conspiracy the moon

[thered]

might as well do this as well im getting in to it


was the moon landing a big scam weve all heard the tales whats your view


personally i think its all a big con

[shady77]

i believe the moon landing was fake

[.: JaCkPoT :.]

Yep. Its fake. Look at the pictures of it. Why the hell is the flag waving when there is no air or wind in space and im sure every planet star and moon all have a centre gravitational point. True?

[thered]

well i totally agree and do people go there even now because to my knowledge which isnt great ive never seen anyone knocking about up there since armstrong have you

[shady77]

the only people ive seen up there since neil and his mates was in superman 2, which to be honest, I find more believable.

[Devilfish]

Why do you believe this?

You can't simply make a statement without any justification! Do you really know anything about it?

[shady77]

ok, heres some justification.
the van allen belt which surrounds earth, highly radiocative and sufficent shielding did not exist in the 60's
shadows on pictures clearly from artificial light sources as the sun is in a different position
clouds of dust when walking on the moon. CLOUDS OF DUST? suspended in what? thin air? NO! because there isnt even thin air on the moon.

[thered]

yep its all to do with what shady said but theres other things too like the shadows are wrong and like sadiq said how would the flag fly in the wind


to look at it now in todays light too it really does look like a bad film set which at the time probably looked cool


who have we got to back this story up no one except the americans to get in the guiness record books norris mcwerter used to be there where are the witnesses (impartial ones i mean)


this dodgy piece of film footage apart from jesus christ is the greatest story ever told and has even landed people a place in history


it will all come out one day and the history books will have to be re-written

[caveman_nige]

The conspiracy theory behind the moon landings has be blown out of the water on a number of occasions now, if you still think its fake then wtach the discovery channel when they repeat it sometime... You might as well say the moon is made of cheese, its just ~~~~ing daft now. Honestly watch the tv show they take on the story from both side without bias..

I won't say anymore coz it just winds me up that people just love a conspiracy as its more intriging to think it was all bullshit than to think it actually happened. If i remember rightly the last reporter that went up to Buzz Aldrin and said that he had not been to the moon got put on his arse.. Nice one Buzz, you da man..

[thered]

im sure ive seen that show myself once upon a time it sounds familiar but it never changed my views and wouldnt if i seen again


who was it made by were they paid xxxxxxxxxxx amount of dollars anyone can make a suposedly unbias film but is it really or is it a pr excercise

truth is it cant come out can it america would be the laughing stock of the world

and if buzz aldrins told everyone hes been on the moon hes gonna look one c**k if he admits it now so hes bound to be pi**ed

[caveman_nige]

suppose you have been abducted by aliens as well, and met Elvis in a wimpey on the M25, he was talking about how he secretly works for MI5 and killed Princess Di before he moved on to working fo rthe CIA and arranging to fly some planes into the world Trade Centre. In the corner was an old fella who knows for a fact that it was not the Titanic that sank but its sister ship the Britanic.

[Jaffa]

The US was in a space race with the Ruskies at the time, do you realy think if it was a scam that the Ruskies would not have evidence by now. I believe it happened, nt everything has to be a conspiracy.

[Raven]

caveman nige do you believe everything you read in the papers ? and that everything the government says is true ? you have the right to believe whatever you like but trusting government/official word is a no no because we all know it's bs where any potential negative is concerned everyone does it just take football as a prime example (worlds apart I know but the basis is the same) any negative is either bluffed or scuttled around by the man in charge whereas any positive is buffed up and enhanced. Same with store owners, store managers....alot of regular people like me and you (though not everyone) and governments have to do it too. Put on a happy face for the media and the genereal public but we all know the grim reality of certain situations. That attitude isn't just limited to governments, you see it everywhere.

If you use your own free thinking versus the reality of the situation and not what the government necessarily tells you then you start to realise when things do not add up. Then there are the people who think Elvis aint dead lol.

But I agree that the moon landing was real however I also believe that the moon landing and version of events that we were allowed to see and have access to publicly was fictional....I remember seeing a picture on a magazine which was allegedly of the moon landing fiasco you could see the astronaught, the moon surface, the american flag.....and you could also see the edge of the planet of the moon in the picture! Get real!

We should have a poll on the site in this section on how many people honestly think that Oswald really killed Kennedy. Because if that was covered up then by definition cover ups do exist in the governments of the world and we cannot ever rule out the possiblility.

Conspiracy theories exist because we know that simple life and social relationships are never all completely "on the surface" - everyone has alot locked away that they don't tell other people but you know it to be true and that it happens. And that's just with average joe's....can you imagine what it's like at government and intelligence agency level ?

[caveman_nige]

keep sniffin the glue guys.. it just takes one rumour monger to create a story, a few pass it on as gospel and then a few million more suckers to believe it... then to continue with a closed mind and persist with a view that we live in world where it must a lie just because you once saw a picture. How sad..

I think Jaffa has hit the nail on the head, the russians would have been the first to back up this half arsed view if there was a shread authentic evidence to back it up, but no, they seem to be remarkable quiet on the subject. the eveidence that i have seen that i viewed with an open mind (try that sometime) has not led me to think taht their was a conspiracy.

I will leave it to you guys to continue this, I'm out.

[Raven]

Lol....that's a good one, have you ever heard of the new world order ? the illuminati ? probably not. I won't go into it now but it's the notion of the whole world controlled by money men behind the scenes, a faceless shadow group who really run the world....I'm not sure I believe it to be honest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it runs that deep.

It certainly runs deeper than what we are allowed to know, wether or not conspiracies are true or not. You can be sure of that.

And how can you be so sure that everything [I]you[I] have seen is true ? Just because you have seen it on television ? or the government told you so ?

That's the trouble with conspiracy theories they are too easily brushed off and yet official word is too easily accepted. Of course there are some who believe television to be a tool of control in order to condition people to think and feel a certain way.

Again I don't know if it's all true or not but you can bet that where the government is concerned that situations run alot deeper than what they tell us of.

I guess some people like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the government word is gospel as that is a much easier and less threatening pill to swallow for them than the potential reality of fact versus information.

Personally I think there definitely is more than meets the eye...because I know that to be true of life and people in general. People have secrets, do you think the government doesnt ?

[Jaffa]

Dont forget that the moon was not the only landing because far from earth on a distant planet live "The Clangers". Now how the hell did they film that without landing on that planet.

Please do not try and tell me you have never seen the clangers and the soup dragon or is that a conspiracy theory aswell.

Lighten up guys.........:dancing2:

[caveman_nige]

Yeah, i am familiar with the iluminati conspiracy, am keeping an open mind on that one (i do that you see). Its a very interesting idea as are so many other ideas, its hard to prove. I will never take anything just because it saw it on the tele, but some stories should stay in the the sunday sport...

I sure would like to know what this 'faceless shadow group' is doing with the world economy right now, but i will watch here to get those theories... lol

[Raven]

Lol that's just it, the people who don't want to believe it are always super quick to dismiss it all. The conspiracy theorists are the ones who go into mega great detail that tend to be quite not believable.

Then there's people like me who are open to the possibility of things not being what they seem to be.

Like I said people have secrets and hide things publicly for whatever reason, the people who think that governments don't also need to open their eyes and start thinking of the bigger picture outside of the box/bubble.

[zaf786]

I still think we are better of sticking to cable scene

[thered]

I still think we are better of sticking to cable scene

no m8 its way better than the street

[caveman_nige]

:roflmao: nice touch, but i agree with zaf

[thered]

Lol....that's a good one, have you ever heard of the new world order ? the illuminati ? probably not. I won't go into it now but it's the notion of the whole world controlled by money men behind the scenes, a faceless shadow group who really run the world....I'm not sure I believe it to be honest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it runs that deep.

It certainly runs deeper than what we are allowed to know, wether or not conspiracies are true or not. You can be sure of that.

And how can you be so sure that everything [I]you[I] have seen is true ? Just because you have seen it on television ? or the government told you so ?

That's the trouble with conspiracy theories they are too easily brushed off and yet official word is too easily accepted. Of course there are some who believe television to be a tool of control in order to condition people to think and feel a certain way.

Again I don't know if it's all true or not but you can bet that where the government is concerned that situations run alot deeper than what they tell us of.

I guess some people like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the government word is gospel as that is a much easier and less threatening pill to swallow for them than the potential reality of fact versus information.

Personally I think there definitely is more than meets the eye...because I know that to be true of life and people in general. People have secrets, do you think the government doesnt ?


:goodpost:

i like the cut of your jib


you are right everything we here or see in the papers were told is lies

why cos the celeb whos been having an affair says so why should we believe them?

same as the government they say something happend or never happened and we on the hole as a country believe it why?

truth is newspapers have to get there storys near enough blob on nowadays (i know they still get a couple wrong) they have lawyers going through storys with a tooth comb to make sure they are watertight

politicians,business's,celebrities,footballers football clubs they all have spin doctors,pr guru's publicists or some kind of spokesmen

there sole job is to cover peoples arses lie and manipulate press and public to popular belief

if you believe everything spoken by government,tv or papers to be true you are a bit naive

i say theres no smoke without fire most of the time


by the way i flew to the moon when i was 15 as part of the blue peter send a child to space program


you do believe me dont you......... i have told you honest

[Jaffa]

:goodpost:

i like the cut of your jib


you are right everything we here or see in the papers were told is lies



Oh thank you, thank you, thank you...because I read that Man Utd won the CL and the EPL last season, thank fek for that and it is a lie....lol

I really did expect someone to dispell the Clangers as fake but I guess they must be real then.

[thered]

Oh thank you, thank you, thank you...because I read that Man Utd won the CL and the EPL last season, thank fek for that and it is a lie....lol

I really did expect someone to dispell the Clangers as fake but I guess they must be real then.

no m8 that was definately real


as for the clangers i have heard of them there like a pasty but with a sweet end and a savoury end i think there the south easts answer to a cornish pasty lol

[Raven]

I might have made my point already but I still think the ones who openly (and quickly and ferociously) ridicule/dismiss the whole conspiracy theory issue and theorists are the ones who simply don't want to believe that the world could possibly be alot deeper than their "bubble" allows them to believe when looking at the big picture.

People get told information and not enough of the general public ask why it is this way they just take it as truth because a smiling secretary of defense or mr president evil said so....I mean if Bush said piranhas were trustworthy would u entrust ur hand to one ? I don't think so!

I appreciate that not every situation that doesn't add up is a conspiracy or vice versa but people need to start thinking on a different level outside of their bubble and be at least open to the possibility that governments lie and that cover ups are not only possible but more than likely probable.

Have a serious look into the Kennedy assassination and tell me if you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer.

Conspiracy theories are ridiculed and dismissed and I can understand why but having said that just have an open mind and look seriously for a moment and think outside the box and you too will realise some things dont add up. There's sod all anyone can do about it but that doesn't mean it isn't happening behind closed doors.

[caveman_nige]

So you think that your view is 'it' and that every conspiracy theory has got legs. We are all aware that goverments lie and we are all aware of crack pots with half arsed stories. Each must me taken on its own merits and with the evidence (that you will never except because you wish to view things in your blinkered little world). Whatever the colour of the sky is in your reality is dictated by what some crack pot could tell you and not what you could see with your open eyes (how ever clouded). You have far from made your point other than preached your own self important padantic theory that has been proven wrong on more than one occasion and that every else must be blind and being led by tv and polititians.

Why is it that when they asked the theorists their views and put them under scrutiny they held no weight and although it was possible to see where they had derived their theory they could not except the fact they could be proven wrong (sound familiar). For the average human to go around preaching a theory that can gain them a certain notoriety but when proven wrong it must be another conspiracy to silence them. They will sit in the corner of the pub boring and annoying the hell out of people with their theories, as the continual need to preach the theory no matter what evidence they ignore they will 'always be right'..

Many conspiracy theories state that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes, but each must be taken independently, it is possible to believe in one and not another, it is borderline paranoia to believe in them all, keep taking the pills pal..

[thered]

as far as im aware ive never seen anything concrete to prove otherwise and will be sceptical until proved beyond a reasonable doubt


but people will believe what they want to believe


i do know one thing though if somebody had made a documentary proving that this never happened 100% it would never ever get aired


you are talking about history being re-written and america being the biggest joke in world history i cant see it getting the green light can you

[Raven]

caveman nige you are rather confrontationally voicing your distaste for conspiracy theories and theorists....almost as if you don't want to believe it because it poses possible threat to you....back off mate we all have the right to believe whatever we want to....doesn't mean we are right or wrong, doesn't mean I take pills either (i dont do drugs at all) as a matter of fact I could believe that your a ***** but does it mean I'm right....no. Because I don't know you and you don't know me. But your acting like a ***** with your posts in here by suggesting people who believe in conspiracies are on drugs.

People can believe whatever they want so don't even try to make it personal just because you might not agree. And if you don't like it then don't read or post in this section. Simple.

I will apologise if I took your post out of context however it's your own fault for insinuating that I take drugs....all because you don't agree with my opinions and I think that type of behavior is disgusting.

[thedon2211]

trouble is nobody knows who tell lies and who tells the truth because there is so much bullshit in the world (mainly polatitions)its all usually got money involved so everyone has there own beliefs.
the only person that counts on your opinion is yourself...

[thered]

i have a new conspiracy theory is caveman nige part of the men in black lol




you have been erased

[thommo]

funny how if you don't believe or do believe the other person is a crackpot, simple rule, if these could be proved one way or another then it wouldn't be in this section. so to me your all on drugs for arguing the toss either way, I also agree if you have no intrest you should browse other areas of the forum and leave it to those who do like it. discussion about it is fine but knocking answers and ideas isn't what it's about,

to be honest who gives a toss the moon is shit there's nothing there Inc mcdonalds and there everywhere.

but so I'm not off topic some one said why have they not been back? answer might be they where told not to go back,

check out the therory of the city on the other side of the moon, google it, bullshit? who cares but it's something else you can add or score points with.

thommo on his reverse engineered alien technology signing out ( iPhone web browser)

been me up scotty

[Raven]

I don't think many of us were arguing the toss, although there is a fine line between discussing something and arguing about it....much like there's a fine line between not agreeing with someone's opinions and attacking them for it.

All I was saying in the first place was we should be open to the possibility of conspiracies.

I won't say any more on it but people who don't like this sort of topic shouldn't bother coming in and reading about it as it inevitably causes trouble. If your opinion is different to someone elses then try not to be attacking them for it because that's also not what it's about.

It's friendly debate at the end of the day so let's try and keep it that way.

@ thommo..........the city on the other side of the moon as you put it was what I was on about when I said buildings and domes lol

[cantona7]

first of all i'm still in limbo whether or not the moon landing happened or not(1 or 2 little things that niggle in back of my grey matter)
first of all how did flag move in zero gravity and no atmosphere/air to move it.
secoundly if america said it was going to be sunny today id take an umbrella to work cos(in my opinion)they are lying incompetant asswipes)no offence to any individual it is aimed at your war-mongering incompetent form of goverment .
as for ther being buildings/domes on the dark side of the moon i would LOVE that to be true but does not the moon rotate like the earth so at times the dark side of the moon would be our side of the moon?

[thered]

no m8 it definately did not and now i have concrete proof that this was all a big hoax watch carefully this real life footage


YouTube - fake moon landing

[Bulld0g]

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm)
Some intresting stuff on here :)

[thered]

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm)
Some intresting stuff on here :)


whats your take on it

[cantona7]

my take on it

really not sure

going back to summit thommo said in earlier post

"why aint we gone back"

officially we have, 12 people have "apparently" walked on the moon but the

yanks did not find anything worth invading it for.

not sure on this theory but good to blame yanks 4 anything :call:

[Bulld0g]

whats your take on it

Theres some good arguments for and against. I personally think they did. Some people have a conspiracy theory on nearly all history making events. Diana car crash, 9-11 the moon landing JFK assassination you name it.

[.: JaCkPoT :.]

What is the lateral meaning of conspiracy. We no conspiracy are a contridicting facts put together to make a contrasting story but often these facts are true and the conspiracy turn out to be right as most of the time the goverment use the media to cover their intruiging acts of cruelty(9/11).
Correct me if my understanding of conspiracy is misleading.

[thered]

my take on it

really not sure

going back to summit thommo said in earlier post

"why aint we gone back"

officially we have, 12 people have "apparently" walked on the moon but the

yanks did not find anything worth invading it for.

not sure on this theory but good to blame yanks 4 anything :call:


yeh it all seems funny dont it in the sixties they said they would be trips to the moon we would be able to build cities up there and all sorts by the millenium

now we are nearly in 2009 and no one has barely touched the place since which makes you think can they even get there nowadays with all the advances in technology

funny thing in the race with the russians they sent testers up with monkeys and stuff america just sent humans up and landed first go.

makes you think?

[firemouth]

ok, heres some justification.
the van allen belt which surrounds earth, highly radiocative and sufficent shielding did not exist in the 60's
shadows on pictures clearly from artificial light sources as the sun is in a different position
clouds of dust when walking on the moon. CLOUDS OF DUST? suspended in what? thin air? NO! because there isnt even thin air on the moon.

lol When Van Allen himself was asked about this he simply laughed. he saw no problem for humans crossing it.

you obviously don't do much photography, shadows, seem, to follow the line of the land, a strong light on your front lawn will show you that.

the moon has gravity, what goes up must come down, not that hard to
understand!

the flag fluttering is one point often made, well by people with little or no knowledge of physics it is. those with a basic grasp will see why (no damping from air)

the number on the rock i have seen took more research. the argument made was that the cropping marks obscured the, whatever, proving it was on the rock not hair or dust as NASA said. it only makes sense when you realise how the cropping marks are made. they were produced by a optical screen just at the focal plane, all that needs to happen is for the dust/hair to enter through the lens bayonet mount, for just such a thing to happen.

you only need a descent telescope to see our visit. th astronauts set up mirrors, well prisms really, these needed set to fair accuracy as they are used to measure the moons distance from earth. these can be seen from earth, or their reflected light can be.

the world would be a very different place without the moon shots. no Hydrogen fuel cells, few micro computers, indeed much we take for granted today, would still be to discover. thats if we didn't destroy ourselfs before we made it to today.

[thered]

interesting points


if man needed to put mirrors or prisms on the moon to measure its distance how do they know how far away the sun is?

did man land on the sun?

the thing on the rock you talk about is plain and simply a letter c and cannot be mistaken for a hair(its ridiculous) or anything else

the letter c is often used in tv sets to mark the centre spot for filming

the flag cant wave about not possible

and the theory what goes up must come down applies generally to earth not the in space

zero gravity means zero gravity which means no big footprints and no dust flying about on the surface

and you seem to base your theory on what nasa said

[firemouth]

interesting points


if man needed to put mirrors or prisms on the moon to measure its distance how do they know how far away the sun is?

did man land on the sun?

the thing on the rock you talk about is plain and simply a letter c and cannot be mistaken for a hair(its ridiculous) or anything else

the letter c is often used in tv sets to mark the centre spot for filming

the flag cant wave about not possible

and the theory what goes up must come down applies generally to earth not the in space

zero gravity means zero gravity which means no big footprints and no dust flying about on the surface

and you seem to base your theory on what nasa said

1, Sun. we dont know exactly how far the sun is away. we do know the distance to the moon to within a few cm.

2, pic.:roflmao::roflmao: you need to work in a processing lab, if they still have them. it may seem clearly to be a letter, other with far more knowledge, disagree, and i am with them.

3, flag. no but the alli bar through the top will in knocked. plus see next answer.

4, zero gravity:roflmao::roflmao: on the moon:roflmao::roflmao: stop it it hurts.
however even in zero gee every thing has mass. so a spanner may have no weight, but it would still crack your skull if it hit you. same with the dust and to an extent the flag. the lack of air and low gravity allow the bar to sway far longer than it would on earth. remember every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

5, Agree with NASA. why not, there explanations are not only convincing, but scientifically credible. which, and i mean no offence, yours is not. that's the problem with this theory, not one bit of it has scientific merit.

thanks though i will remember Zero Gravity on the moon for years!!!!!!!

[thered]

il give you that one m8 i knew what i meant lol


anyways like you were saying people with far more knowledge and experience of photolabs will know that this is a hair or some dust not a letter c maybe it was an alien called claude who carved his name in the rock lol

[thered]

5, Agree with NASA. why not, there explanations are not only convincing, but scientifically credible. which, and i mean no offence, yours is not. that's the problem with this theory, not one bit of it has scientific merit.


yes m8 its all scientifically credible like you say like when 2 men stand more or less together but one persons shadow is about 8 foot higher than the other its because the moon is uneven

yeh m8 thats scientific fact yeh right lol what a load of bollocks


you made reference to van allen belt not being a problem well why did they try to blow a hole through it

During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts

you seem to know about photography lol so answer this jan lundberg manager of the hasselblad the camera they took to the moon has stated that film they used would have perished in the 250 deg heat he also stated that the cross hairs on all the pictures were built in to the camera so crosshairs would shoe on every picture yet on nasa's they had been removed on some and added over others

now bill bailey answer me this if a bright light is behind you taking a picture your front wouldnt be lit up like a xmas tree

official scientific answer it was a reflection off the moon lollollol

[thered]

i dont know were you get your scientific fact from but the truth is there is no evidence what so ever that armstrong and his cronies went to moon apart from some grainy film footage

the only footage that has been seen by anyone is what nasa have officially(stanley kubrick was buried with the rest lol) released so it is not credible evidence it is not independant

it boils down to two things there are believers and disbelievers there is no concrete evidence either way the pictures may be false which is what i believe not what i know

or they may have been doctored to make things look better like the flag which you could understand in a way but nasa deny doctoring any pictures which is partly why i believe its a sham

you are the other firemouth a believer you may not be wrong but you dont know you are right you are just believing what you are told

unless you have done some experiments to the moon yourself you like the rest of us dont know jack lol

[firemouth]

the fact remains that there is no scientific basis to any of the claims made by the Conspiracy mob. it would be easer to argue the case if there were.

you mention film being damaged by heat, which is quite true. but even if the sun is full, making the temp about 250 or so, a 1mm bit a alli foil will cast a shadow, the temp in the shadow will be closer to -200. the lack or air being the clue.

the shadow thing makes me krack, nobody with an ounce of photographic experience would even question them, why? because, given the right light, this happens on all photos. and effect of translating a 3d image into a 2d image.


doctoring pictures, you do realise this was 1968. all doctoring was done by a darkroom expert with a brush and paints. not something that would stand up to scrutiny with todays equipment. but not on picture has been identified as being tampered with. though ther are some that have been cropped, these are the ones that show no index marks.

your letter C, on the rock, does not actually appear until into the seventys. prints made from the original film, made in at the time, show no such mark.

i agree this can only be what i believe, unless i get to visit the landing sites. but the evidence give against the landing is so ill thought out and has so little to do with real science as to make it laughable.

The Van Allen belt, is a hard one. few, credible scientist doubt that the belts can be traversed, by humans with safety, but until someone went there we just didnt know. so if the contention is that they can not be traversed, how do we know? one thing we can say. a satellite in orbit in the Van Allen belt receives a rem dosage of about 2500 rem per year. that works out at just short of 7 rem per day. there seems no evidence that ill effects are caused when the dosage is below 10 rem. indeed 10 rem is used by many country as a maximum safe level of exposure.

[shady77]

why, when the soviets landed a craft on the moon in 1959, and had a crew of 3 astronuats in orbit by 1964, were walking in space by 1965, did they not attempt to go the moon?

[firemouth]

why, when the soviets landed a craft on the moon in 1959, and had a crew of 3 astronuats in orbit by 1964, were walking in space by 1965, did they not attempt to go the moon?
one answer could be that, everything they sent up to the moon,( up till the landings) either missed altogether or crashed into it. also the Russians never wanted to go to the moon, with men. the whole "moon race" thing was an invention of the USA.

[thered]

one answer could be that, everything they sent up to the moon,( up till the landings) either missed altogether or crashed into it. also the Russians never wanted to go to the moon, with men. the whole "moon race" thing was an invention of the USA.

the other could be they never went lol

[shady77]

. also the Russians never wanted to go to the moon, with men. the whole "moon race" thing was an invention of the USA.

i actually think the Rooskies did want to go to the moon, and I would like to direct your attention to a Nikita Kruschev quote
"Do not leave the Moon to the Americans, Anything you need in order to do it, will be provided." On Aug. 3, 1964, the Soviet government finally gave full go ahead to the lunar landing effort.

[JRaymondk]

Hi every one!!!!!!!!
Its my first time on the forum since July 7th 2008, i'm very impressed by the changes since my last visit, well done every one for your contribution.

[thered]

Hi every one!!!!!!!!
Its my first time on the forum since July 7th 2008, i'm very impressed by the changes since my last visit, well done every one for your contribution.

dunno where this come from but cheers m8 and your thoughts on the moon lol



anyways kennedy said in 1962 they would win the space race and land on the moon before the decade ended in 1970

funny how they managed it just before dont you think?plus dont you think the public would have been a bit pi55ed off if they didnt

they got ?40 billion to land on the moon thats a lot of money now nevermind in the 60's would have been a lot of wasted taxpayers money

as shady said the russians supposedly landed on the moon why would they not go back?

you said because they missed or crashed funny the americans did it first go and risked human life in the process

now this i find truly unbelievable considering the russians went unmanned or shot a monkey up there

as you said they didnt even know how far away it was lol

[shady77]

no supposedly about it, they were definately 1st on the moon with an unmanned spacecraft. no crashing, a perfect landing, they sent a dog up and bought it back down safely by remote, if they could of put a man on the moon, the reds would of done it.

[Raven]

I think it's funny how the non believers are often defensive to the point of insults, making them just as bad as the conspiracy theory believers.

I appreciate that it's very easy to create tales and rumors and spark the flames as it were, just look at the Bermuda Triangle tale of legend....personally I think that area of sea is probably more likely a natural cross point on the earth if anything - and obviously bad weather or deceptively calm waters play a part too.....not everything that doesn't add up is a conspiracy, but some of it is bound to be....I don't believe in the Bermuda triangle but I do believe that president Kennedy was NOT assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in my opinion....I also believe that 9/11 was a government set up however technically it was still a terrorist atrocity just the terrorist being the last people you would have expected again in my opinion.....I'm not sure what to think of our 7/7 to be honest normally I'd say conspiracy again but knowing our country anything is possible.....I'm also on the fence about the Loch Ness monster, if there is a prehistoric beast living in the Scottish waters how has it survived, reproduced or even lived all this time ? On the other hand Loch Ness looks quite eerie and the legend of the Loch Ness monster brings in alot of tourism and business.....

The moon thing I do think was faked for the public in my opinion.....America at the time wanted to beat Russia to the moon, they haven't been back since to my knowledge, and in a time of friction, war and deceit if they could make it look like a loner acting off his own accord could assassinate the president of the USA and endorsing this information for the purposes of starting a war (sound familiar so far ? - 9/11.) could they not have once more falsified information so that as far as anybody in the world knows America went to the moon and therefore won the "moon race" ?

Let me put it to you this way if governments are guilty of foul play (and some are) they certainly are not going to air it in public. And here is another puzzler for you, not everything governments say are true....just look at the invasion of Iraq for the supposed WMDs they were supposedly hiding. 9/11, Iraq, Iran, hundreds of innocent lifes.....it's all down to power, oil and revenue nothing more. It's shameful but I believe sadly is true.

As for what I want to believe....well....I would like to believe that the US and British governments are leading their countries to the best of their abilities and that 9/11 was a genuine national security breach by foreign terrorists and that the US and British government do their best in times of war and with protecting their country and citizens however some mistakes are made as the leaders are only human, that is what I'd like to believe.

However looking at the world around me I can't honestly say I can swallow that. If anything looking around me I can honestly say that the US government and especially the British government isn't so much an elected leadership by the people and serving the people as much as it is a dictatorship.

[cantona7]

well raven even though your a dodgy old leed's fan i agree with your reply

100%.

just one thing "officially"12 people have walked on the moon??(lies and

propoganda in my eye's)

[Raven]

That's dirty leeds not dodgy leeds lol.

Wonder if it's a conspiracy that Ronaldo is playing crap now that his dream move has been scuppered ? lol.

But seriously now, who can honestly say the current British government "leadership" isn't a dictatorship situation ? Gordon Brown was not voted in by the people, he went back on a public vote as soon as he knew nobody wanted him in power in the first place, we have speed cameras going up all over the place not for the purposes of safety but to be taxed, stealth taxes everywhere, fines for farting in public, smoking ban, immigration and equality issues, nobody speaks out.....and the list goes on and on.

Also let's not forget that this was the same man who was dead set to change our currency from the GBP to the Euro despite the public media kicking off. Blair had to step in at the time.

I know who I'm voting for next time and it ain't labour, I'm going to be voting for the BNP next time....they may or may not be extreme but they are ticking the right boxes at least in wanting to keep Britain british.....to be honest I don't think the others have a clue because they don't live in the real world and so they don't have to see what goes on out on the streets and they don't have to see their community be swallowed up and changed by immigrants so it doesn't bother them. It's a dictatorship and British people don't stand up and speak out.....BNP is getting nearer and nearer anyway because more and more people are voting for them.

[sivhead]

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

I personally believe that the moon landings were faked as I have seen the video about 10 years ago which shows you what was said when they picked up the astronaughts from the water. Also the wires theory to me has not been properly debunked. The ping goes to the tops of the picture, the antenna would not send a refliction vertically up. see the link on you tube

[firemouth]

i actually think the Rooskies did want to go to the moon, and I would like to direct your attention to a Nikita Kruschev quote
"Do not leave the Moon to the Americans, Anything you need in order to do it, will be provided." On Aug. 3, 1964, the Soviet government finally gave full go ahead to the lunar landing effort.

humm, well two landings. soft. only one of which did anything apart from lay there. and if you look at the list of flights from the old USSR. you can see why they didnt send any people up. Russia's unmanned missions toward the Moon (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html) over 50 attempts, admittedly some were tests, and only two landings. lots of crashes, lots of "oops missed again" but not much else. at the time the USSR, couldn't even make a descent space suite. the first Russian cosmonaut to do a space walk, had to reduce the pressure to 9 pounds per square inch, because it he left it at 15, his hands were inches from the cuff of his glove, never mind the fingers.

[shady77]

Common beliefs told to the populace as fact and since debunked
forgive me if i paraphrase

"and lo! a snake told the lady, "yeah, go on, eat the apple. its yummy""

"there are only 4 elements, earth air, fire and water"

"the earth is flat"

"everything revolves around the earth"

"we went to the moon"

[thered]

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWyRccuJ4_g)

I personally believe that the moon landings were faked as I have seen the video about 10 years ago which shows you what was said when they picked up the astronaughts from the water. Also the wires theory to me has not been properly debunked. The ping goes to the tops of the picture, the antenna would not send a refliction vertically up. see the link on you tube

yes m8 i also have seen this footage before i think its further evidence of a con job and the inconsistencies in jumping are like that of suspended puppets


thunderbirds are go lol

[on_the_jazz]

Just read this thread. Quite interesting. I have uploaded the Mythbusters program where they test a few of the theories out there. I watched the UK version, but could only get hold of US one to upload. I guess you'll just have to put up with the American voice over :p

Part 1 (http://rapidshare.com/files/164491357/mb_n.part1.rar.html)

Part 2 (http://rapidshare.com/files/164497399/mb_n.part2.rar.html)

[Dreamer]

Dont forget that the moon was not the only landing because far from earth on a distant planet live "The Clangers". Now how the hell did they film that without landing on that planet.

Please do not try and tell me you have never seen the clangers and the soup dragon or is that a conspiracy theory aswell.

Lighten up guys.........:dancing2:

don't be daft!!
Everyone knows they are real lol

[zoot888]

I read somewhere that they got there but they were assisted!!!

[cantona7]

I read somewhere that they got there but they were assisted!!!

yea by a strange thing called a space rocket lol

[vito]

i see your point, i have seen several documentaries on this for and against, i would say it did take place, but some of the points raised against this are alarming and definitely interesting. The problem is everything is a conspiracy these days any major event attracts suspicion........ just cos your paranoid doesnt mean they are not out to get you

[Montebox]

Just to nip this in the bud..

My favorite Headline was from the daily sport several years ago 'Double decker bus found on the moon' it even had a photo. It must be true because newspapers never lie.

The Sport also had an amazing world exclusive
''World War Two Bomber Found on the Moon''
Obviously true (and a photo to prove it)
Must be getting crowded up there

I guess this clears this thread up! :roflmao:

[vito]

you the man, i actually know someone who was on that bus

[jams]

if man landed on the moon in 69,why is it taking 15 years 2 prepare 2 go back answer they did'nt make it in 69 it was a con

[cbatts]

If it was in The Daily Sport, I bet they've got fabulous t**s

[BobbyX]

I have no doubt that man went to the moon, however the 'evidence ' to suggest otherwise is somewhat interesting.
however, more interesting to me is the reports of michael collins as he orbited the moon while armstrong and aldrin went for a walk.
his confirmation that 'santa claus is real'.
to what was he referring? something on the moon? something in space? something on earth thats not visible unless you are that high up?
nasa and the government will tell you collins was just making a joke. just as anybody would. bit of a lack of discipline for a highly trained member of the airforce, i think. but, ok, fine, a joke. not so disbelievable to make you choke on your cornflakes.
but then there's the matter of armstrong. the first man on the moon. an astonishing feat and claim to fame.
armstrong refuses to speak of his time on the moon. not the trip, not the experience or the thrill. nothing.
why?
aldrin shoots his mouth off all the time so why is armstrong keeping quiet?
is aldrin more confident of keeping secrets than armstrong is?
are there any secrets?

[thirty3]

I tend to agree that we may have went and something is not as it seems.

Lots of research time and money pre moon landing. A few missions and all quiet and then ''lets build a space station instaed.''

Data does not make sense. Age of earth rock and moon rock and moon dust all different with 1 billion years between each.......suggesting the moon is not earths natural satelite.

Density of moon dust and moon rock and earth not the same as would be needed for a natural satelite.

More iron found in moon dust than earth ....you know whats coming....unlike that which would suggest a natural satelite.

When appollo 11 or 13 blasted off the moon made a echo that would suggest it was hollow. The ring lasted for hours .lol.

I dunno maybe its made of cheese but there is no official scientific paper on that although there is for the above facts...lol

[on_the_jazz]

I take it nobody watched the vid i uploaded :p How did they put the reflectors up there if they never went there?
If it was all prerecorded why didn't they do another take when Armstrong messed up his small step line?

[cornishcuffer]

Sorry - too lazy to read every post but has anyone asked any of the thousands of people involved in the design and building of the rockets, the training of the (25) astounauts and their reserves . Have you every been to Kennedy space centre and seen the equipment that was used in this so called hoax.
Sorry but no-one can keep that big a secret.

by the way there are also many books whoich answer the stupid questions about fluttering flags etc. Do your own research.

[tb888]

I think that NASA did land on the moon.

The reason that Nasa didn't go back after the first few missions was primarly due to funding, it was heavily cut shortly after the apollo missions (see skylab). And no, they couldn't use the old stuff, they equipment wasn't that reusable. There is also the fact that the apollo lunar module was a complete death trap, the Apollo 1 mission burned it's crew alive before the thing made it into space for example (the life support system used pure oxygen, which can ignite easily).

Everything here has been debunked over and over again, and some of the key "evidence" makes no sense at all.

</myTwoPence>

[shank]

Sorry - too lazy to read every post but has anyone asked any of the thousands of people involved in the design and building of the rockets, the training of the (25) astounauts and their reserves . Have you every been to Kennedy space centre and seen the equipment that was used in this so called hoax.
Sorry but no-one can keep that big a secret.

by the way there are also many books whoich answer the stupid questions about fluttering flags etc. Do your own research.

Great post.

Here's a simple challenge to all moon-landing conspiracy theorists, all you have to do is present some evidence that the moon landings were faked that hasn't already been completely debunked.

[caveman_nige]

I have no doubt that man went to the moon, however the 'evidence ' to suggest otherwise is somewhat interesting.
however, more interesting to me is the reports of michael collins as he orbited the moon while armstrong and aldrin went for a walk.
his confirmation that 'santa claus is real'.
to what was he referring? something on the moon? something in space? something on earth thats not visible unless you are that high up?
nasa and the government will tell you collins was just making a joke. just as anybody would. bit of a lack of discipline for a highly trained member of the airforce, i think. but, ok, fine, a joke. not so disbelievable to make you choke on your cornflakes.
but then there's the matter of armstrong. the first man on the moon. an astonishing feat and claim to fame.
armstrong refuses to speak of his time on the moon. not the trip, not the experience or the thrill. nothing.
why?
aldrin shoots his mouth off all the time so why is armstrong keeping quiet?
is aldrin more confident of keeping secrets than armstrong is?
are there any secrets?

Probably because Neil Armstrong was known for his ice cool manner and not a being a gob shite like you. He was not the stereotypical yank big mouth. At the time he took part in the Apollo 11 training and mission he was a civilian and almost kept himself to himself. During the Apollo 11 launch his heart beat did not go over 109. Considering the guy has been a Navy pilot, a test pilot, a University Professor and a Astronaut, he has a lot of intelligence to go with his balls of steel. When he was 59 he caught his wedding ring in farm machinery and ripped off his finger, he calmly picked it up and took himself to hospital where they sewed it back on.

He refuses to sign autographs etc as people sell them , there so many fakes apparently on ebay. I can't blame the guy for wanting his privacy and not wanting to answer the same old tired question from the same bucktoothed doubters. When his own barber had sold locks of his hair I would think I would be sick to death of all around him.. To be honest I thought the guy was dead (years ago), I was very surprised to read that he is still alive at 78 years old.

The more i read about the man the more my respect and appreciation grew for him..

I now our local glue sniffer will always be hanging round these threads cos he cannot live in a real world. He should just stick to his virtual world and his paranoia and remember that the world is out to get him..... looser.......

[spog000]

yes the us did go to the moon they left a prisom or somthing like that on the moon so they can fire a laser at it thats how thay no the moon is moving away frome the earth at so many cm of feet per year and the flag has a pice of wire in it to make it look like it's flying so ther ye go

[vinc21]

AND dont you think the russians would tracked the arse off that rocket, dont here them saying no way did the land on the moon, and i saw it on tv. vinc21

[RedSpider]

came across this whilst browsing the subject on the net. i've also taken the time to correct the numerous spelling mistakes

'I've recently heard a very interesting urban legend aboout the Apollo project.
For those not aware of it the official record states that Russia actually launched a large unmanned soft landing probe at the moon four days before Apollo blasted off. This probe lost control and crashed into the moon too hard to survive.
Thats the official record.

The urban legend is that this probe in fact contained a single cosmonaut. Russia wanted to beat the US to the moon and launched this Lunig probe untested, and at great risk. They planned to announce that they had beaten the USA to the moon by two days only when they had safely recovered therir cosmonaut. Until then the unmanned probe story was a cover up. When the risk didn't pay off the cover up became the official version.'

[RedSpider]

found this online:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the moon, then who took the shot?
4. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
5. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

i've never doubted the moon landings but am intrigued by the evidence that says otherwise.

[RedSpider]

have any of you heard of earth's second moon? its called cruithne and was discovered in 1986. maybe they should try and land a man on that before they start out for mars

[gmb45]

have any of you heard of earth's second moon? its called cruithne and was discovered in 1986. maybe they should try and land a man on that before they start out for mars have u read this ?-- 3753 Cruithne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne)

[RedSpider]

yes, have you?

[firemouth]

yes, have you?

ok so you read it. did you understand it? I would suggest not.

to be a "moon" of the earth, or any planet, the object must orbit a planet. so in no sense of the word is it a Moon (first or second).
as for a visit, i think it would be a good idea. it may give information on the formation of the solar system and the causes of the creation of our moon. but at that size, nothing could land (not enough gravity).

i love conspiracy theorists, they see good science and, totally misunderstand it. then pass their misunderstanding on as a cover up. classic fun on a forum, but quite sad, if you think about it, in the real world.

[RedSpider]

i understand perfectly , ta very much. if patrick moore is happy to call it a moon then it's good enough for me. as for the landing i was taking the urine.
i would advise not presuming about someone you know nothing about

[waqasahmed]

YouTube - APOLLO 11 REVERSE SPEECH 1

Thats another one. This was the same person that called me stupid for not believing David Icke :D:D:D

[ham09]

If you're into this sort of thing I recommend you see the film Capricorn One.

It's a classic!

[on_the_jazz]

If you're into this sort of thing I recommend you see the film Capricorn One.

It's a classic!

Got this in hd, great film. I do believe in the moon landings but it wouldn't be too hard to launch an empty rocket, send it to the moon to drop off a few prisms (it doesn't even have to land), then swing back around and come home. The astronauts could then be planted where it lands.
All the moon stuff could be filmed in a studio. The moon walk itself is the only hard thing to fake and have no idea how they'd do it.

[Raven]

i love conspiracy theorists, they see good science and, totally misunderstand it. then pass their misunderstanding on as a cover up. classic fun on a forum, but quite sad, if you think about it, in the real world.

Care to comment on the fatal headshot from the Kennedy assassination ? More to the point how in the video the bullet clearly strikes from front-right as Kennedy's head impacts backwards and to the left - yet Oswald was supposed to have shot him from behind - also how when Kennedy gets struck in the throat he clearly brings his arms up to the front of his throat not the back - again point of impact, care to explain this away conspiracy theorists not understanding good science ? I'd love to hear your all knowing thoughts on this one, I really would love to see you try and explain this one away to be quite honest lol.

[gazz10]

Care to comment on the fatal headshot from the Kennedy assassination ? More to the point how in the video the bullet clearly strikes from front-right as Kennedy's head impacts backwards and to the left - yet Oswald was supposed to have shot him from behind - also how when Kennedy gets struck in the throat he clearly brings his arms up to the front of his throat not the back - again point of impact, care to explain this away conspiracy theorists not understanding good science ? I'd love to hear your all knowing thoughts on this one, I really would love to see you try and explain this one away to be quite honest lol.

i love all doc's on this and everyones point of view.

Am sure MJ will be up there soon,
But i feel its bit like u.s tv they broadcast what u want to believe.

[waqasahmed]

Its all dr whos fault :D for those of you who watch it(re watch the 1st episode) of 2008 I think

[skegsagypsy]

Its that ~~~~in tartus looks like a bog and is full of sh?t :D

[forntida]

Just to keep the conspiracies alive

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm)

Tardus:- How come you never see the cameramen enter or leave the Tardus. I think the whole thing is a set up.

[manxspud]

Was the moon landing a hoax? (http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html)

[manxspud]

On a serious note... i have no idea if we went to the moon or not... It does make for great entertainment value though. I am convinced that a lot of the footage showing the moon landing is fake... One thing is for sure i would never ever say it was faked to the men who went up there.

[Nath56]

i still dont know whether to believe the moon landing though. there is lots of evidence saying it was true but then lots against it too...... i guess its just one of those things that no one will ever know!:questionmark:

[lincsat]

The communications from the moon were monitored by the British at Joderell Bank and the Australians at Parkes and Honeysuckle, don't you think that at least one of those would have spoken out if there were no communications from the Moon. I suspect that the Russians were also monitoring but can't say for sure as they used Joderell Bank for most of the 1960's

[macarthur.2000]

Got one word for you all.............Mythbusters

They did a moon landing special, did everything shorrt of going to the moon, and they confirmed all of the conspiracy theories as being wrong. Discovery chanel rocks, lol.

[roasted3]

i think the moon has life on there, were theres water theres life.
nasa= never a straight answer.

[nightwingjatt]

guy's goto youtube and watch "mythbusters moon hoax".
i used to think the moon landing was fake and now, who knows.

[patkins]

The 1970`s movie Capricorn One (one of my all-time fav movies, and although it concerns a Mars landing) caused great controvercy on it`s release in the USA, but shows the potential to fake such an event.

[dean.x]

Check out a book by Ingo swann, penetration. if you think something is happenening on the moon, you should read this, even though it is a rare book and very rare.. Doing a few torrent searches should be able to locate it in pdf form. Could possibly be true !!!

[dean.x]

Another thing that I find curious about the moon, why, if there is nothing to hid, have they airbrushed some of the Moon photos, and surely the shard would be worth having a close look at ( the shard is a 7 mile high tower. ( i think )

[thered]

The communications from the moon were monitored by the British at Joderell Bank and the Australians at Parkes and Honeysuckle, don't you think that at least one of those would have spoken out if there were no communications from the Moon. I suspect that the Russians were also monitoring but can't say for sure as they used Joderell Bank for most of the 1960's

communications from where tho thats the thing they could have just been in orbit the truth may come out one day but it is nigh on impossible to prove they actually went to the moon because nobody can see it happening which is why its easy to fake the russians supposedly put the first man in space who was there to witness that nobody we just got told about it and belived it

russia supposedly were well ahead in every department and did almost everything first america suddenly topped the lot and landed on the moon first go doesnt really add up to me

the only people who know for sure are a few at NASA and the astronaughts that supposedly went

if they were so successful why havent they been back in over 30 years

or did they just think we will quit before we get caught out big style

[adedave]

ask the Clangers they will know if we have been there !

[Cronus]

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. But there is footage showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars. 16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". (http://www.moonmovie.com/) and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide? The Apollo mission was meticulously planned, yet there were still flaws in the plan which the public is being made aware of as time goes on. Unlike a simple game of bingo where nothing is planned and no strategy is involved the Apollo mission was thought out and at the time there seemed to be an answer to every question that arose. As times change and more research is being done on the mission the tables are beginning to turn and the public is starting to see the truth.

[lincsat]

On a recent "The Sky at Night" they showed HD photo's from a recent lunar orbiter showing the 6 landing sites and you could see what looked like the remains of the landers.

[Cronus]

On a recent "The Sky at Night" they showed HD photo's from a recent lunar orbiter showing the 6 landing sites and you could see what looked like the remains of the landers.

Lol have you seen those pics?

You couldn't spot a number 57 bus off those pics but we are meant to believe it was the landing site.
We have calculators now that were more advanced than the computers in those days. They can do it in 1969 but it would take us another 15yrs from now in 2010?

:cobblers:

They can't do it,they never could. Man on the moon is the biggest hoax in human history.

[C_S_B]

On a serious note... i have no idea if we went to the moon or not... It does make for great entertainment value though. I am convinced that a lot of the footage showing the moon landing is fake... One thing is for sure i would never ever say it was faked to the men who went up there.

D/L'd (i didn't inhale) the conspiracy vids and radio interview.

Got to agree, makes for great entertainment.

Can't find Ossama, Can't find the moon lander, Can't find the Clangers, what else Can't we find on the moon....Sorry Can't find Elvis..

excellent cb :dontknow:

[despot67]

The Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

The above link is very interesting as it takes apart the conspiracy theries one by one and refutes them - but then again conspiracy theory buffs won't agree will they LOL.

Personaly I beleive we went and we landed. Im sooo gutted Obama has put a stop to NASA's recent plans for a return mission. I was two when they landed and at this rate I'll be 6 foot under when they go back but I think we will and evidenve will be seen - but again someone will claim the evidene was sent afterwards by robotic craft????

[alen1k]

it doesn't even matter what is true. story sticks for half a decade now, don't you think someone would've already make such a strong statement about it, amercians would have to confess? I believe they landed on the moon, some believe its all a big conspiracy, but why does it even matter? we should do right by our planet first anyway, then go exploring the universe.

[chroma]

If its a hoax then why can i fire a high power lazer at the corner cube prism arrays set up at the sites of A11, A14 and A15?
The experiement is simple enough, fire a lazer at the direction of the reflectors, measure the incomming wattage and adjust till you go see the spike from the reflected light.
Hitting the dirt around it causes a significant drop off, A14 is easiest to 2tune" cause its the biggest reflector array, but enough time spent messing around shows results from the 11 and 15 sites.

Someone had to have placed these MAN MADE reflectors onto the surface in order for the experiment to work.

[z786]

thats coz ur a freemason..........
you lot hoaxed the moon landin and will still tell evry1 its real

YouTube- Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

[mugi1974]

No matter how this story stinks, the official history will continue to be recorded that the first landing on the moon was in 1969. No question is what happened to other flights to the moon. Are they faked? Menu has many interesting facts that are at once, suddenly and without explanation stopped large flights per month. Why?

[nara]

Definately faked. Here's the conclusive proof.

Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake! (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm)















...for eejits that believe internet conspiracy theories.:rolleyes:

[Herbie]

My brother who lives down the road has a friend who worked for NASA in 1969, well he told this guy who also worked for NASA that the Americans were thinking of faking the moon landings, Now I know this is true because Bert who worked in the props store at NASA told Harry who told my other half's friend Mary-Lou, she was from Virginia ,well she said that, they are gonna fake it and if Mary-Lou say it's a fact, it's a fact.
Anyway to get back on track Mary-Lou has a friend who was working in the White house, (told you she was from Virginia,) well her friend was a cleaner and she overheard them government people talking about having a mass meeting,I mean big like Texas big, a meeting with 1000,s of people and the topic was THE FAKE MOON LANDINGS, but they all had to promise to keep it secret, well you know Betty-May she couldn't keep the lid on a jam jar.
So I am telling you now it was FAKE.

My wife Mary-Lou has just called her friend Betty-May(collect) and she has Photo-Graphic proof it was a hoax.
It might look real but the moon don't have a moon.

[williamanoop]

might as well do this as well im getting in to it


was the moon landing a big scam weve all heard the tales whats your view


personally i think its all a big con


I guess it is not a scam afterall.....

checkout the myth busters episode on the conspiracy of the moon...they systematically demolish any doubts....

cheers

[rosand]

I was thinking they really landed up there
untill I saw the mythbusters proving that
indeed they landed.
WITH THE ASTONISHING GOOD WILLING
HELP OF NASA!!!!!!!
BY LETTING THEM USE THEIR BILLION DOLLAR
MACHINERY
BY ACTUALLY SPENDING TIME AND MONEY
FOR GOOD WILL....
Just to prove the obvious?

After the mythbusters I started to have douds.

[BillG]

Have a look at this and then make your mind up ??

[thered]

Have a look at this and then make your mind up ??

lol seen it before looks better tha the nasa footage


dont suppose we will ever know 40 years later no sign of going back we were supposed to be taking holidays there by now i thought stelios would have it all sewn up with bargain flights and hotels near the sea of tranquility

[tooseyman]

I watched it at the time,but it was too long ago to remember now lol. I'm now of the opinion it was all a big hoax. Quite frankly I don't think they had the technology to land a manned craft on the moon all those years ago.

[nara]

Quite frankly I don't think they had the technology to land a manned craft on the moon all those years ago.

Ah, the arrogance of the young! :rolleyes:

[nialler]

Ah, the arrogance of the young! :rolleyes:

what a rubbish reply !!, its the guys opinion

[nara]

its the guys opinion

Quite correct, and in my opinion, his notion that they didn't have the technology in the sixties displays a lack of understanding and arrogance that seems to be widespread amongst the iPod generation.

[gixerade]

Some food for thought


On 12 April 1961, the USSR sent the first man into space?Yuri Gagarin. Six weeks later, US President John Kennedy promised a manned Moon landing by 1969 to win the battle of systems and impress the world with technical superiority:



NASA had to fake Apollo Moon landings due to severe technical problems, insoluble for these eight years, with deadlines needing to be met by all means. The USA could not afford to lose the Moon race. Bill Kaysing suggested that "during the 1960s, they (NASA) said 'if you can't make it, fake it'"
In 2004, President George Bush gave not eight but sixteen years for a manned return to the Moon, albeit the technologies for it should have already been developed forty years ago. In 2010, President Barack Obama cancelled this plan, adding fuel to the fire of the Moon sceptics.

In 1967, a year before the first manned Apollo flight, there were 11 deaths within Nasa


The Apollo 1 crew was still alive for at least 15 minutes after the craft caught fire, because their autopsy found that they have managed to develop pulmatory oedema, which cannot happen if they had died earlier. Senior NASA astronaut and Apollo 1 commander Virgil Grissom was a sharp critic of the programme. "Quite a number of things are not in order with this spacecraft he once said "It's not as good as the ones we flew before." He publicly called the Apollo capsule "a bucket of bolts" and the spacecraft "a heap of old scrap". On 22 January 1967 (5 days before his death), he picked the largest lemon from his lemon garden in Texas, and intended to hang it on the Apollo spacecraft?as a symbol of failure. (In December 1966, a report made by Joe Shea noted that "At least 20,000 failures of all kinds had been logged, more than 200 of them in the environmental control system.") Grissom had received death threats earlier, which his family saw as coming from the space programme. "If there ever is a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely to be me", he said to his wife.


NASA quality engineer Thomas Baron died with his family a week after his 500-page report analysing the Apollo 1 incident was deposed before the Congressational committee, and the report vanished. To this date the report has never been found??


In early 1970, the Soviet Union recovered an empty Apollo capsule and returned it to the US several months later. The capsule was identified at NASA as a training capsule lost a while back. It was found on the night of 11?12 April 1970, the night after Apollo 13 was launched?


With their own competing Moon programme, the Soviets could be expected to have cried foul if the US tried to fake the Moon landings. Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling the USA liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that. Russia could have blabbed to the world that the Moon landings were fake, and probably would have done were Khrushchev in power, but the West would say they were jealous because the USA had beaten them to it.

[flyguyvan]

wow theres so many angles for each side... good post

[goonster]

No Star to be seen on any of the video footage or photographs, and when the astronaut were asked about them,
they said, they cant or didnt remember seeing any.......
Hmmmm.

[nara]

No Star to be seen on any of the video footage or photographs, and when the astronaut were asked about them,
they said, they cant or didnt remember seeing any.......
Hmmmm.

The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. Fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures.

The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures.

As for not seeing stars. That's a classic example of editing the truth to suit the theory. Stars could be seen from inside the lunar module through the upper rendevous window. The glare outside on the lunar surface was too strong for the astronauts eyes to become dark adapted.

[barrowmanandrew]

just out of curiousity and slightly off topic but,
is it not possible to detect the debris left on the moon by the appollo missions from earth??
the reason i ask , is that they can detect elements, atmospheres etc in unbelivably far away planets, comets etc.
why cant they detect anything on the moon?

for the record, i believe they did go to the moon.
i think it would be much too difficult to pull off such an elaborate hoax and keep it hidden for forty years.....

[Mjolinor]

just out of curiousity and slightly off topic but,
is it not possible to detect the debris left on the moon by the appollo missions from earth??
the reason i ask , is that they can detect elements, atmospheres etc in unbelivably far away planets, comets etc.
why cant they detect anything on the moon?

for the record, i believe they did go to the moon.
i think it would be much too difficult to pull off such an elaborate hoax and keep it hidden for forty years.....

They deliberately left a reflector there that can be seen from earth, it was designed specifically for that purpose.

[nara]

They deliberately left a reflector there that can be seen from earth, it was designed specifically for that purpose.

There are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch.

[barrowmanandrew]

does that not prove they were there then?

[nara]

does that not prove they were there then?

In a word...yes.




(unless you're a conspiracy theorist.)

[Cronus]

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

[Cronus]

There are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface.

But did they??


The laser test theory proves absolutely nothing. People who feel its their mission in life to disprove the moon landing hoax always use the reflectors as their greatest trump card but it is essentially a futile argument.

NASA did send unmanned spacecraft to the Moon prior to the Moon landings.

Surveyor 1 - 30 May 1966
Surveyor 3 - 20 April 1967
Surveyor 5 - 8 September 1967
Surveyor 6 - 7 November 1967
Surveyor 7 - 7 January 1968

The Surveyors landed on the surface successfully 5 times out of 7 attempts.

Surveyor to the Moon (1966 - 1968) (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html)

They used reflectors on the moon to determine the distance that the moon is from the earth. They needed exact numbers to achieve a lunar landing.

So I'll say it again.

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

[KenshinPT]

The man in the Moon is true!

And you ask: Why?

The competition between USA and URSS to put the man in the Moon was huge.

Both were very alert to any moves made by the other nation.

When USA put the first man in the Moon, URSS had all their scopes and satellites pointed to the moon to check the veracity of the the mission.

If the USA's mission was fake, URSS would show immediately to the world all the proofs of that fake mission.

As, URSS and USA were/are rivals I don't believe that URSS would pact with USA of this fake story.

So, the conclusion is: The man in the Moon is true.

[wispa]

well non of the trips to the moon and holidays promised, never took place since the big moon landing.
if anything tech has moved so far advanced that we should of had little apartments for everyone....

[thered]

But did they??


The laser test theory proves absolutely nothing. People who feel its their mission in life to disprove the moon landing hoax always use the reflectors as their greatest trump card but it is essentially a futile argument.

NASA did send unmanned spacecraft to the Moon prior to the Moon landings.

Surveyor 1 - 30 May 1966
Surveyor 3 - 20 April 1967
Surveyor 5 - 8 September 1967
Surveyor 6 - 7 November 1967
Surveyor 7 - 7 January 1968

The Surveyors landed on the surface successfully 5 times out of 7 attempts.

Surveyor to the Moon (1966 - 1968) (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html)

They used reflectors on the moon to determine the distance that the moon is from the earth. They needed exact numbers to achieve a lunar landing.

So I'll say it again.

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.


i will agree with that i think chroma has stated the same in the thread means nothing to me any robo device could have done it

40 years on where are we?

thing is its not something you can prove or disprove unless you got access too the moon

the crap footage,the lack of movement on the ground when the rocket fires up (NO crater) the apollo crew on whatever mission look like they on string,van allen, light where there should be shadows

lets face it the evidence to say we went to the moon is poor at best but how do you disprove it ? other than actually going

[Mally_BUK]

i haven't seen any compeling evidence to proove they didn't go to the moon

[RedSpider]

i went to the moon. it was crap. i came home.
or do i mean skegness? one of them. i always get them 2 confused

[lickerdyslick]

mythbusters made a mini version of the moon landing with lights positioned where there was supposed to be lights e.t.c. and they proved the moon landing was true, ok i knows these guys are nuts but i now believe the landing was true.

[frankharrison]

Anybody think the same as me? They landed on the moon BUT the photos are not from the landings. The pictures were so poor they had to do something and put out photos taken from training.
That's why there are slight problems with the photos.
The video that everyone sees now is a copy of what was transmitted so it's hard to determine what's real and edited.
If they hadn't have gone I think that countries tracking them would have said something.

[johnnyquango]

caveman .you are as quick to rubbish these conspiracies as others are to accept them?what are your beliefs based upon.empty vessels haven't the right to make the most noises

[nara]

caveman .you are as quick to rubbish these conspiracies as others are to accept them?what are your beliefs based upon.empty vessels haven't the right to make the most noises

Which post by caveman are you referring to? Has he made any in this thread? :confused:

[racin-snake]

think you have just got mixed up and confused again m8 lol
nige contributed on the first page of the thread about 3 posts ?

but i think he is calling someone a "caveman" and saying that
some are quick to believe this stuff and ....
some are just as quick to dismiss it

without either giving a second look at the facts or lack off in either direction
then shouting there mouth off ...without actually knowing the full facts or just assuming they know

you need to try a bit harder at reading the posts mate as this one might be tricky
but you are quite often confused aint ya ?

[Cronus]

think you have just got mixed up and confused again m8 lol

i think he is calling someone a "caveman" and saying that
some are quick to believe this stuff and ....
some are just as quick to dismiss it

without either giving a second look at the facts or lack off in either direction
then shouting there mouth off ...without actually knowing the full facts or just assuming they know

you need to try a bit harder at reading the posts mate as this one might be tricky
but you are quite often confused aint ya ?

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/182/yesp.gif


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6674/clapu.gif

[caveman_nige]

caveman .you are as quick to rubbish these conspiracies as others are to accept them?what are your beliefs based upon.empty vessels haven't the right to make the most noises


I am sorry are you talking to me...? maybe you should read everything first before you wite an inane comment like that. I have no wish to participate further in this thread and have not done so for almost two years.. Why not address you comments to people who are active in here and willing to give you their opinions.. Merry Christmas.

[nara]

but i think he is calling someone a "caveman" and saying that
some are quick to believe this stuff and ....
some are just as quick to dismiss it

Ah, getcha! Thanks :laugh: (I still don't know who he's referring to, but we'll let that pass.)

Anyhow, when you are dealing with accepted fact, backed up with a body of evidence, it's up to those who disagree to make their case.

The "What are your beliefs based on" question is therefore both silly and redundant.

His "empty vessels" taunt is juvenile and ignorant.

[racin-snake]

YouTube - ***x202a;A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon Part 1***x202c;&rlm;


there are a few videos for this film split into segments
pretty good and well researched worth a real good look plenty of info revealed and backed up with fact and dated info too

have a look and then see if it was in fact possible to go to the moon ?

YouTube - ***x202a;A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon 2/5***x202c;&rlm;

pretty impressive but more so the facts deemed not worth comment from nasa

and also look at the faces of the astronauts says it all really

if i had been one of the only people to have went to the moon i think i would have been smiling
even just for the fact id survived the van allen belt

[nara]

...even just for the fact id survived the van allen belt

Why would that be a problem?

" It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure."


The Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

[racin-snake]

mmmm watch the film come back with somic solid

as again you fail dismally lol

watch somic out of your usual mate .........it might inform you to make better more informed decisions and comments

as in this case your copy and paste contains nothing of worth to the debate
(as usual )

and again can you summarize or plagiarise something from another site to claim otherwise to the other comments made in my post ?
again not the info but the poster , suitably noted on all your previous claptrap

go on amaze us with something of your own ?

but i sorely ~~~~in doubt it lol

just like nasa ...=Never A Straight Answer lol ..nara =Never A Realistic Argument lol

[nara]

as in this case your copy and paste contains nothing of worth to the debate
(as usual )

and again can you summarize or plagiarise something from another site to claim otherwise to the other comments made in my post ?


So your copy and pasting (or plagiarising, if you prefer) of a couple of YouTube videos is a worthy addition to the debate? :laugh:

It's an interesting, if rather bizarre, viewpoint. :rolleyes:

[cablefreejunkie]

YouTube - ***x202a;A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon Part 1***x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKONhVl7Sr8&feature=player_detailpage)


there are a few videos for this film split into segments
pretty good and well researched worth a real good look plenty of info revealed and backed up with fact and dated info too

have a look and then see if it was in fact possible to go to the moon ?

YouTube - ***x202a;A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon 2/5***x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0D6vZuQ6Y&feature=player_detailpage)

pretty impressive but more so the facts deemed not worth comment from nasa

and also look at the faces of the astronauts says it all really

if i had been one of the only people to have went to the moon i think i would have been smiling
even just for the fact id survived the van allen belt
survived the van allen belt !!!!! no chance !!!!

[racin-snake]

not so norah...if you apply the fact ime showing the films to add more to the debate and also giving a factual outlook with more than a quote and one line
thats seems to be YOUR modus operandi
Digital Kaos (http://www.digital-kaos.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=6861737)
its here for everyone to see lol
your input of all the posts ive ever seen you make ...."one line and a quote" :stupid:
never once have i seen one be objective with any constructive criticism

nor once considered what you deem to be facts as being slightly in the greyer area

i wish you could possibly contribute more as your posts are slightly nieve and mostly bunkum with no debate just copy and paste !
with never a thought as to what you've been fed by the media and PR dept of these authorities would in fact be a huge slice of BS
mostly though you do not debate but simply try to condemn the evidence by nothing but a line of silly insignificant twaddle

must be lovely in your black and white world to have the total handle on the truth mate as everyone knows its infeasible and non realistic outlook to think everyone else is wrong except nara ?
even expert testimonies and mistakes dated pictures and other evidence are mostly bypassed to just attempt to have a go at the poster not the content of the actual evidence provided

if everyone that has an opinion here are all wrong and conspiracy nuts then why post your efforts here at all ?
plenty other parts of the forum to look at than trolling here if you just cannot entertain anything but the official line of the government and or agency involved ?

either bring something to the debate or don't join in
as most if not all of your input on most of your posts are trolling attempts pure and simple
i see this everywhere you post not just here on DK
nothing to offer but unrealistic claptrap
be nice for once you enter a debate rather than instigate (troll)
as your input is nothing more than this "as per usual"

this will be a big quote for you lol

anyhoo your post as always is just as i say total rubbish

i also see why you think i have a bizarre outlook
mainly because i like to look at all sides not what i am spoon-fed
(saying that if your elderly that might be second nature now )

have a look at the film (not a silly youtube video )as in this format its easier to convey the facts that have been queried regarding the nasa evidence for easier consumption and which nasa failed to comment on to show their evidence to be factual !
they just refused comment and no production of any evidence to refute the facts this film implied !

and then come back with a definition of what "they claim in the film ".....to be non factual

with some sort of thesis to back your evidence THEN DEBATE (WITH MORE THAN ONE LINE AND A QUOTE !!)

and maybe show your thoughts on these matters ?

instead of your usual Victor Meldrew impersonation :roflmao:


:hahaha: hopefully it might improve your memory too ? so theraputic too perhaps ?

[super jumbe]

nara, I thought I was the only person hear copy and paste??.
Consider looking at yours, before jumping to others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:roflmao:

[nara]

nara, I thought I was the only person hear copy and paste***8230;***8230;.
Consider looking at yours, before jumping to others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:roflmao:

Lol, there's a world of difference between pasting an unattributed news story under your own name, and using an attributed quote to illustrate a point.

You should do some research on the basics of forum etiquette. ;)

(and I'm not the only one who's been trying to get that message across to you.)

[racin-snake]

unfortunately the lesson your trying to teach superjumbe
might actually be better off used by yourself

you have an abrasive and somewhat annoying type of forum etiquette yourself
don't you understand this being an english speaking forum there are people her are not in fact using their mother tongue?
so the language barrier problem has to be taken into consideration

maybe the thought here might trigger some sort of adjustment to your particularly stupefied posting format ?

just a thought you could do with taking on board

[nara]

don't you understand this being an english speaking forum there are people her are not in fact using their mother tongue?
so the language barrier problem has to be taken into consideration


I may have commented on the rambling nature of your posts in the past, but I don't think I have ever mocked your use of English.

My apologies if I have.

[racin-snake]

my last post on this as its misdirecting the thread of which i am particularly interested in

but please read my post again ....
i am saying that superjumbe is not using his mother tongue english is not his first language
so if his posting and the information you are trying to convey is confusing the whole idea of his posts being slightly off are to do with the language barrier not intellect or stupidity
but simply put hes got a big hurdle when using english

be aware many on this forum are not speaking english as their first language
but are in fact trying and thankfully succeeding to produce some input using english which is a hard enough language for some
and somewhat confusing to learn in its written form
so please take this consideration into account before extracting the urine
hopefully now we can debate the actual treads intended question
please

[frankharrison]

Landings real.

Photos/video fake/enhanced. Shot on Earth as backup.

[racin-snake]

hi Frank care to elaborate on these comments ?

be nice to see the angle for these comments are coming from see where it goes ect

just looking at some studies done on the zero gravity affect and the space suits dexterity under these conditions
and reconstructions using suit inflation and tethers to provide the illusion if zero gravity
with some outstanding results right here on earth
ile post it as soon as i can when i get time

also might write to nasa to ask where i can buy the batteries they used on the hasselblad camera they used as the temp variation they withstood is even in modern terms outstanding if not unbelievable :stupid:

[Kalipo]

HAHA @ this thread.. hi nara at your old tricks again i see lol..

Anyway, the thread. I'm not going to go into this as i admittedly know sweet FA about the subject..

But for sake of the arugmentative people. we cannot and will not know the truth about wether or not the landings occured. Unless the US goverment say otherwise.. :(

But last month or so ago i read an article where moon rock was supposadly stolen by an astronaut who smuggled the rock in his clothing etc.. he was caught trying to sell the rocks.. It's a criminal offence the the US to take rock from the moon lol..

It seems that this story will never go away and its pretty sad for someone to argue and fall out if/not/when it happened when they will never be able to truly prove otherwise.. :)

And oh yeah, i read very early in the thread (yes ive read the hole lot) a member (didnt catch the name) was quoting "URSS" its USSR FFS lol

[racin-snake]

i take slight offence as to whether you or anyone thinks it "SAD"
to ask questions about events reported that later found have big factual holes in evidence provided
i also find it amusing that some who claim this will argue over whether a goal scored in 1966 was in or out (see the relevance ?)
so different strokes for different folk

yet i don't see me going on a thread on sport and calling these guys sad ?
in all i find it rather interesting and sometimes surprising that government agency's get away with such bullshit

while others argue with an opinon on whether a member of football team or a sportsman has the right to shag who they like ect ?
(this makes no sense to me anyway)

but hey ho such is life

also the poster made a mistake with USSR but in your post:

[QUOTE]And oh yeah, i read very early in the thread (yes ive read the hole lot) a member (didnt catch the name) was quoting "URSS" its USSR FFS [QUOTE]

" hole lot "would be "whole lot ":laugh:

easily done eh ?

[nara]

HAHA @ this thread.. hi nara at your old tricks again i see lol..


Lol, it's tough, but somebody's got to do it. ;)


...I read very early in the thread (yes ive read the hole lot)

It's nice to see somebody who bothers to reads the whole thread before reaching for the keyboard. It seems to be a dying art these days. :top:

[johnboy1974]

i have been watching a lot of stuff recently on youtube regarding the moon landings. Type in moon landings hoax debunked and then moon landings debunked. Theres evidence that it was a hoax and that it did actually happen. I was never too sure myself as i wasnt born when it happened but all i will say is that for me this is too big a conspiracy with too many people involved, someone somewhere would have blabbed by now.

[racin-snake]

i have been watching a lot of stuff recently on youtube regarding the moon landings. Type in moon landings hoax debunked and then moon landings debunked. Theres evidence that it was a hoax and that it did actually happen. I was never too sure myself as i wasnt born when it happened but all i will say is that for me this is too big a conspiracy with too many people involved, someone somewhere would have blabbed by now.


did you watch Neil Armstrong's message in the film i posted ?
taken the only way possible (which is very cryptic)what do you think of his statements ?
and yes there is a big question as to whether the whole thing could be kept secret
but if you then look at the Manhattan project : then you will see that big secrets can be kept for large periods and still are today
so in my opinion some knew some didn't
the ones who suspect are like us no proof but absence of solid substantial proof doesn't mean there is none it just isn't outed yet
like for instance why would the fake the earth shots and say they were half way to he moon
if in fact on the date on the slate they were only in a high earth orbit ?
if they did go then they wouldn't have to fake anything it would be black and white no grey areas to challenge then
like most, it is thought due to the fact it was a long time ago it doesn't matter one way or the other
in my opinion it matters great deal lies are lies
an should be outed .....

"fool us once shame on them" .."fool us twice shame on us "

[johnboy1974]

racin armstrong has been a bit of a wierdo so nothing he says is concrete in my eyes. isnt there a reflector on the moon which was placed there by appollo which is used to determine earth moon distance apart. Also racin where do you stand on the other appollo missions do you think it was just 11 that was faked and they did eventually go there.

[racin-snake]

to be honest ime just looking at this as objective as possible
but with very little rebuttal or informed debate from nasa's end its pretty much one sided

but strong evidence supports many of the disbelievers IMHO

as for Armstrong ? weirdo ?
this guy was a test pilot also a genuine player in the whole nasa agenda so a clever well informed and above all professional
but after the moon landings his attitude changed giving no interviews and no comments s to what he did and how it was for him
he hasn't even gained financially as most would from a book ect ?
seems odd to me that if he'd been to the moon and did these amazing adventures the first of its kind
ground breaking even if it was to be done today
makes me slightly leaning to the conclusion he's embarrassed it actually didn't happen
but far from it for me to say my veiw point
have a good look at the stuff yourself satisfy yourself it is what you think that matters
but by al means have a dig around
its history and if its correct then so be it
but not to challenge the greyer areas is just wrong
i hope you enjoy the journey if you decide to look as it might lead you many places you'd never thought before were relevant to you

but i urge you to come to your own conclusion
take care mate if you do look try to be objective :top:
an as for the reflectors i think Cronus covered this on a previous post but again
your own view point versus the evidence nowt else matters

[nara]

i have been watching a lot of stuff recently on youtube regarding the moon landings. Type in moon landings hoax debunked and then moon landings debunked. Theres evidence that it was a hoax and that it did actually happen. I was never too sure myself as i wasnt born when it happened but all i will say is that for me this is too big a conspiracy with too many people involved, someone somewhere would have blabbed by now.

If you're interested in further reading johnboy Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax (http://www.clavius.org/) is an excellent site as is The Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) and Michael Shermer?s brilliant (and VERY LONG !) "Moon Hoax"-debunk (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html)

If you've been reading the thread you'll have seen several references to the moon landing deniers claim that humans couldn't have passed through the Van Allen Belt.

Who better to counter this than Dr James Van Allen himself who said:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

As for your excellent point "someone would have blabbed by now"

In the words of astronaut Gordon Liddy:

"Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. To think that thousands of people would keep their mouths shut is too ridiculous to consider."

[z786]

do we REALLY have to go into the debate of "secret" societies with maybe a million members?

[mandoo]

:top:Personally i think we did go to the moon but were reluctant to return as something/one was already there as quoted on a document that refers to the nasa moon bombing in search of evidence for the presence of water. Have you seen the so called leaked video clips that show structures on the moon that were kept secret from us due to our fear of extra terrestrial existance? Im curious to know how many believe it to be this way?

[nara]

do we REALLY have to go into the debate of "secret" societies with maybe a million members?

I'm not quite sure where your coming from there.

Are you saying that everyone in the NASA moon landing program (and all the others around the world who were involved in the moon landing telemetry) was a member of a secret society, or have I misinterpreted your post?

[thered]

I'm not quite sure where your coming from there.

Are you saying that everyone in the NASA moon landing program (and all the others around the world who were involved in the moon landing telemetry) was a member of a secret society, or have I misinterpreted your post?

im not sure how many people would need to know the truth apart from the astronaughts and a couple of other top chiefs

i am sure they were very handsomely rewarded too for their silence if untrue


i believe they went up and they span around in space a bit the landing thing i do not believe

too many lttle things wrong not enough footage released and now 40 years on we havent been back

reflectors as evidence any buggy could have done it doesnt have to be manned

stones with letters on them,light not correct lunar module not making a huge crater and button moon type tv footage make it for me a bit unbelievable

there is a lot to view and watch and many myths have been supposedly debunked a lot not very well

us mere mortals will never know one way or another 100% there could be as little as 5-10 people who know exactly what happened

[johnboy1974]

well the way i see it is like this- they couldnt keep it secret about monica whatshername sucking off bill clinton but apparenly thousands of nasa employees and god knows how many civillians all know mankinds biggest secret and will never blab.

[johnboy1974]

:top:Personally i think we did go to the moon but were reluctant to return as something/one was already there as quoted on a document that refers to the nasa moon bombing in search of evidence for the presence of water. Have you seen the so called leaked video clips that show structures on the moon that were kept secret from us due to our fear of extra terrestrial existance? Im curious to know how many believe it to be this way?

mandoo could you post some links to these pictures i saw some stuff on youtube and it was far from convincing.

[Egren71]

Ok i have just spent the last day or so reading through this post and watching as much of the video clips as i can stand and i thought i would add my tuppence to the post.
Just 3 points first.
Earlier in the post cantona7 said but does not the moon rotate like the earth so at times the dark side of the moon would be our side of the moon?
The answer is no the moon does not rotate relative to us. It is tide locked we always see one face, it does wobble a little so to be precise we see nearer to 51 percent of the moon but we never see the other side unless a probe swings past that side.
Also thered said the yanks just sent up people but the russians sent up testers
This is also incorrect see Animals in space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space) - the yanks sent up animals too
And lastly thirty3 quotes points suggesting the moon is not earths natural satellite.
He's right, depending on what exactly he means, the moon is not a natural satellite. It was not, according to current theory created by accreting from the suns original dust disk. It was created when two planetary sized bodies in orbit around the sun collided. This happened very early in the solar systems history when the planets were still forming. The resulting collision created two new planetary sized bodies. 1. The Earth and 2. The moon. This is not as far as we know the way that moons are normally created.

Two points that keep coming up that seem to prove nothing either way are
1. The reflectors as these could have been put there by man or could have been put their by robots.
2. Why haven't we gone back? There are many possible reasons why we haven't gone back. It could be as the conspiracy theorists say that we can't or it could be as the believers say that it is too expensive and their is no reason to. Or it could be another reason.

I think one answer we should accept and stop keep arguing over is the Van Allen belt if the person who discovered the thing says he sees no problem with the Astronaut's passing through it then i think we should believe him. After all he was smart enough to look for it in the first place. And lets be honest the governments of old didn't seem too concerned for their citizens welfare as can be seen from their lets go watch the nuclear bomb tests. As long as the Astronaut's got back ok for the TV cameras and interviews.

Raven said its all down to oil and power and at least as far as power is concerned i think that is true and when we go back to the moon for the fuel that appears to be there it will put an end to this fake theory. There appears to a fuel on the moon in great quantities that will be very useful in powering fusion nuclear reactors

In my opinion a very weak argument that comes up is the "if you double the playback speed of the Astronaut's on the moons surface" argument. The moons gravity is 1/6th of the Earths so for the argument to make sense you should increase the playback speed 6 times. This would look silly. It doesn't much prove anything as there would always be an amount you could speed up playback by to make it look like Earth Gravity.

I am not going to argue all the points as firemouth appears to have done a good job of most of them with some very sensible answers.

A last few things i have to say are i agree with nara although this in not precisely what he said. There is an arrogance with recent generations that seem to think that they are the only generation smart enough to do something very difficult. People in this thread keep saying if we have done it before then why can't we do it now it must be because we didn't do it the first time. This is a flawed argument as what we are trying to do this time is go there cheaper, safely and for longer periods. I am sure that NASA could go back and copy the Apollo rockets and build some more but we have moved on, a lot in some areas, so why not take a little time and go back but do it better this time. People keep saying that we can't build the equipment to get us there, that we have lost the plans. So what we could copy the old equipment and re-invent the bits we need to. Lets face it we probably couldn't build a steam train, say the flying scotsman, without copying the original a bit. In general we could probably build a steam train but but not a leading edge one. But no one argues that because we can't do it now then it must mean we have never built one.

I think that the only reason this argument exists is because it is easier to put down the achievements of previous generations than it is to go out and do something monumental yourself. Look at both China under Mao and Cambodia under the Khmer rouge, both governments decided it would be easier to destroy their historical monuments that showed how great the previous generations had been, than it would be to great again nowadays. A nice why bother attitude, which is quite common nowadays. And where governments go citizens inevitably follow. What we should be doing is deciding to be great again, but unfortunately to many people can't be bothered to get up out of the chair in front of their TV, even worse they don't want to leave the TV as it does their thinking for them.

I am not saying the doubters don't think for them self i know that many do but i believe that far more don't.

I think i have started rambling so i will stop there.

[racin-snake]

[quote]I think one answer we should accept and stop keep arguing over is the Van Allen belt if the person who discovered the thing says he sees no problem with the Astronaut's passing through it then i think we should believe him. After all he was smart enough to look for it in the first place. And lets be honest the governments of old didn't seem too concerned for their citizens welfare as can be seen from their lets go watch the nuclear bomb tests. As long as the Astronaut's got back ok for the TV cameras and interviews. [quote]

mmmmm
not fully in agreance here as van allen himself found this anomaly by accident so if he's smart enough to have an accident then fine ..follow it up is the smart bit
and as of yet nothing goes into a high enough orbit to go through these two belts so your theory there is slightly tainted
tell you what next moonshot they do you fly through the van allen belts see how you go ?

secondly no one is ignorant enough to debate the history in so far as most if not all history has been spun in the powers that be 's favour ..this is a proven fact !

my own thoughts are that if this was the most monumental task in our last century i think that they would have crossed the t's and dotted the i's
as to let no contention arise ?
especially the fact that the big bad USSR was watching
another contentious part that if you look the USSR might not have had the technology to follow the Apollo flight all the way to its destination
and the telemetry as proven was and if you look ... to be shown prior to the mission by robotic unmanned craft
which did land on the moon !
if they did this then why is so much coming to the fore that in fact they covered a lot up in smoke and mirrors ?

and also the fact that inhibitive costs ect are the real reason for the apolo space program to be scrapped
only to be replaced by the space shuttle program that if you look goes nowhere near the two radiation belts ?

your argument is based on the findings of a small bunch of government scientists
and as seen before the mainstream media ...so
in essence changes very little to the argument
as its unproven untested especially the 1/6 gravity spiel
amazing that it can be replicated here in normal earth gravity with just simple devices such as pulleys and wires ?

contentions though it may sound i believe what i can prove
the day professor van allen goes through the belts himself il take his word
till then back up the facts
as if you also look even one us president said said
"there will be no whitewash in the white-house "
which ended up proven to be a load of shite
so words over proven facts imho matter
ime quite happy to accept a proven theory but here say and non substantiated findings from a professor that hasn't even seen the effects of radiation on human bodies can come away with some of this
as the scientists cannot even agree on the more recent nuclear disaster radiation affects even now they are in deadlock over a reactor in japan's actual damaging output
so back in the 60s there was little chance this stands as proven 100% fact
just a theory as stated

modern day craft and especially manned craft avoid the belts as much as possible due to the unknown or unpredicted effects ....fact !

as for the ramble about historic monuments ripped down by the Khmer rouge
twaddle
a policy implemented by the communist state in these places
~~~~all to do with human achievement more to do with killing off a belief system and more so the patriotism to a country as opposed to loyalty to a party end off

think more reading is needed my friend
you have a good analysis of much but misguided about the agendas involved


...-racin

[wetdog]

why not just take a picture or two of all the gear left on the moon?

surely we have the technology, simples.

mick.

[racin-snake]

oh they have done that mate
and have you seen em

lol http://www.space.com/6997-photos-reveal-apollo-11-moon-landing-site.html


here you go enjoy :roflmao:

funny how nasa got these pics yet the Japanese selene probe didn't find anything more yet got closer ?

[wetdog]

oh they have done that mate
and have you seen em

lol New Photos Reveal Apollo 11 at First Moon Landing Site | Space.com (http://www.space.com/6997-photos-reveal-apollo-11-moon-landing-site.html)


here you go enjoy :roflmao:

funny how nasa got these pics yet the Japanese selene probe didn't find anything more yet got closer ?


:roflmao: thats pathetic, my digital camera can do that.

mick.

[Shady]

if that photos proof of apollo 11, then this
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_29_shKT4Elw/TH4CxGtsypI/AAAAAAAAKzY/ExsoOGQTtvI/s400/luna_moon_base.jpg
is proof of aliens

[TheJackel]

oh they have done that mate
and have you seen em

lol New Photos Reveal Apollo 11 at First Moon Landing Site | Space.com (http://www.space.com/6997-photos-reveal-apollo-11-moon-landing-site.html)


here you go enjoy :roflmao:

funny how nasa got these pics yet the Japanese selene probe didn't find anything more yet got closer ?

Well thats me converted that evidence is so conclusive pmsl.

next.:shot:

[racin-snake]

yep the nasa pictures are a ~~~~in joke eh !

[D21198071]

if the base of aliens in moons....why not from a long time ago we attack them.... it's very nice joke

[dieselenginecat]

if the base of aliens in moons....why not from a long time ago we attack them.... it's very nice joke


because people in this world afraid of them....based on many movies...their technology 300 times than we know right now...:help:

[Grizz]

Nasa pic doesnt look shooped which doesnt really prove anything either way.

Forensic Error Level Analysis Results for http://i.space.com/i... (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/3bd4dc5/)


However, Shady, i have some bad news for you lol

Forensic Error Level Analysis Results for http://1.bp.blogspot... (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/721ea96/)

[RedSpider]

I don't believe in the moon and nothing any of you can say will convince me otherwise

[TheCoder]

oh dear, are people really still debating this stuff ?

First rule of a good conspiracy theory - at least make it believable !

Rather than enthuse about piddling little inconsistancies (which can usually be explained anyway if you try) why not try looking at the whole package.

If it were a hoax, then the most important question is why NASA would attempt to perpertrate that same hoax 7 different times ?

Remember, there was more than one moon landing, there were 6 of them (plus Apollo 13, the one failure).

One hoax, maybe marginally believable, Six of them, not a chance !

[nara]

Remember, there was more than one moon landing, there were 6 of them (plus Apollo 13, the one failure).



Strangely enough, a lot of the doubters seem to be unaware of this.

[racin-snake]

Strangely enough, a lot of the doubters seem to be unaware of this.

strangely enough i am extremely concious of these other packages as they are described all of the appollo missions . fully aware to be frank !

and yet am still not firmly convinced

so coder :

"yes" to the first question "this stuff" is still being discussed

i wonder if you could clear up contentions on these piddling little inconsistencies for us please
then we will all be on a level playing field knowing you are in fact right ?

or in fact wrong ?

so please feel welcome to go right on ....i look forward to your thesis

[TheCoder]

strangely enough i am extremely concious of these other packages as they are described all of the appollo missions . fully aware to be frank !

and yet am still not firmly convinced

so coder :

"yes" to the first question "this stuff" is still being discussed

i wonder if you could clear up contentions on these piddling little inconsistencies for us please
then we will all be on a level playing field knowing you are in fact right ?

or in fact wrong ?

so please feel welcome to go right on ....i look forward to your thesis

Tell me which particular ones your hung up on and I'll have a go.

In the mean time, perhaps you have a theory to answer my question as to why they would attempt to pull off the same hoax seven times ?

If the first one was a hoax and, as far as the rest of the world was concerned they got away with it, then why on earth would they choose to potentially expose the hoax by repeating it over and over ?

[racin-snake]

if you read the full thread you will see some conventional points to start with

any other questions i can feel are of interest i will ask as you go if you don't mind ..thanks

as for the other supposed landings
same applies for that
as you explain i will ask the points im "hung up on " if that's ok

so off you go mate the shows yours to show us all why were wrong

many thanks for this monumental undertaking

regards Racin-Snake

In the mean time, perhaps you have a theory to answer my question as to why they would attempt to pull off the same hoax seven times ?

If the first one was a hoax and, as far as the rest of the world was concerned they got away with it, then why on earth would they choose to potentially expose the hoax by repeating it over and over ?


maybe this explanation might help ?

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." Adolf Hitler's quote for reference ..

[TheCoder]

maybe this explanation might help ?

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." Adolf Hitler's quote for reference ..

An interesting quote with much truth in it but it still doesn't really provide any reason as to why such a large 'lie' would be repeated many times. Each repeat just multiplies the chances of being caught out so why do it ?

Ok, firstly a little explanation of my personal knowledge of the event.

At the time of Apollo 11 my father was a radio technician seconded to Jodrell bank and tasked with maintaining a communications link between various worldwide telemetery stations, including Jodrell bank, NASA and three stations in Australia. Although these stations were part of the larger NASA tracking network (I cant remember the exact number but think there were around 15 worldwide, each with there own sub-networks) they were also independant in the way they operated. Each 'dish' in the network tracked the spacecraft and relayed telemetery information when 'in view'.

Now, as part of the tracking network all the stations in the network had full access to the exact location of the spacecraft and, when 'in view' their own independant positional data. This 'local' data would of been impossible to fake, especially bearing in mind that the 'key' people at most of the sites were the same people that had been in the job for many years and the instrumentation itself was pretty damn simple to operate (my dad could, and did, do it on several occasions). Remember that the 'local' positional data is derived from the local dish, not from the extra NASA installed 'S' band gear used for the reception of spacecraft telemetary

To me, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a spacecraft and that it did indeed journey to the moon and back. It doesn't, of course prove that the craft was manned but at least we can start with a sure knowledge that a craft at least made the journey.

Note that many completely independant networks also tracked the craft. This included both Russian and Chinese systems which most certainly would have no reason to participate in a hoax !

Ok, thats what I know so, are you willing to accept that a craft did indeed make the journey or do we need to examine that as well ?

[racin-snake]

read the full post apart from your fathers alleged involvement with jodrell bank you have only repeated nothing more than already stated in previous threads (#136 for example )

but glad you stated the unmanned part ....as its established the moon has had robotic landings which in fact throw positive and refuting proof that the reflectors folk so fervently cling to that were left there by the Apollo missions could have just as easily been put there by unmanned robotic craft ?
could it not also be the case


also if you could do it ..............without the family history it clouds the issue making it a tad too personal
your fathers alleged involvements add no credence and are not facts but conjecture no bearing on the facts whatsoever for me

just the facts please ...thanks

jodrell bank also tracked the Russian space craft too ...no big facts to glean here as its already been covered previously

so please feel free to go on ....thanks

[nara]

...apart from your fathers alleged involvement

Oh dear! :(

[racin-snake]

Oh dear! :(

oh dear indeed im glad you find it as unworthy of any type of proof or a mention too:roflmao:

[TheCoder]

read the full post apart from your fathers alleged involvement with jodrell bank you have only repeated nothing more than already stated in previous threads (#136 for example )

but glad you stated the unmanned part ....as its established the moon has had robotic landings which in fact throw positive and refuting proof that the reflectors folk so fervently cling to that were left there by the Apollo missions could have just as easily been put there by unmanned robotic craft ?
could it not also be the case


also if you could do it ..............without the family history it clouds the issue making it a tad too personal
your fathers alleged involvements add no credence and are not facts but conjecture no bearing on the facts whatsoever for me

just the facts please ...thanks

jodrell bank also tracked the Russian space craft too ...no big facts to glean here as its already been covered previously

so please feel free to go on ....thanks

I was actually trying to give both some background on my personal knowledge and some facts to establish a baseline starting point. My fathers involvemnet was provided merely for interest (and because i'm quite proud of the fact he was involved) and as an illustration of how unlikely it would of been for a total fake (ie no actual craft/landing). It seems you accept that a mission did actually occur so I guess we can now move forward :)

ok, i've now read this thread through a couple of times and I cant really see what you main points of contention are (apart from just not being convinced). It would be easier for us to start with a single point and then maybe debate that single point rather than constantly referring back through this overly long thread !

If we go through each point in turn then maybe we can thrash something out.

[racin-snake]

oh dear, are people really still debating this stuff ?

First rule of a good conspiracy theory - at least make it believable !

Rather than enthuse about piddling little inconsistancies (which can usually be explained anyway if you try) why not try looking at the whole package.

If it were a hoax, then the most important question is why NASA would attempt to perpertrate that same hoax 7 different times ?

Remember, there was more than one moon landing, there were 6 of them (plus Apollo 13, the one failure).

One hoax, maybe marginally believable, Six of them, not a chance !

but then were just back to what you say here
having a go at the piddling inconsistencies as you describe them

and i thought you were gonna give us all the irrefutable and ultimate truth ?

I was actually trying to give both some background on my personal knowledge and some facts to establish a baseline starting point. My fathers involvemnet was provided merely for interest (and because i'm quite proud of the fact he was involved) and as an illustration of how unlikely it would of been for a total fake (ie no actual craft/landing). It seems you accept that a mission did actually occur so I guess we can now move forward :)

ok, i've now read this thread through a couple of times and I cant really see what you main points of contention are (apart from just not being convinced). It would be easier for us to start with a single point and then maybe debate that single point rather than constantly referring back through this overly long thread !

If we go through each point in turn then maybe we can thrash something out.

what personal knowledge ?
were you there at the time of the space flights if not then "personal" is a really misguiding statement .
second hand or third hand knowledge maybe
first hand lol
i don't think so pall

what proof have you given so far that hasn't already been established as of yet in the other posts in the thread ?

a= an "unmanned" space flight or two were shown to have went to the moon because telemetry etc. shows this as did the Russians (which crash landed allegedly)

this has been covered no new information from you here !

b= jodrell bank among other observatories followed a craft to the moon and and your father worked in jodrell bank (moot point )

already been covered here "robotic unmanned" craft have been to the moon ...no contention here for me there

a far cry from the inconclusive proof of manned landings and moon walks i think

as its all been said here before bar your fathers involvement in jodrell bank

but this is not proof of a manned flight to anywhere outside low earth orbit !

so you haven't not even hit on one piddling inconsistency as of yet that's not already firmly established

yet still to prove that manned flight occurred to anywhere near the moon

i hope i haven't given you too much of a task ?
you can just admit defeat now if you like lol
it shouldn't be too embarrassing ...

if not then please go on !

you pick the subject and provide the proof .piddling inconsistencies should be quite easy to refute shouldn't it ?

..and if you don't mind no more relatives curriculum vitae's please as its not relevant (unless you know more than you are showing here) lol

[TheCoder]

but then were just back to what you say here having a go at the piddling inconsistencies as you describe them

and i thought you were gonna give us all the irrefutable and ultimate truth ?

Without knowing what your hangups are its not really possible to debate them is it ?

As with most of these conspiracy theories, you take some minor points and then weave a whole tangled web around them which is actually far more unbelievable than the actual event.

For people who get ensnared in these theories there really can never be any irrefutable proof because you'll always manage to find something to hang onto to justify the theory no matter how tenuous or unlikely that item is. You constantly ask for 'proof' of things which nobody could ever prove to your satisfaction whilst presenting not one iota of proof to justify your own claims

I offered to debate your individual points with you but you seem unwilling to do even this preferring instead to simply sidetrack the topic.

If you want to debate things then fine, I'll debate them with you. If you just want a forum to spout wacky theories then fine again, I'll drop out and leave you to it !

[racin-snake]

Without knowing what your hangups are its not really possible to debate them is it ?

As with most of these conspiracy theories, you take some minor points and then weave a whole tangled web around them which is actually far more unbelievable than the actual event.

For people who get ensnared in these theories there really can never be any irrefutable proof because you'll always manage to find something to hang onto to justify the theory no matter how tenuous or unlikely that item is. You constantly ask for 'proof' of things which nobody could ever prove to your satisfaction whilst presenting not one iota of proof to justify your own claims

I offered to debate your individual points with you but you seem unwilling to do even this preferring instead to simply sidetrack the topic.

If you want to debate things then fine, I'll debate them with you. If you just want a forum to spout wacky theories then fine again, I'll drop out and leave you to it !

i do not have any "hangups " i do have a legitimate and real fervour for the truth if that's what you mean ?

if you can prove the moon landings irrefutably and conclusively then i will go with that if it is in fact the truth but im afraid as long as there's evidence against this then i wont believe anything



ok then if you cant dismiss the theorists don't call them wacky ( now that's side tracking ) if these theories are just as legitimate as your theories then both must be wacky then ?

just cop out mate no crime just admit you cant provide anything more than what's already been challenged and cop out !

just goes to show when challenged you've got just as much evidence for manned moon landings than
the claims you call wacky ....then don't it ?

just admit defeat mate its "man up time"

either prove it or you just cant ..im not gonna be interested if you cant
there's a long line of cants on this particular subject in the "for" theories

the only proof you have is pictures and a couple of guys who actually lied whilst in a capsule proven by telematics you claim so fervently prove something
refuted the distance claimed at the time and date on the clapper board for the film so in fact the evidence is again against the claims of the altitude the manned craft was in at the time and the astronaut's evidence when he stated the distance
also the window shot of the earth lol
check the video i posted
irrefutable evidence of lies and camera trickery to do what ?
yea you guessed ...then you want me and the rest of the planet to swallow the rest

i think you need proof and solid conclusive proof
till then its as much of a bullshit story as you claim the evidence in the "against " case provides !
aint it ?

but i would say if you cant refute anything then don't post the opposite

no sidetrack on my behalf

but a huge back down on yours though
so before calling people wacky and saying "piddling inconsistencies"

when your evidence is not even as viable you go label people as conspiracy theorists whackos ect

seems to me your just name calling to cause malcontent and embellishing the bullshit with more bullshit

so as for debate .....

remember you might have to back up your claims if you cant you should not bother making a gesture of being able to do so

back to the "oh dear then " lol just find proof



if you just want one side of a thing why do you say debate and even then : why challenge someone's view and claim to be able to settle "piddly little inconsistencies" ?

then rock on to your back foot and run from a debate ?

because you cannot refute my claims conclusively and to any degree of real satisfaction ..thats why !


so you might as well "cop out" mate you've obviously got nowt to refute my claims at all LOL

BYE MATE .......lol

the only person that's "ensnared by these theories" is yourself ...if the evidence is irrefutable i will have no inconsistencies to hang on to will i ?

[TheCoder]

The problem is that, by your criteria of 'absolute' proof, there's actually nothing that can be conclusively proved one way or the other. Even the very idea we exist cant actually be proved to to any degree of absolute certainty.

Your asking for absolue proof that an event occured but I could easily turn that around and ask you to provide absolute proof it didn't. The result is an impasse because neither option could be proved conclusively.

So, as we cant prove absolutes were left with the more normal option of looking at the evidence and forming a balance of probability. I think this is where you've fallen into the classic logic trap in that instead of looking at all the evidence and forming a decision based on probability you've simply decided that as something cant be conclusively proved then the opposite must be true even though there's no real evidence to point to that 'opposite' being true.

Try applying the same rules to both sides of the argument !

[racin-snake]

The problem is that, by your criteria of 'absolute' proof, there's actually nothing that can be conclusively proved one way or the other. Even the very idea we exist cant actually be proved to to any degree of absolute certainty.

Your asking for absolue proof that an event occured but I could easily turn that around and ask you to provide absolute proof it didn't. The result is an impasse because neither option could be proved conclusively.

So, as we cant prove absolutes were left with the more normal option of looking at the evidence and forming a balance of probability. I think this is where you've fallen into the classic logic trap in that instead of looking at all the evidence and forming a decision based on probability you've simply decided that as something cant be conclusively proved then the opposite must be true even though there's no real evidence to point to that 'opposite' being true.

Try applying the same rules to both sides of the argument !

i see your now turning 180 degrees from your "piddling inconsistencies"
statement now

seems to me your debate has fallen flat on its face and now you now want to to backtrack

a full retreat rather than a "no i cannot prove the moon landings conclusively"
i will now go and look at both sides of the debate and maybe have a leg to stand on

there is no logic trap that's a total cop out and you know it !
the only person trapped is yourself into making claims you cannot fulfil
don't backtrack don't agree to disagree now
your claims were a sham a waste of effort on your behalf

you know it' i know it ' so man up and just look at the both sides too
seems only fair now that your options for a truce are being so considerate
due to the facts you claim being contested and asked to be shown

piddling inconsistency indeed my friend

don't blame me for you ending up attempting a face saving exercise
go seek a decent and logical answer yourself instead of following the herd in believing some of the propaganda

but above all i have as much right to my say and not to be called a cook or a nutter
as you are too if what your post implies
please go away with a different outlook as to what your names and suggestions for having an alternative view implies
yet claim the right to wield these derogatory names as and when challenged ...now that's unfair and totally wrong
a bit one sided yet you want to claim equality when your so called facts are challenged ?

maybe you will come back a tad humbler than your once too quick to judge self is now

please don't take this the wrong way
but when using words like wacko...you are in fact referring to everyone that has an alternative view

just remember
words are very easy proof is a bit harder
either way at least i have brought you to the conclusion
that both theories are viable
but only one is correct

im not a conspiracy theorist or a truther or any other words that you attempt to use as to discriminate or make me look less credible than yourself (that just wont work on me )

as you have witnessed im just as clever and literate and level thinking as you

please have a bit of respect for those who think different
as we cannot all agree yet some people get very annoyed when rudely accused and being pigeon holed into a category that is derogatory to their actual knowledge and skills at looking and researching these kinds of subjects

remember this when debating .
.especially when the irrefutable truth is not on your side !

here's one for you

when the impossible has been eliminated all that's left even if totally improbable ...................it must be the truth !
this works both ways on this debate and many others
so never state you know the facts till you know the facts irrefutably............ until then its not proven
yet others so quick to call and label others as cooks an nutters

i am in the same position when you joined this debate ...are you ?
if you are then something must be wrong

i ask you to prove something i don't believe ..you cant !

so im steadfastly in the same position
you my friend are completely lost with a belief in something that may be true ..but you will believe it anyway ?
whose right there then ?

just like everything else till you "see the fat lady sing" it aint over ............i still await proof

if it comes then il swap if it don't il stay the same looking for proof
not blind compliance and accepting evidence so shaky its not logical to believe

give me facts not conjecture ..ime not into the whole "leap of faith" thing

or believe it cos "the media told me" shit

"even the proof we actually exist is not prove conclusively"
so whose the whacko now then ?

backed yourself into a box and talk about logic ....mmmmmmm

go back and have a look at what's out there and then debate based on some sort of studied and logical train of thought mate
your obviously out of your depth as your claims are getting a bit strange for one who claims that inconsistencies are easily refuted and debunked
wrong again ...

go back a few posts to previous statements you made then

you will see your about turn in real time my friend ..no ifs or buts just a train of thought you thought would be unchallenged ...

so very far from the way you started out i hope

[TheCoder]

i see your now turning 180 degrees from your "piddling inconsistencies"
statement now

Hardly, there's nothing that cant be explained if you bother to look for the solution but, as I said, your looking for absolute proof and then discovering that this is fundamentally impossible your deciding to fully accept the alternative without any proof whatsoever. Thats hardly a very logical thing to do !

I offered to debate points with you but rather than debate something which you know cant actually stand up to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable.


don't blame me for you ending up attempting a face saving exercise go seek a decent and logical answer yourself instead of following the herd in believing some of the propaganda

I dont need to save face. I researched the subject many years ago when the 'conspiracy' was first aired, to the point where no logical mind could draw any conclusion other than saying manned landings on the moon did occur.

Of course, by your standards that proves nothing. If I had been on the moon personally to greet the astronauts it would still prove nothing to you. You simply cannot prove absolutely that any event did or did not occur. As i've said repeatedly, you need to form an opinion based on the evidence. In order to look at the evidence you need to examine it point by point - something which you seem unwilling to do !


im not a conspiracy theorist or a truther or any other words that you attempt to use as to discriminate or make me look less credible than yourself (that just wont work on me )

I suspect I really dont need to discredit you as you seem to of done that quite credibly all by yourself by refusing to even start a logical debate on the subject.


when the impossible has been eliminated all that's left even if totally improbable ...................it must be the truth !

An interesting argument but not really relevant except to perhaps illustrate my point that nothing is conclusively proveble and everything must work on a balance of probability.

Perhaps if you actually tried to apply this argument to this theory then your opinion would change but that would also require the removal of your insistance of absolute proof, which by definition, cannot actually exist

You also need to examine the way this theory relies on an alternive (and obviously very incorrect) principle - "If you cannot prove something conclusively then the reverse MUST be true".


i ask you to prove something i don't believe ..you cant !

Because your concept of absolute proof is flawed. Nothing can be proved conclusively under the conditions that you have imposed.


you my friend are completely lost with a belief in something that may be true ..but you will believe it anyway ?
whose right there then ?

By your definitions and conditions then ultimately you are correct. Absolutely nothing can be either proved or disproved BUT thats not the way the real world functions is it ?

We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible (back to your quote ;) )

What you can do relatively easily in this case is take the points raised in the conspiracy and look at each one individually. Its not difficult to explain them to the point where they become insignificant in forming an overall opinion.


just like everything else till you "see the fat lady sing" it aint over ............i still await proof

It appears the only chance of this ever occuring would be for you to actually do the investigation yourself. Your obviously not going to accept the 'opinions' of others who have previously looked into the matter.


if it comes then il swap if it don't il stay the same looking for proof
not blind compliance and accepting evidence so shaky its not logical to believe

Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !

[racin-snake]

Hardly, there's nothing that cant be explained if you bother to look for the solution but, as I said, your looking for absolute proof and then discovering that this is fundamentally impossible your deciding to fully accept the alternative without any proof whatsoever. Thats hardly a very logical thing to do !

I offered to debate points with you but rather than debate something which you know cant actually stand up to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable.



I dont need to save face. I researched the subject many years ago when the 'conspiracy' was first aired, to the point where no logical mind could draw any conclusion other than saying manned landings on the moon did occur.

Of course, by your standards that proves nothing. If I had been on the moon personally to greet the astronauts it would still prove nothing to you. You simply cannot prove absolutely that any event did or did not occur. As i've said repeatedly, you need to form an opinion based on the evidence. In order to look at the evidence you need to examine it point by point - something which you seem unwilling to do !



I suspect I really dont need to discredit you as you seem to of done that quite credibly all by yourself by refusing to even start a logical debate on the subject.



An interesting argument but not really relevant except to perhaps illustrate my point that nothing is conclusively proveble and everything must work on a balance of probability.

Perhaps if you actually tried to apply this argument to this theory then your opinion would change but that would also require the removal of your insistance of absolute proof, which by definition, cannot actually exist

You also need to examine the way this theory relies on an alternive (and obviously very incorrect) principle - "If you cannot prove something conclusively then the reverse MUST be true".



Because your concept of absolute proof is flawed. Nothing can be proved conclusively under the conditions that you have imposed.



By your definitions and conditions then ultimately you are correct. Absolutely nothing can be either proved or disproved BUT thats not the way the real world functions is it ?

We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible (back to your quote ;) )

What you can do relatively easily in this case is take the points raised in the conspiracy and look at each one individually. Its not difficult to explain them to the point where they become insignificant in forming an overall opinion.



It appears the only chance of this ever occuring would be for you to actually do the investigation yourself. Your obviously not going to accept the 'opinions' of others who have previously looked into the matter.



Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !

ime saving this post as an example of a humongous oxymoron statement mate "credibly discredit" lol
you are absolutely in the depth of it now

please read your post again as its really bizarre and full of nonsense
what you are in fact asking me to do is believe something without proof in reality
have you lost the plot ?

this is your best post yet ...please now take the face saving exercise out and use it
as this kind of logic is just straw clutching

"We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible"

that's called evidence proof reliable repeatable and above all if it actually happened there should be substantial irrefutable proof right ?

there is no irrefutable proof of manned landings none nyada zilch
just some pictures and a few guys saying yes we did ...........not proof but conjecture nothing more


you earlier say in as quoted it cannot be proven either way correct ?

now you say ..believe the evidence you put forward as a version of truth

im afraid pall your really making a complete fool of yourself and looking at this twaddle makes me surprised
i thought you meant and condoned sensible debate and not gibberish bordering on unstable

"i researched this subject years ago" lol

what conclusion though believe the facts you cannot admittedly prove
then say "are they still debating this subject " in a condescending manner
another one of your piddling inaccuracies ..as you were allowed to make an ill informed conclusion
are we to accept the coders version cos he's right ?

go away mate you've said enough drivel and please don't debate on promises of facts when all your proof is allegorical and based on shaky unsubstantiated bullshit

point i make is if they had been and landed on the moon it wouldn't be this easy to make the evidence look null if this was the case ?

so nasa's refusal to oppose the author of the video i posted is that to be taken as one of your probabilities and say no comment means acceptance they didn't have evidence to refute the authors claims ?

and your argument of piddling inconsistency's is a sham a pure and utter here-say effort based on hope it wouldn't be challenged (and it has been challenged and its got you on your back foot coming out with all kinds of nonsense to confirm your shaky point)
the very good point in your post i wont bother multi quoting as its time consuming and its now here for all to see your nonsense in full

but if it cannot be proven either way
then im to accept the default OK we did that ?
your off your head mate
as for making anything look condescending my friend you are doing a fantastic job with your efforts
unfortunately at your own demise

please read your answers to the multi quotes again its funny as ~~~~ mate

your defence is futility at its finest and seems you are so far out your depth you might not be able to tread whatever your up to your neck in any longer

"Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !"
"to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable ."

here's your nonsense right back at ya lol

[TheCoder]

that's called evidence proof reliable repeatable and above all if it actually happened there should be substantial irrefutable proof right ?

...and what exactly do you call irrefutable proof ?

You apparently refuse to accept anything that you haven't personally witnessed and I have doubts you would believe it even then. It doesn't really matter what I or anyone else says, you'll stick to your own theory no matter how improbable that theory actually is.


there is no irrefutable proof of manned landings none nyada zilch
just some pictures and a few guys saying yes we did ...........not proof but conjecture nothing more

The evidence certainly amounts to a lot more than that but, as you weren't actually there to personally verify it all I guess you just dismiss it as irrelevant. That kind of logic is impossible to debate with !

Which sort of brings us back to a question I previously asked you. Why, would it be faked and why repeatedly ?

You never even attempted to answer that question (in fact I dont think you've actually answered anything i've asked)


you earlier say in as quoted it cannot be proven either way correct ?

Not to your standards, no, because you wont accept a normal level of evidence


now you say ..believe the evidence you put forward as a version of truth

No, I didn't expect you to believe blindly. I expected you to debate the points coherantly rather than ranting on. I guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities !


im afraid pall your really making a complete fool of yourself and looking at this twaddle makes me surprised
i thought you meant and condoned sensible debate and not gibberish bordering on unstable

lmao, i've given you every opertunity to debate in a logical manner. At no point have you even attempted to debate anything preferring instead to move the thread to some form of personal contest

Its obviously pointless, you really dont know how to debate a topic !

[racin-snake]

...and what exactly do you call irrefutable proof ?

You apparently refuse to accept anything that you haven't personally witnessed and I have doubts you would believe it even then. It doesn't really matter what I or anyone else says, you'll stick to your own theory no matter how improbable that theory actually is.



The evidence certainly amounts to a lot more than that but, as you weren't actually there to personally verify it all I guess you just dismiss it as irrelevant. That kind of logic is impossible to debate with !

Which sort of brings us back to a question I previously asked you. Why, would it be faked and why repeatedly ?

You never even attempted to answer that question (in fact I dont think you've actually answered anything i've asked)



Not to your standards, no, because you wont accept a normal level of evidence

I

No, I didn't expect you to believe blindly. I expected you to debate the points coherantly rather than ranting on. I guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities !



lmao, i've given you every opertunity to debate in a logical manner. At no point have you even attempted to debate anything preferring instead to move the thread to some form of personal contest

Its obviously pointless, you really dont know how to debate a topic !
lol is that it really is that it ime to debate with someone who says that the cannot show evidence to refute implicitly any of the questions i have asked after previously saying piddling inaccuracies lol


yea right mate
please keep treading the stuff your in
and in the question of my capabilities
what in fact does that imply ?
is it because i ask you to keep to the fact you said you'd refute all the inaccuracies
and cannot do so ?


yea your a class act mate a real mind of knowledge

normal aspects of evidence are you for real ?
love to see that used in a court mate ..be fun
facts are facts not grey areas prove the facts irrefutably then come back
as for your "not to your standards" lol

proof is proof not a standard a factual bit of evidence to refute claims which in fact .........you have said you cannot after claiming to be able to do so

so why you still here ?
cos you lost face and cant claw back your credence as the clever forum guy to debunk the dreaded conspiracy theorists :shot:

please do yourself a favour and do one before what credibility you may have had goes out with the stuff you lost here

its called a tactical retreat ..or in your case a "cop out"

debate ? i think your use of the word debate is to attempt to convince me blindly of something you cannot prove ..

i can debate but when questions cannot be answered end of the debate no more to say
if the answers you give are theoretical and based on hypothesised numerology to convince me ...then its the end of the debate
i don't debate with bullshitters ..as lies hold no information in a far as facts are concerned

your logic dictates ..believe me im right (even though your not 100% you are right admittedly by yourself)

that's not a debate its a con artist trick smoke and mirrors to discredit not disprove or refute anything that's evidential with untruths and half truths or hear say etc


i think your earlier research is flawed and you should go back and have another look you obviously made some critical thinking errors
as its not logical to attempt to prove something you cannot in fact prove then state that you have the answers
something tells me that theory is not right in any way shape or form

then ask "are they really still debating this ?" as you are now ....! do you believe that ?

its actually quite unstable if you believe uncertain facts are facts
a slight corruption of reality in your case im afraid

"guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities" !

that's a funny one coming from someone quoted as saying that "we cannot prove with any certainty we actually exist" lol


but any thing you want to add feel free
its becoming funny now

and i like seeing you paddle in your own shit

evidence is evidence whether yours or mine its what when dissected the evidence has in credibility and actual provable worth based solely on fact !


that's my view on what is evidence
what's yours lol

i think if yours is any different id be asking yourself why ?

@and i did answer your question of "why repeatedly" using a quote of Adolf Hitler,s if you look back a few posts
seems like your research is still full of holes and crumbling FAST !

are you always this thorough ? as im still waiting for the answer to the statement you made about the "piddling little inconsistencies"
for a full wide open end of debate evidential conclusion to quash the conspiracy theories once and for all

think i have a long wait on me hands ...might be when hades freezes over "eh"

[Soulfu]

i think it was real because didnt he go up and came back down
?

[Snowy79]

Even if the truth did come out there would still be valid arguments for and against it. Imagine all the crap photos and video evidence produced if NASA put there hands up and said " Sorry but we were concentrating too much on the finer details that we forgot to put the batteries in the camera etc. So to save face we knocked up the evidence." How could we prove otherwise?

[racin-snake]

"what if" ...a very large statement for such a small phrase

back to conjecture again .....

[thered]

Am i really expected to believe that this lunar module could hurtle through meteors,gravitational pull and radiation

cant believe its a real pic from nasa AS11-40-5922


were off to button moon

seriously wtf ???? cardboard tinfoil and gaffa tape by the look of it lol

http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922.jpg

[firemouth]

Am i really expected to believe that this lunar module could hurtle through meteors,gravitational pull and radiation

cant believe its a real pic from nasa AS11-40-5922


were off to button moon

seriously wtf ???? cardboard tinfoil and gaffa tape by the look of it lol

http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922.jpg

There may be a lot of meteors out there, but out there is very very big, so NO it aint got a hope of surviving a strike. but none of them got hit, so there you go.

as for gravitational pull. you can move a 20,000 tonne space ship with only a can of hair spray (equal and opposite, and all that) slowly, granted, but it can still move it. so no problem there.

radiation? well unless they got caught in path of a Coronal mass ejection. you need little more than a thin film of lead, or its equivalent. if you are worried about the Van Allen belt, don't be. none of the Astronauts we in the LEM when they made their short trip through them. ( I love Van Allens comment when asked if the story's of danger to Astronauts, when they pass through the belts. All he did was laugh. says it all really)

as for "cardboard tin foil and gaffa tape" have you ever seen one of these things? they may look "Heath Robinson" in a photo, but they are far from it!

[nara]

:goodpost:

...and your example of Van Allen himself laughing at the Van Allen Belt nonsense that gets trotted out on wacko websites is always worthwhile, but therein lies a dilemma.

Are these debates/discussions really worthwhile? I'm beginning to wonder.

The fact that conspiracy theorists are willing to accept "facts" that are based on a similarly profound ignorance/misunderstanding of the basic science involved, speaks volumes.

These people might be misguided, but they're (mostly) harmless. Everybody needs a hobby.

[GastonJ]

might as well do this as well im getting in to it


was the moon landing a big scam we've all heard the tales whats your view


personally i think its all a big con

I can confirm that the moon has not landed anywhere and is still in it's orbit where it belongs. Had it landed I'm sure we'd have known about it quite quickly, not least because the US would have claimed it as another state of the US, no matter where it landed, and claimed mineral rights. Feel free to check when it gets dark, look up and it will still be there. So no it hasn't landed anywhere at all :smile:

As for the US landing a lunar module on the moon, I remember watching it on television as a kid, yeah why not. If anyone has proof that they never please feel free to post the proof, not some rumor that you heard from your neighbours, son's girflriends, daughters, best friend at school, brothers, cousins grandmother who made lunar modules out of washing up up bottles and filmed the whole thing on their bbq.

[thered]

Not convinced at all tbh, seeing that lunar module close up with its panels hanging off convinces me less. A massive meteor burns to a pebble on re entry yet some bacofoil, curtain pole and selotape is sturdy enough. I was not alive when it happened and i find it hard to believe we have not been back in 40 years. The excuses that we have no need too now cos we seen it doesnt really wash

I also find it strange that if a hairdryer can move the module how come there is no dust on the modules feet surely there was plenty of it moving about on landing, yes i have heard the nasa explanation but i dont buy it. i seen video of them bouncing about there is dust, aldrin also mentioned on landing it was kicking a lot of dust

also this picture below for instance looks like its been dropped by a crane, why footprints but no tyre tracks? dont make sense. Basic science maybe not good but why put wheels on a rover if it floats over the ground????

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-88-11901.jpg

[GastonJ]

Well it did only weigh 72 kilos on the moon and it was dropped in place by pulleys, unfolded and locked together. The Russians would have been watching their every move when they landed, and it's very very unlikely that they would have kept quiet - more so given the political climate at the time, and that the Americans had beaten them in a race (the only sort of race Americans win, against themselves - like the so called "Worlds Series really). As more countries send probes etc I'm sure they'd also shout if nothing was found to indicate that the US had been there.

View from above.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/011/897/i02/apollo-17-landing-site-comp.jpg?1315324854

Interesting link

http://www.space.com/18905-moon-spacecraft-dumping-ground-infographic.html

I'll stop editing my posts now :)

[nara]

I was not alive when it happened.

That explains a lot. People of your generation often talk of "The Moon Landing"
They get a bit confused when you tell them there were six.

(I'm sure you knew that, but it's indicative of the lack of research done by those who didn't experience the blanket real time coverage of the Apollo Program.)

"At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.

The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are ****tered across the world now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive."

clavius.org

[thered]

That explains a lot. People of your generation often talk of "The Moon Landing"
They get a bit confused when you tell them there were six.

(I'm sure you knew that, but it's indicative of the lack of research done by those who didn't experience the blanket real time coverage of the Apollo Program.)

"At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.

The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are ****tered across the world now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive."

clavius.org

I agree partly with you tbh but when you think about it the only people who really know could be less than ten tbh. How many were making a panel for "appollo" In any business the workers just get told by the person above whats happening. What they tell them could be anything. Of the X amount of people how many actually can actually be privvy to where it actually was and what was going on?

40 odd years ago and no return, to me that is remarkable, there are people even saying we dont have the gear to do it now, i dont know i only know what is the official line as does everyone else. From what i can gather, they may have went but im not sure they actually landed. Or maybe they did land and come back, but there is a few pictures dont seem right, maybe they went and maybe some pictures were faked. I read somewhere its declassified in 2026 when all are dead. Most myths are supposedly busted but some seem a little far fetched tbh. To me it doesnt add up, whether they went or not i dont think we have the full picture

@ gaston, there is dust on the treads of those wheels, yet no tracks. I seen a pic somewhere cant find it now with the rover still packed before unloading yet tyre tracks were on moon

I also watched a video the other day when armstrong landed, he spoke of the landing feet been 2 inches deep in moon dust. Yet all the pictures show no dust on feet

for me some things are a bit odd, maybe they went maybe they touched up or made up a few pictures. Not sure i will ever be convinced. Unless we go again, but is the reason we dont because they will now get caught out

Or because as they say they seen everything? In a few hours of roving over a few trips

[GastonJ]

Well the Chinese are there roving around with a remote control droid. Do you think they'd miss an opportunity to shout from teh rooftops if they didn't find any sign that the Americans where there in the lat 60's onward?

On that note the Chinese want to mine the moon and bring anything worth money back to Earth. Not content with plundering this planet they want to extract the wealth of the moon. This is all well and good for greed however the moon has a massive impact on the climate of the Earth, tides and weather etc - are they really so greedy that they would do such a thing? At least they'll be able to sell more waterproof boots for those that are affected. I'm secretly hoping that the moon lands on China if they impact it's orbit in any way :)

[thered]

Well the Chinese are there roving around with a remote control droid. Do you think they'd miss an opportunity to shout from teh rooftops if they didn't find any sign that the Americans where there in the lat 60's onward?


Is this serious post??

You expect them to bump into flag cos a droids on moon??


its a bit like dropping me in the rain forest to find a toothpick somebody left in the 60's


odd over 40 years later its a droid, why no men?

[nara]

odd over 40 years later its a droid, why no men?

You really need to think that one through.

[thered]

You really need to think that one through.

I thought and not seeing point

40 years on and nobody set foot, why? They claim they seen all they need, yet China looking now apparantly and Japan have a pipe dream to turn Moon into a solar panel to solve world energy problems

[912secured]

H3 a major gas we have atmosphere over millions of years done naturally. And heavy water.

[Frogger]

Heres what sealed my decision on the "Moon Landing"


Moon Rock given to Holland by Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin is FAKE



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://[url/)

A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.


Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at ?308,000, was in fact petrified wood.

Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambas****r to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.

"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.
Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.
The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.
Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.
"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.

[Frogger]

The oldest rocks collected from the Moon are far older than any found on Earth. Some moon rocks are said to date back 4.5 billion years and that makes them a billion years older than any found on this planet. Harvard’s astronomy journal, Sky and Telescope, reported that the 1973 Lunar Conference was told how one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old. This would make it nearly a billion years older than the predicted age of Earth.


An Artificial Satellite of the Earth?
The origin of the Moon is one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony. So far there have been basically three hypotheses under discussion.


Hypothesis 1. The Moon was once a part of the Earth and broke away from it. This has now been refuted by the evidence.


Hypothesis 2. The Moon was formed independently from the same cloud of dust and gas as the Earth, and immediately became the Earth’s natural satellite.


But then why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the latest information (a-nalysis of samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo astronauts) lunar rock is not of the same composition as the Earth’s.


Hypothesis 3. The Moon came into being separately, and, moreover, far from the Earth (perhaps even outside the Solar system).


This would mean that the moon would not have to be fashioned from the same “clay” as our own planet. Sailing through the Universe, the Moon came into Earth’s proximity, and by a complex interplay of forces of gravity was brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of this kind is virtually impossible.


In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe today have no acceptable theory to explain how the Earth-Moon system came into being.


Science has no idea where the Moon came from and how it was formed, and none of its theories stand up to scrutiny. One theory was that it was captured by the Earth’s magnetic field, but the science of that doesn’t add up. Another is that a body the size of Mars smashed into the Earth and a great chunk of the Earth broke off to form the Moon. This is known as the ‘Big Whack’ theory, but when the science of that didn’t stand up, either, someone postured the ‘Double Big Whack’ theory. This is that the ‘Mars’ planet smacked into the Earth and then came back for another go. Talk about desperate. The truth is that they have no idea where the Moon came from or how it came to be where it is.


Strange Mathematical Sync.

If you divide the circumference of the Sun by that of the Moon and multiply by 100 you get the circumference of the Earth. Divide the size of the Sun by the size of the Earth and multiply by 100 and you get the size of the Moon.


The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, and at a solar eclipse it is 400 times closer to Earth. This makes the Moon appear from Earth to be the same size as the Sun – hence a total eclipse.


The Moon always shows the same side or ‘face’ to the Earth during the period when we can see it. We never see what is called the ‘dark’ or far side of the Moon from the Earth.


Earth rotates at a speed 400 times faster than the Moon, and turns 40,000 kilometres on its axis in a day to the Moon’s 400. Earth spins 366.259 times during one orbit of the Sun, and the polar circumference of the Earth is 366.175 times bigger than that of the Moon. The polar circumference of the Moon is 27.31 per cent the size of the earth and the Moon makes 27.396 turns per orbit of the Earth. Knight and Butler say that if you multiply the circumference of the Moon by that of the Earth, the result is 436,669,140 kilometres. If this number is divided by 100 it becomes 436,669 kilometres – the circumference of the Sun correct to 99.9 per cent.

================================================== ================================================== ===========
There are so many anomalies with the Moon. It has no magnetic field, and yet moon rocks are magnetised. It has the phenomenon known as ‘mascons’ (mass concentrations), which are large circular areas of unusually high density and a higher gravitational ‘pull’. Don Wilson, author of Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon, says it appears that mascons could be some kind of artificial construction. They are found in the vast plains on the Moon known as ‘maria’ that were once believed to be seas. About a third of the Moon facing the Earth is made up of these maria while there are few on the ‘dark side’, and no-one can explain why the two sides are so different.
236041 <----CLICK FOR BIGGER PICTURE


================================================== ================================================== ==========


Irwin Shapiro,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics


“The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.’


"The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight."






Dr. Robin Brett,
NASA Scientist


"It seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence."




Ken Johnson,
Supervisor of the Data and Photo Control department during the Apollo missions


"The Moon not only rang like a bell, but the whole Moon wobbled in such a precise way that it was almost as though it had gigantic hydraulic damper struts inside it."




Dr. Sean C Solomon,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology


"The Lunar Orbiter experiments had vastly improved knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field and indicated the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow."


Dr. Gordon MacDonald,
NASA


"it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere’




Carl Sagan,
Cosmologist,


"A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object." <----Apparently it is, according to new evidence.

================================================== ================================================== ==========

I deduce from all this that we should perhaps focus on whats the true purpose of The Moon, given these facts, instead of did the USA really go there...........


The conspiracy seems like a distraction of sorts......


Just a thought...........Bizarre all the same dont ya think? What dya all think about these statements by NASA and Astrophysicists etc?

[Frogger]

I can confirm that the moon has not landed anywhere and is still in it's orbit where it belongs. Had it landed I'm sure we'd have known about it quite quickly, not least because the US would have claimed it as another state of the US, no matter where it landed, and claimed mineral rights. .
```Yes we have Outer Space LAW, and even Lunar Tax is in place, which says a lot to me```

The US did try to claim it, along with a lot of other Nations, but now NONE of them can EVER claim it as another state-city-county-country due to the -1966-OST- or 1966 Outer Space Treaty which was reached by General Assembly and put in place for 1967.

"Any signatory to the Outer Space Treaty cannot by law appropriate territory and Nasa is a national entity of a nation that is a signatory to the treaty"

However, a loophole in Space Law allows individuals and companies to hold Mineral Rights on the Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. Growing concern from Scientists that these rights may be held hostage have been alleviated by a three man North American team; Dr. Joseph Resnick, Dr. Timothy R. O'Neill and Guy Cramer (ROC-Resnick/O'Neill/Cramer team) who have acquired the mineral rights for 95% of the side of the moon that faces Earth, the polar regions and 50% of the far side of the moon

BUT.......Wait for it...........A man in the 1980s has claimed the whole moon as his by written declaration and has since sold 611 million acres of it at roughly $20 an acre.

If you ask Dennis Hope, he'll tell you he's the richest man on Earth—in fact, he'll say he's the richest man in the Solar System. Why? Because, as far as he's concerned, he owns most of it.
In the early 1980s, Hope, then unemployed for about a year, thought he'd be a good property owner and could make a living by managing real estate.


He looked out the window and saw more unclaimed property than he could possibly fathom—the moon. He remembered a tidbit from a political science course he took in college—the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty said no country could own the moon, but it says nothing about individuals.




Hope wrote a letter to the United Nations saying the moon was his and asked the group to come up with a legal reason why an individual could not claim ownership of the moon.


He never heard back.


"I sent the United Nations a declaration of ownership detailing my intent to subdivide and sell the moon and have never heard back," he says. "There is a loophole in the treaty—it does not apply to individuals."


Since then, he's sold more than 611 million acres of land on the moon. Individual, one-acre lots sell for $19.95 ($36.50 after a "lunar tax" and shipping and handling of the deed) and there are discounts for larger plots. He once sold a "country-sized" plot of land—2.66 million acres—for $250,000. He's sold plots on the moon to three former presidents (George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan). He's president of the Galactic Government, a democratic republic that represents landowners on the moon and some of his other properties (he claimed Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter's moon Io, and Pluto while he was at it). Customers can buy the entirety of Pluto for $250,000.


According to Tanja Masson-Zwaan, president of the International Institute of Space Law, the United Nations never responded because the treaty applies to both countries and its citizens, she told National Geographic.


"What [Hope] is doing does not give people buying pieces of paper the right to ownership of the moon," she told the magazine in 2009. Nonetheless, Hope continues to sell acre plots on the moon seemingly unabated.



Now that is truly out of this world..........

But on the other hand, on the matter of defining a celestial body... What is an asteroid, especially when it becomes a citizens property?

There are even Space Laws on asteroid claims of ownership now. I give up!!! Im dismissing myself.

[johnboy1974]

Anyone who doesn't believe it should check out the science behind it and the people who made it happen.
It was mankind's greatest achievement but some people won't be happy till you actually take them up there and give them a personal tour of the landing sites.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Frogger]

Anyone who doesn't believe it should check out the science behind it and the people who made it happen.
It was mankind's greatest achievement but some people won't be happy till you actually take them up there and give them a personal tour of the landing sites.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Wjhats your thoughts on Nations being given Fake Moon Rocks?

[lloydy1970]

solar wind
:top:

[Cod3waX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

[GastonJ]

You have to ask though "When did being part of the UN, or even on it's security council stop you invading anywhere ?" and just as important who would be kicking off any nation that claims the moon. I'd be very worried about the impact of mining the moon. It presence has a great impact on the oceans, weather etc of the earth; that should anything affect the moons orbit then we might just end up kissing our ar$es goodbye. The impact would be worse than anything from so called man made climate change, and especially if it landed on your head.

[xant14]

You have to ask though "When did being part of the UN, or even on it's security council stop you invading anywhere ?" and just as important who would be kicking off any nation that claims the moon. I'd be very worried about the impact of mining the moon. It presence has a great impact on the oceans, weather etc of the earth; that should anything affect the moons orbit then we might just end up kissing our ar$es goodbye. The impact would be worse than anything from so called man made climate change, and especially if it landed on your head.

David Icke wants to get rid of the moon. He reckons it is a receiver from Saturn, sending Archon shite into our heads. And also upping and downing the moods and tides and stuff.
Down with the moon.

[gmb45]

David Icke wants to get rid of the moon. He reckons it is a receiver from Saturn, sending Archon shite into our heads. And also upping and downing the moods and tides and stuff.
Down with the moon. complete and utter pish xant, well done :top:

[ifred]

Yep there no doubt about it the moon is really bad for us! When its full some people go crazy and if it fell out the sky in would really *** the planet up!
It best someone comes up with a plan to sell it of to a private company chop it up into little pieces and sell moon rock souvenirs :lollypop:

[GastonJ]

You can't sell it, it's already owned by someone called Dennis Hope, thought everyone knew that. He claimed it a while back and the UN didn't say he couldn't have it, although there are other claims, not least from the man in the moon who mines for cheese.

Extraterrestrial real estate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate)

[ecufix]

Something I saw today Neil Armstrong reversed = Alien

[pillowfort]

They went to the moon.

[mike255]

the moon landing was basically fake.
because the usa knew that russia had a space program also.

the people who got to the moon first was the Russians.
and then the americans later on.
but what i like to know is why the americans where then warned never to come back to the moon every again.

the question is what is going to happen when china goes to the moon later next year.

also the russians space program was the best in the world.
that is where the shuttle came from
which nasa uses today.
stealing ideas

[nara]

the moon landing was basically fake.
because the usa knew that russia had a space program also.

the people who got to the moon first was the Russians.
and then the americans later on.
but what i like to know is why the americans where then warned never to come back to the moon every again.

the question is what is going to happen when china goes to the moon later next year.

also the russians space program was the best in the world.
that is where the shuttle came from
which nasa uses today.
stealing ideas


Ok SJ, you've been rumbled.

[mike255]

yes the moon landing was total fake
russia had the best space development program going
until NASA stole the information on there space shuttle.

also if they do return to the moon there going to be big issues for the world
which no government will be able to stop it .
at this time the air space into our planet is like a airport of unknown ufo coming into the earth.

norad tracks this information as they know what coming from space
before it is seen.

[clusters]

I bet you believe in chemtrails too lol

496172

[mike255]

yes they do exist chemtrails

sometime its the ice vapour from the planes engines
other times its the pharmaceuticals but they do spray stuff out of the planes


i suppose your never heard of harrp and how it works

oh yeah your not smart forgot DOH ;)


but again if your that smart why dont you tell us why they do not exist.
of course you can not can you :)

[clusters]

...................:roflmao:

[rideon]

Now, somebody please explain me witch corner of the earth should one head to reach the moon.
I'm confused,always thought that when one reaches the end of the world, falls on the moon...:dontknow:

[nara]

yes they do exist chemtrails

sometime its the ice vapour from the planes engines
other times its the pharmaceuticals but they do spray stuff out of the planes


i suppose your never heard of harrp and how it works

oh yeah your not smart forgot DOH ;)


but again if your that smart why dont you tell us why they do not exist.
of course you can not can you :)



They're not all locked up yet are they? :elefant:

[mike255]

no your not ;)