The MOON HOAX

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Unread postby marcellogentile1 on Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:30 pm

simonshack @ Feb 1 2010, 03:09 AM wrote: *


:lol: :lol: :lol:

NO MOONEY FOR THE MOON!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/27 ... -2010jan27

"NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there, if President Obama gets his way. When the White House releases its budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was to return humans to the moon by 2020.
Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to speak for the White House or because they fear for their jobs."



I would have thought that, after 40 years+, a moontrip would be cheaper than a taxi fare from Tokyo to Osaka. And what about the Mars plans? Oh, gosh - whatever... We're ruled by silly clowns. And that's not funny.


No sh#t haha
Great documentary about the apollo conspiracy


:D
marcellogentile1
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:03 pm

Unread postby ozzybinoswald on Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:38 pm

marcellogentile1 @ Feb 1 2010, 02:30 PM wrote: Great documentary about the apollo conspiracy





The NASA spokesman Brian Welch, at 4:48 in the video, sure looks familiar. Is it possible he has appeared as a 9/11 debunker somewhere?
ozzybinoswald
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:52 am

Unread postby Piper on Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:03 am

terence.drew @ Feb 3 2010, 01:24 AM wrote: This is a mockumentary and a good old yarn but it just shows you once the name Kubrick starts getting linked with moon fakery the fudge merchants are out in force with their....fudge..to lens a hand


It's often referred to as a mockumentary but I've often wondered, how the hell did someone making a joke documentary on the Moon landings manage to get people like Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow to appear in it and go along with the joke?
Piper
Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:45 am

Piper 4 Feb 3 2010, 06:03 AM wrote:
terence.drew 4 Feb 3 2010, 01:24 AM wrote: This is a mockumentary and a good old yarn but it just shows you once the name Kubrick starts getting linked with moon fakery the fudge merchants are out in force with their....fudge..to lens a hand


It's often referred to as a mockumentary but I've often wondered, how the hell did someone making a joke documentary on the Moon landings manage to get people like Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow to appear in it and go along with the joke?



Piper,

Read about director William Karel here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Karel
Image

Karel belongs squarely with the 'Naudet Hall of Fame'. His "Dark Side of the Moon" is IMHO, the most diabolically sly double-think movie ever produced to ridicule the moonlanding skeptics.


"DARK SIDE OF THE MOON"

For those who haven't seen it, it briefly goes like this :
- Stanley Kubrick's wife reveals that her husband was, in fact, behind the moonhoax.
- 'Stunning cameo appearances' of Nixon, Rumsfeld, Haig and Aldrin confirm that the moonlandings were, in fact, a hoax.( This is done with overdubbed archive material of these folks - in other words, with fake audiotracks). Other, less 'famous' individuals are also interviewed confirming the same.
- At the very end of the film, we are led 'backstage' of the film set... All the less 'famous' individuals reveal, one by one, that they've been acting all along - and that the film was basically a practical joke (played on the gullible film spectators, hahaha.)

The end result of Karel's - excuse me - cointelpro film was that, now, EVERYONE AND HIS DOG would spread the word that 'Kubrick was behind the Moonhoax'. However, anyone contending/insisting that this was TRUE, would forever be the laughing stock of all ...uh... "smarter folks" :rolleyes: who had "not been fooled" by Karel's film.

Quite frankly, the very fact that Nixon, Rumsfeld, Haig and co willingly lent their faces to this movie tells me all I need to know ! ;)

Btw, why are 'conspiracy theorists' commonly described as dwelling on 'the dark side', hmm?...
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Unread postby Tufa on Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:27 pm

I have checked this article: Wagging the Moondoggie it was a bit long, but very interesting. As you all know, there is also a second, also very interesting part .... and then ....

On the photography part, there are several references to that "scattering" don't occur on the Moon. So the exposure of objects in the shadow should be difficult. My little comment is that "scattering" don't occur on the Earth either. Not on the ground-level. The scattering is in the atmosphere, it is not a local property.

You can obtain the same conditions on earth: A beach photo on a clear day, where the object in the shadow don't get any light from the blue sky, possibly due to a roof, but is illuminated from the white sand. Finding the proper Moon-exposure setting is rather trivial; you just measure it from the Earth. The problem is that the official "Moon" photos are a bit ridiculous and we all wonder why do such a sloppy job?

There is much missing in the the moon-walk story. What I would like to see is a simple energy-force-speed-mass-volume calculation. If you see one on the net, kindly drop me a copy!

I have previous argued on the moon-reflectors, and this is because I was next to one of these experiments once. I'll guess that the reflectors was put up in advance of the Moon-hoax-mission?

The Radio communication is another part. Could it be so simple, that you transmit the radio voice from Earth, and simply aim for the moon surface? A Big Telescope aim on the moon, and get a reasonable signal. Man is on the Moon. End proof!

I'll agree that the NASA Moon pictures have two light sources. On the reflection you can take a guess that the light comes from 3-5 floodlights mounted on some steel lattice tower or similar arrangement.

Image

I completely agree where it is discussed that there must be a best-before-date
on the Moon hoax. I have a feeling that it is due soon :D !!

It is when we go into details that the lie goes obvious:

Image
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:01 am

Can we prove this is fake?


Astronauts unveil phenomenal new window on world

In a highly anticipated grand finale to their mission, astronauts opened the shutters on the International Space Station's new observation deck Wednesday and were humbled by "absolutely spectacular" views of Earth from inside the elaborate atrium of windows.
...
The observation deck is part of Tranquility, a more than 380 million addition. Space shuttle Endeavour delivered the European compartments last week.

The Italian-built dome -- 5 feet tall and nearly 10 feet in diameter -- is designed to offer sweeping 360-degree views of the home planet and outer space, as well as the space station itself. It's not just for the crew's viewing pleasure; a robotic work station will be installed early Thursday, providing direct views for astronauts when they operate the station's big mechanical arm.

Six trapezoid-shaped windows encircle the dome. In the middle is the circular window.

During normal operations, the space station crew will be able to keep the round window unshuttered most of the time, along with a couple others. But the windows facing along the direction the outpost is orbiting will need to be closed, except during robotic operations, to protect the fused silica glass against micrometeorite strikes. Each window has four panes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_ ... ce_shuttle
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:36 pm

fbenario @ Feb 17 2010, 11:01 AM wrote: Can we prove this is fake?


Astronauts unveil phenomenal new window on world

In a highly anticipated grand finale to their mission, astronauts opened the shutters on the International Space Station's new observation deck Wednesday and were humbled by "absolutely spectacular" views of Earth from inside the elaborate atrium of windows.
...
The observation deck is part of Tranquility, a more than 380 million addition. Space shuttle Endeavour delivered the European compartments last week.

The Italian-built dome -- 5 feet tall and nearly 10 feet in diameter -- is designed to offer sweeping 360-degree views of the home planet and outer space, as well as the space station itself. It's not just for the crew's viewing pleasure; a robotic work station will be installed early Thursday, providing direct views for astronauts when they operate the station's big mechanical arm.

Six trapezoid-shaped windows encircle the dome. In the middle is the circular window.

During normal operations, the space station crew will be able to keep the round window unshuttered most of the time, along with a couple others. But the windows facing along the direction the outpost is orbiting will need to be closed, except during robotic operations, to protect the fused silica glass against micrometeorite strikes. Each window has four panes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_ ... ce_shuttle




Well, is near-Earth orbit necessarily fake?

We know that some space walks are faked and filmed in pools.

But, is truly everything in space faked? I don't think radiation is that bad until you get several miles out, right? Some of it must be real ... I imagine.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fred on Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:57 am

There's plenty of legitimate [non-fake] military and civilian use of space.
fred
Banned
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm

Unread postby i811st on Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:14 pm

HALLEY'S COMET?
Image
(Description=An image of Halley's Comet from 1910. |Source=''The New York Times'' photo archive, via their online store, [http://www.nytstore.com/ProdDetail.aspx?prodId=2015 here] |Date=1910 |Aut)
Any Idea on whats up with this shot? Was Photographic "technology" capable of this 100 years ago? Photo technology that involved blowing up a lightbulb just to get a flash?
This brings me to my next question, was a single-use flash bulb used in any of the stills supposedly taken on the moon? If so, with such dramatically lower atmospheric pressure , how do you suppose they got them up there ? it seems like they would pop
i811st
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:58 am

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:09 pm

Since I'm here...Columbia 01/02/03

No ssdi records for

Rick D. Husband, Commander

William C. McCool, Pilot

Laurel Blair Salton Clark, Mission Specialist 4


There are records for

Michael P. Anderson, Payload Commander

David M. Brown, Mission Specialist 1

Also "on board" was an Indian - Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist 2

and Ilan Ramon, Payload Specialist 1 -

SonofaHolocaustSurvivorMotherwasinAuschwitzFatherfoughtintheIsraeliarmy.....

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/mis ... -launch.rm

Image
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Unread postby terbates on Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:41 pm

Tufa 4 Feb 5 2010, 07:27 PM wrote: I have checked this article: Wagging the Moondoggie it was a bit long, but very interesting. As you all know, there is also a second, also very interesting part .... and then ....

On the photography part, there are several references to that "scattering" don't occur on the Moon. So the exposure of objects in the shadow should be difficult. My little comment is that "scattering" don't occur on the Earth either. Not on the ground-level. The scattering is in the atmosphere, it is not a local property.

You can obtain the same conditions on earth: A beach photo on a clear day, where the object in the shadow don't get any light from the blue sky, possibly due to a roof, but is illuminated from the white sand. Finding the proper Moon-exposure setting is rather trivial; you just measure it from the Earth. The problem is that the official "Moon" photos are a bit ridiculous and we all wonder why do such a sloppy job?

There is much missing in the the moon-walk story. What I would like to see is a simple energy-force-speed-mass-volume calculation. If you see one on the net, kindly drop me a copy!

I have previous argued on the moon-reflectors, and this is because I was next to one of these experiments once. I'll guess that the reflectors was put up in advance of the Moon-hoax-mission?

The Radio communication is another part. Could it be so simple, that you transmit the radio voice from Earth, and simply aim for the moon surface? A Big Telescope aim on the moon, and get a reasonable signal. Man is on the Moon. End proof!

I'll agree that the NASA Moon pictures have two light sources. On the reflection you can take a guess that the light comes from 3-5 floodlights mounted on some steel lattice tower or similar arrangement.

Image

I completely agree where it is discussed that there must be a best-before-date
on the Moon hoax. I have a feeling that it is due soon :D !!

It is when we go into details that the lie go obvious:

Image


No one at NASA has ever explained why the gold mylar is wrapped around the legs of the lunar lander. Gold, Silver and Aluminum are the only 3 things we know of that reflect up to 97% of energy back to its source; but since Gold, Silver and Aluminum are also good 'conductors' of energy they need to be insulated by an air space or other non-conductive material (foam as in Thermax products here on earth) in order to be 'radiant' capable. Any NASA engineer with his salt should know of the 3 ways of energy transferring-- conductive, convection and radiant.

The fact that many lander pictures show the pods or feet of the lander partially wrapped in mylar also is proof of the Moon Hoaxes thrown at the American people.

The major problem with proving the Apollo hoaxes is that there are too many American Sheeple believing garbage spewed out by sites as "Bad Astronomy" and others. No one hardly thinks for himself anymore, they need to have someone tell them what to think, look at JFK, 911 etc.
terbates
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:49 pm

No one at NASA has ever explained why the gold mylar is wrapped around the legs of the lunar lander. Gold, Silver and Aluminum are the only 3 things we know of that reflect up to 97% of energy back to its source; but since Gold, Silver and Aluminum are also good 'conductors' of energy they need to be insulated by an air space or other non-conductive material (foam as in Thermax products here on earth) in order to be 'radiant' capable. Any NASA engineer with his salt should know of the 3 ways of energy transferring-- conductive, convection and radiant.

The fact that many lander pictures show the pods or feet of the lander partially wrapped in mylar also is proof of the Moon Hoaxes thrown at the American people.



Interesting points; I haven't heard/considered those before.


The major problem with proving the Apollo hoaxes is that there are too many American Sheeple believing garbage spewed out by sites as "Bad Astronomy" and others. No one hardly thinks for himself anymore, they need to have someone tell them what to think, look at JFK, 911 etc.




I may be traveling right now, but I am American - America gave me opportunity and freedom and a kick-butt passport - and I don't think I am a sheeple and I think we should start treating each other with some respect if we are going to wake up our fellows. I mean, not that a single strategy of education is the right one, but we should train one another to think for our selves. Please don't discourage our readers!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:37 am

hoi.polloi 4 Feb 21 2010, 02:49 PM wrote: Please don't discourage our readers!


At this stage of our times, I would say that the average American is more aware of the ongoing b*llshite than the average European. This is because the excessive bombardment of crap news by the TV media is causing a boomerang effect among normal, humble Americans. The Europeans get the same crap, but they are still bamboozled by the bunkum written on "News"Papers and, since many embrace those papers as their Bible, their butts are even harder to dislodge.
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests