The MOON HOAX

[nonhocapito]

"Ever wonder why no stars appear in Space-Apollo and Moon Photography? The elipse shaped mask around the earth isolates that area of frame to protect it's color data while the rest of the images get "faded to black". This is done in order to hide the truth about what our universe looks like when viewed from space."

Sure. Any outlandish unprovable explanation is better than "fakery". They did go to space, only had to hide our feeble minds from the visions of UFOs swarming everywhere. Then they would give us glimpses of UFOs in form of psyop for decades just to fuck with us.

Methinks it is easier to explain it all with the contradiction ensuing from having faked all the gemini-apollo missions, and the need to make us all feel small and out of control when it comes to anything related to space, so that we would trust them for everything.

[philipsmovies]

"Ever wonder why no stars appear in Space-Apollo and Moon Photography? The elipse shaped mask around the earth isolates that area of frame to protect it's color data while the rest of the images get "faded to black". This is done in order to hide the truth about what our universe looks like when viewed from space."

(Admin notice: Dear philipsmovies: please learn how to quote properly other people's posts - thanks.)

I have a theory that the stars are not celestial bodies but reflections of energy beacons placed carefully along lay lines across the world-the pyramids and stonehenge being examples. EVERYTHING IS LIGHT AND ENERGY. The official story just makes us think that the universe is full of wonder and limited possibilities to explore new worlds and an excuse for the elite to take large amounts of money meant for space exploration and put it in their greedy pockets. In my opinion there is only one universe and it is limited by our own imagination.
David Icke's Moon Matrix theory is less likely but i am not gonna dismiss it yet as the elite are hiding a lot of home truths for some reason and i want to know what they are. Icke knows a lot as he appears to be a gatekeeper.
For the record, they have rockets and spacecraft but landing on the moon was hoaxed because they knew they were unable to pull it off or they just wanted to keep the money and continue to control us-the bastards. The age of aquarious, hair, revolution, beatles, flower power, psychedelic trips, peace protests, wars,and the moon landings were all part of the plan.

[nonhocapito]

I have a theory that the stars are not celestial bodies but reflections of energy beacons placed carefully along lay lines across the world-the pyramids and stonehenge being examples.

What is this theory based on, exactly? What's a "lay line"? What sort of "energy"? What's an energy "beacon"?

For the record, they have rockets and spacecraft but landing on the moon was hoaxed because they knew they were unable to pull it off or they just wanted to keep the money and continue to control us-the bastards.

"For the record". How do you know? What record is this? Stop inventing stuff! Abandoning our blind trust in the official providers of knowledge and science, doesn't mean abandoning any requirement for rationality or demonstrability...

[philipsmovies]

I have a theory that the stars are not celestial bodies but reflections of energy beacons placed carefully along lay lines across the world-the pyramids and stonehenge being examples.

What is this theory based on, exactly? What's a "lay line"? What sort of "energy"? What's an energy "beacon"?

For the record, they have rockets and spacecraft but landing on the moon was hoaxed because they knew they were unable to pull it off or they just wanted to keep the money and continue to control us-the bastards.

"For the record". How do you know? What record is this? Stop inventing stuff! Abandoning our blind trust in the official providers of knowledge and science, doesn't mean abandoning any requirement for rationality or demonstrability...

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/leylines.htm
leylines are a paid scientist made up fake theory-like most ancient history-is that what you are saying? Fair enough if Leylines don't exist, do you think it is possible that stars are reflections, just balls of light? If not, what are your theories of what stars are?
I am not inventing stuff. A theory can come up against adversity otherwise if we didn't have any theroies we would just accept everything blindly. I am not a scientist, so, i have to look for information and decide whether the source of info is credible or trustworthy; it isn't easy. And how could i possibly know? Do you think the footage of rockets are fake? I made a mistake mentioning spacecraft-rockets would have sufficed.

[nonhocapito]

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/leylines.htm
leylines are a paid scientist made up fake theory-like most ancient history-is that what you are saying? Fair enough if Leylines don't exist, do you think it is possible that stars are reflections, just balls of light? If not, what are your theories of what stars are?
I am not inventing stuff. A theory can come up against adversity otherwise if we didn't have any theroies we would just accept everything blindly. I am not a scientist, so, i have to look for information and decide whether the source of info is credible or trustworthy; it isn't easy. And how could i possibly know? Do you think the footage of rockets are fake? I made a mistake mentioning spacecraft-rockets would have sufficed.

What are you saying, that you can say that something is true "for the record", and then we cannot call you to defend what you are saying because you don't know? Then why are you saying it?

Honestly I don't find the laylines "theory" much interesting, I think it probably is occultist bullcrap. But that's not the point, maybe I am being obtuse and certainly you are free to believe what you want. The point is defending in a rational way the statements we make on this forum.

Same goes for your thing about stars (which I don't understand really, but maybe I'm stupid). Or the "record" you mentioned that proves that we have spacecrafts and travel to space.

Like with everything else, I take humanity discoveries (which I respect and use, for the most part, being part of humanity myself) for good -- until something makes me think differently.
All I'm saying is, when that happens, you can be sure I will at least be able to explain to you why I stopped believing that certain things are true or accurate even if, like you, "I'm not a scientist".

[philipsmovies]

Same goes for your thing about stars (which I don't understand really, but maybe I'm stupid). Or the "record" you mentioned that proves that we have spacecrafts and travel to space.

Like with everything else, I take humanity discoveries (which I respect and use, for the most part, being part of humanity myself) for good -- until something makes me think differently.
All I'm saying is, when that happens, you can be sure I will at least be able to explain to you why I stopped believing that certain things are true or accurate even if, like you, "I'm not a scientist"."

(Admin notice: Dear philipsmovies, please learn hot to properly quote other member's posts. Thanks.)

Fair point nonhocapito

When i say "for the record" i mean "what i am thinking now or what i believe now" but i am open to being proved wrong if something comes along to change my mind. You are right-we have to question everything they throw at us or everything that they try to educate us with. The source known as mainstream education and mainstream media is dubious. The theory on what stars is open to be proved, until then-they remain a mystery.

[fbenario]

[quote="confusioused"][/quote]
I don't understand your username. Is it a purposeful misspelling? If so, to what end?

If not purposeful, why didn't you take more care when choosing a username?

[philipsmovies]

I don't understand your username. Is it a purposeful misspelling? If so, to what end?

If not purposeful, why didn't you take more care when choosing a username?

it's like one of those words from the tv series "Call My Bluff" i was quite good at sussing out the bluffers on that show. It's not a logical username to use when joining a forum like this. Oscar Wilde said they have minds like swiss cheese. Let's hope that this lady is an exception.

[lux]

This sure doesn't help me any though Perhaps I quoted the wrong paragraph. I don't know because it doesn't explain anything really to me. Hopefully it will to someone here tho and then you can explain it to me in laymans terms. Thanks.

Explain what? The Apollo-era Hasselblad is a high quality film camera but there is nothing particularly remarkable or special about it. NASA says they modified them for "use on the moon" by removing the viewing optics and added a glass plate with cross-hairs on it. They used Kodak film, we're told.

[reel.deal]

[simonshack]

*

WICKEDPEDIA - AND THE MOON HOAX

I just looked up today the wikipedia page named "Moon landing conspiracy theories". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landi ... y_theories

We all know about the corrupt/mainstream-media connivent nature of wikipedia - but this particular page takes the cake, with its pathetic attempt to defend NASA's lies - and belittle what they call "the conspiracists"- (you know, those crazed/kooky people that don't buy the saga of NASA's 6 flawless Moon missions between 1969 and 1972.)

Here is a paragraph which exemplifies the sort of horseshit that pervades the entire page:

Examination of the hoax claims

Many conspiracy theories have been forwarded. They either claim that the landings did not happen and that NASA employees (and sometimes others) have lied; or that landings did happen but not in the way that has been told. Conspiracists have focused on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. The foremost idea is that the whole manned landing program was a hoax from start to end. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was lacking or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.

Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson, scientists from Argonne National Laboratory, gave detailed answers to the conspiracists' claims on the laboratory's website.They show that NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common mistakes as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections. Using the scientific process, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected. The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists.

So let's see:

"Using the scientific process, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected."
Woah - I'd fully agree with that. I guess that makes me a scientist?

"The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists."
Woah, that one is harder to process. Wait a minute... What are they trying to say here? (damn, I must be a bit thick!). So, since the 'real landing' hypothesis comes from a single source (NASA, I presume?), it is therefore more credible/scientific than the hoax hypothesis - because the latter is upheld by a wide variety of people? With no unity??? For crying out loud - we're all saying that NASA NEVER SENT MEN TO THE MOON !!!

So what sort of scientists are Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson? Here's where they both work:

Argonne National Laboratory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonne_Na ... Laboratory
"Early in its history, the laboratory was part of the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bomb."

Aha! Now I get it!

[lux]

Using the scientific process, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected. The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists.

This is so illogical it makes my head hurt.

[hoi.polloi]

America has truly graduated to Chinese and Russian levels of propagandaistic bullshit nonsense.

It has the same ring to it as "it's not censorship because the information contained is illegal."

[RoyBean]

*
"The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists."
Woah, that one is harder to process. Wait a minute... What are they trying to say here? (damn, I must be a bit thick!). So, since the 'real landing' hypothesis comes from a single source (NASA, I presume?), it is therefore more credible/scientific than the hoax hypothesis - because the latter is upheld by a wide variety of people? With no unity??? For crying out loud - we're all saying that NASA NEVER SENT MEN TO THE MOON !!!

Yeah, a wide variety of theories. Main purpose of controlled op with multi-kook theories? What better way to discourage and put-off the masses?

[Jonathan]

soo ... which of the wide variety of theories is the right one? Yours? Mine? Someone elses?
The reasons for agreement on one hypothesis differ widely. And there are more than just two opposing hypotheses.

It's not as easy as right or wrong.
People tend to have difficulty living with the fact that nothing is certain.
It seems far easier to be certain than to allow for some measure of doubt and uncertainty.

Where they there or where they not? To me it is unlikely that they where. Highly unlikely even. But thats just me even though most here could probably agree on that.
I was not there or involved in it. I just saw pictures and read descriptions. I have my own understanding of the facts.
That will never amount to 100% proof for or against to anyone but me.

The same reasons that make me doubt are totally irrelevant or even not existent to others ... more precisely, to what they (want to) believe.
And the other way around, of course.
No need for purposefully making up theories to discourage or put off people - people will happily do it themselves

To close, it is obvious that what is said in that article is not logical at all. Everyone could see that - if they wanted to.
And indeed they did - the "Talk" tab next to the "Article" tab at top left.
One more example to be careful with info from Wikipedia. It's the biased viewpoint of those who wrote it, not the truth.