only to highly trained personnel and eventually to the rest of the "johny two shoes" after the systems and technology had evolved to allow for dummy-proof travel; meaning artificially controlled travel that would be highly computerized.
pretty complex logistical stuff once u start to think about it. After thinking about this in detail, one can see one good reason why antigrav technology is hidden. The logistics and law enforcement would be a nightmare. There would be a huge problem with country borders, people flying to China, India, Africa, well anywhere and everywhere one wanted without passport enforcement because one wouldn't need a landing strip to land, one could simply land in ones backyard.
One thing such a technology would do is get rid of borders to the extent of being extinct.
devilzangel
..
G'day devil.
QuoteOne thing such a technology would do is get rid of borders to the extent of being extinct.
devilzangel
You hope :-(
There is no money in opening borders, there is much more in keeping them closed.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: gaby de wilde on November 09, 2007, 01:59:24 PM
Well it's clear they didn't want us to see the dark side. That's why it's all dark.
or maybe its: anti gravity + nuclear submarine 1920-1930 about?
What about this? lol
APOLLO 20 legacy - The moon city, the ship wreck on the moon etc (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=6268)
WTF is on the moon? (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=4761)
There is a lot of news about submarines?
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22nuclear+submarine
"nuclear submarine" - Google News
Its well know nazy made flying submarine (using submarine frame) during the end of the WW2. using the VRIL and other technologies
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 11, 2007, 12:54:36 AM
G'day devil.
You hope :-(
There is no money in opening borders, there is much more in keeping them closed.
Hans von Lieven
exactly, although there are many financial players who want borders, for the benefit of tariffs and monetary foreign exchange, there has been a gradual paradigm shift in the matter of trade.
As u may have noticed, the world is changing to trade free borders; the NAFTA and the EU are prime examples. furthermore, Europe let go of multiple national currencies in favor of one currency, the Euro. The borders are pretty much in name and diplomacy.
if your dont believe me on this paradigm shift, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero ; it is the proposal for a North American Currency Union! one common currency for Canada, America, and Mexico. It would be called the "Amero"
ever since the advent of the information age, the world has been getting smaller and smaller. Eventually the borders will be in name. They are merely political imaginary lines; these lines will have no meaning when the majority of the public doesnt care about having borders.
I think the reason why certain technologies are hidden from general public is because the world as we know it is currently incompatible with the change it would bring on.
How would NASA coming out saying, that the moon has alien presence change the world? The changes would be drastic, mostly in terms of how we perform everyday actions. It would be as fundamental as powering homes to transportation. Its even more grandiose than what Steven Greer has postulated.
I would like to one day see NASA (and other even more black ops agencies) revealing the agenda behind their curtain of secrecy.
devilzangel
..
37/38 years and never been back - that's enough for me to know this is a fake. as i said before it will be revealed as were the wmd's and other american bullshit. the usa is truly the land of the idiots - idiots so stupid that that are unable to see what is apparent to anyone with an iq of a police dog.
Hans - The American Union is already in the works. Sounds like no borders to me - and if there were no money in it, then it would not be happening.
Afternoon all.
If the strikingly sincere appearing whistle-blowers on the inside are telling the truth...and they come off a whole lot more credible than what we see before us on TV, then it wood seem darchorse has summed things up pretty accurately...
And it follows that there's more in the works than a north american union - reportedly just the next stage in the global enslavement plans of criminally insane inbreds controlling major world events.
Regards
THIS IS "The Replication" OF THE TRUE (?)
http://www.secret.tv/artikel10918/NASAMondlandung
Pese
pese.cjb.net
Sorry Elvis,
The American Union is a response to the European Union who is set to take the crown from American domination. It is not a question of money in it, it is a question of survival in a power play.
Hans von Lieven
guys, there already is something like the European Union in the Americas, it's called the United States of America, it's been there for a while already. ;)
And what does that have to do with the moon landings?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 11, 2007, 04:06:23 PM
Sorry Elvis,
The American Union is a response to the European Union who is set to take the crown from American domination. It is not a question of money in it, it is a question of survival in a power play.
Hans von Lieven
does it really matter why it is happening? I used to think all this stuff about how every politician is out to get the "people"; it didn't work. America doesn't need a power play, and hasn't needed it for over a century. It has been a world leader in practically everything since WWII. America is much more economically powerful than the EU. Britain has always had a big hand in currency, mainly because it used to be the financial capital of the world for over 300 years; until ofcourse after WWII.
wouldn't it be a great forward step for humanity to function as one for a change? All we have done since we were making weapons is war over retarded material crap. No wonder aliens treat us as they do; with disdain.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 12, 2007, 07:02:17 AM
guys, there already is something like the European Union in the Americas, it's called the United States of America, it's been there for a while already. ;)
And what does that have to do with the moon landings?
Not the same; Texas cant be called a country. California cant be called a country. No state can ever separate from the "united states", USA had a big bloody civil war over this.
The Govs in my opinion are setting a stage to allow for the proper dissemination of the truth about the Moon and alien technologies. Politics had everything to do with the moon race, and it has everything to do with current secrecy around the whole matter ET. Politics and world economy.
devilzangel
..
Evening @all
As far as governments go:
People who are deceptive are at worst dangerous - at best patronizing...and ultimately untrustworthy.
engarde
As I have read today that the new Chinease Yutu moon rover faces temperatures of over 100 degrees Celsius
(212 °F)
at daylight on the moon and had to be shut down due to these high temperatures and during night they had colder than zero degrees Celsius ( colder than 32 degrees Fahrenheit).
Here is the source:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-12/22/c_132986593.htm
Quote:
"On Monday, "Yutu" had to turn itself off to withstand the high temperatures during the day. Data sent back shows that parts that were under direct sunlight reached over 100 degrees Celsius, while parts covered in shadow saw temperatures well below zero."
I wonder how the heat flow and air cooling and heating worked in the Apollo LEM missions ?
I have read that they used glycol ethylen to pump it around the LEM, but the outside mylar
shielding can only reflect about 40 to 50 % sunrays away, so the LEM would be still heated up
pretty much and during the nights it would be getting freezing cold and they only had Zinc-Silver batteries, that were also not rechargeable, so how did they heat the LEM at night ?
Otherwise they had Missions Apollo 8 and 10 , where astronauts already came very close to the surface of the moon.
If these were also faked, I wonder, if there would have been not too many technicians in the NASA control room, that
have realized this eventual fake already at the Apollo 8 and 10 missions ?
P.S: I also wonder, why they always had different astronauts for each mission, as the astronauts from Apollo 10 had already the experience to almost go to the moon and at Apollo 11 the new astronauts had not such a former experience...Hmm...Wouldn´t you let this job be done from more experienced astronauts and not fresh astronauts, that
had not this prior experience ?
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
Crazy conspiracy about the US moon landing is indeed just that.
It was real and true and if the Chinese rover a machine not a man around enough they will find our flag posted there by real men nearly a half a century ago we must remember while the Chinese are a force the United States is not a push over when it comes to technological achievement and innovation and we owe a lot to those who are free to tinker and make advances and inventions that allow such progress to be made.
There is plenty of evidence the moon landing was real. So keep this in mind finally the moon landing is a once in a lifetime thing. You must meet higher standards than you may be aware of physically, mentally, and credentials as well. The years that lapse between missions are not quick an much happens within the time as an astronaut is required to be able to handle 6G's and has to have also been a jet pilot and there can be no blood pressure issues, bone structure issues and so on. The amount of deterioration that happens in space to the human body in a short period of time would not be healthy for those to consistently man each mission.
People in their prime with all their ducks in a row are needed. You should do some reading about these things not only do you need all this but perfect vision is required as well to be a jet fighter pilot think of this there is probably even much more than I am not aware of.
Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. First controlled LM ascent stage impact after jettison; first use of deployable S-band antenna; lunar TV camera damaged by accidental exposure to sun.
Not the sun damage to the camera due to exposure to the sun supprise.
Age does make a huge difference look at your running backs in the NFL for instance once they hiit the age of 30 many of them decline substantially and this is no secret in fact it is openly talked about.
Quote from: infringer on December 29, 2013, 09:09:43 PM
There is plenty of evidence the moon landing was real.
There is also plenty of evidence, that the moon landings were not real but staged...
I only wonder about Apollo 8 and 10, if they were real as Astronauts were claimed that they went around the moon
and came back safely. Or was that also staged ?
Most of the scientists agree that the technology of 1960s was not sufficient enough to take man to the moon. If it was real, by now, after 45 years man should have succeeded in establishing colonies or build cities on moon. Why nothing is happening after that?
;D first, u need to prove the moon exist. ;D
google,
Trip to the moon: $100 million